Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, And Nauvoo Era Excomunications

[thesometimesaint]

That was my initial reaction, but is there any clear example of Joseph Smith, a biblical or book of Mormon apostle or prophet, Jesus, or Heavenly Father being "paternalistic"?

 

JS ex'd quite a few. Those that repented and returned he welcomed with open arms. The OT is full of them, and even Jesus in the NT drove the money changers from the Temple. Nephi in the Book of Mormon was constantly calling his older brothers to repentance. There are a lot more examples but those are just a few off the top of my head.

[Investigating]

 

 

A sizable number of dissenters were excommunicated during the Kirtland Era (see here, starting on page 10).  The dissension appears to have originated in "temporal" matters (predominantly the failing of the Kirtland Safety Society).  However, "temporal" and "spiritual" dissent appear to bleed into each other, not unlike the "political"- and/or "social justice"-flavored dissent that seems to be coming from folks like John Dehlin and Kate Kelly.  

 

From the above link:

 

Thomas B. Marsh wrote to fellow apostle Wilford Woodruff:

 

It seems that [Warren] Parrish, J[ohn]. F. Boynton, Luke Johnson, Joseph Coe, and some others, united together for the overthrow of the church. President [Joseph] Smith, and his company, returned [to Kirtland], on, or about the 10th of December [1837]; soon after which this dissenting band, openly, and publicly, renounced the church of Christ, of Latter Day Saints, and claimed themselves to be the old standard; called themselves the church of Christ, excluded that of Saints, and set at naught Br[other]. Joseph [smith], and the whole church, denounced them as heretics.

 

During the week of 24-30 December 1837, twenty-eight members, including Martin Harris, were cut off from the church or excluded (excommunicated) by the High Council of Kirtland. It is not known if any of these church members were present at this meeting. According to John Smith, in a letter to his son, George A. Smith:

 

The spiritual condition at this time is gloomy also. I called the High Council together last week and laid before them the case of dissenters; 28 persons were, upon mature discussion, cut off from the Church; the leaders were Cyrus Smalling, Joseph Coe, Martin Harris, Luke S. Johnson[,] John R Boynton and W[arren]. W. Parrish. We have cut off between 40 and 50 from the Church since you left.

 

On 7 January 1838, Joseph Smith received a revelation for Edward Partridge instructing: "[L]et my people be aware of [dissenters] among them, lest the enemy have power over them; Awake my shepherds and warn my people! for behold the wolf cometh to destroy them,—receive him not."

So back to your question: "Would Joseph have been against excommunicating anyone for believing some false doctrine?"  Well, Joseph Smith publicly denounced as "heretics" and excommunicated a large number of dissenters who had "openly, and publicly, renounced the church of Christ, of Latter Day Saints, and claimed themselves to be the old standard."

 

 

You are starting with a false premise. Denver Snuffer was not excommunicated "for what (he) thought." He was excommunicated because of what he did.

 

 

 

Again, I think you are starting with a false premise. Namely, that "Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, and others (were excommunicated) for holding heterodox views." This is simply an incorrect statement of the facts.  (Also, has Rock Waterman been excommunicated?)

Thanks,

-Smac

 

O.K.

 

But suppose this teaching is wrong.

 

 

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.

 

Suppose the idea that parents should be totally permissive, and that King Benjamin wasn't speaking as a prophet when he said that good parents wouldn't suffer their children to "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" is wrong?

 

Suppose the doctrine that he was wrong, and parents should in fact let the children decide what they want to believe, who they want to serve, what t.v. shows they want to watch, what channels they want to have access to, what clothes they want to wear, whether or not they want to be baptised, and perhaps what gender they want to identify with (without anything but mild parental suggestions) is false, and that (hypothetically) I've been told it's false, and I go on teaching it?

 

Could I be rightly excommunicated for that today, and would Joseph have approved of anyone being excommunicated for something like that in his day?

Edited May 8, 2015 by Investigating

[DragonLancer]

Not equating Denver to Alma, but didn't his (Alma) group keep their activities secret from Noah and the church leaders in the city of Nephi?

So, to me, calling it a "secret combination" falls flat.

 

Wrong.  There is truth out there, and regardless of anyone's point of view, that is still true.  Alma was a repentant, legal administrator, and therefore, on the side of the cause of truth.  Noah and his chronies that did not repent ceased to be legal administrators because they did not repent.  Therefore, the Lord upheld what Alma was doing, and justified him.

 

LDS, of course, believe that they are on the right side, and loyal to the true cause of truth.  And they believe that the Holy Ghost has revealed that to them.  Our legal administrators are the same as Alma in that they are on the correct side.

 

So, from an LDS point of view, Snuffer is a traitor to the cause of truth, and a liar.  After this life, we will have evidence of this.  For now, the LDS rely on the Spirit of truth to know he is truly a traitor to the cause.

 

Snufferites, of course, have a separate point of view, and I would say that based off of my point of view, they are deceived.  Snuffer is not a legal administrator, and therefore, the Lord does not back what he is doing.  And so, from that point of view, he is the leader of a subversive, secret combination in the Church, having no legal standing in the eyes of the Lord.

 

This is why your analogy with Alma is not correct.

 

While you can try to point out patterns in the scriptures and draw analogies from them and so forth, like the Snufferites try to do to justify their actions and their positions, this is all about legitimacy and having the Lord's backing and stamp of approval.  So the grand question is, which group has it?  And the LDS say it is themselves, and only they have legitimacy.  But this has been the grand question for any schismatic group since the beginning.  How do they prove that they have legitimacy?  Since the beginning of this dispensation, the Lord has continually said through his prophets that they will not lead people astray (i.e. into a schism branch of something).  In other words, contrary to former dispensations where a schismatic branches actually DID sometimes have legitimacy (i.e. a "remnant") because of general apostasy, that is never going to happen in our day.

 

In the time of the protestant reformation, the reformers were the ones that were upheld by the Lord in leaving the apostate mother church behind, and they formed schismatic branches.  It is true that they had no legal administrators among them at the time (and neither did the mother Church), but they had a calling from the Spirit as much as Christopher Columbus did to open the way for the world to know about America.  And so, from that point of view, they had more legitimacy than the mother apostate Church did.  But when it came time for the truth to be restored as Mormonism appeared on the scene, it was time for people to abandon these other preparatory "branches," and join the cause of truth, because a new day had dawned, and for those people, the usefulness and legitimacy of those preparatory branches ceased.

 

Snufferites, conveniently claim that a general apostasy has happened, and that they are the remnant.

 

The reason it will not happen in our day is because the circumstances in our time are different, and we are taking the gospel to the world.  Snufferites, or any other schismatic group, cannot do that.  They cannot fulfill prophecy because they are not in a position as a worldwide group.  This is the precise reason that there will not be a repeat of this, because this time, the Lord's people are going to "win" in the end, because this is what has to happen to fulfill prophecy.

Edited May 8, 2015 by DragonLancer

[The Nehor]

That was my initial reaction, but is there any clear example of Joseph Smith, a biblical or book of Mormon apostle or prophet, Jesus, or Heavenly Father being "paternalistic"?

D&C 78:

17 Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye are little children, and ye have not as yet understood how great blessings the Father hath in his own hands and prepared for you;

18 And ye cannot bear all things now; nevertheless, be of good cheer, for I will lead you along. The kingdom is yours and the blessings thereof are yours, and the riches of eternity are yours.

Does not get much more paternalistic then that.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Wrong.  There is truth out there, and regardless of anyone's point of view, that is still true.  Alma was a repentant, legal administrator, and therefore, on the side of the cause of truth.  Noah and his chronies that did not repent ceased to be legal administrators because they did not repent.  Therefore, the Lord upheld what Alma was doing, and justified him.

 

LDS, of course, believe that they are on the right side, and loyal to the true cause of truth.  And they believe that the Holy Ghost has revealed that to them.  Our legal administrators are the same as Alma in that they are on the correct side.

 

So, from an LDS point of view, Snuffer is a traitor to the cause of truth, and a liar.  After this life, we will have evidence of this.  For now, the LDS rely on the Spirit of truth to know he is truly a traitor to the cause.

 

Snufferites, of course, have a separate point of view, and I would say that based off of my point of view, they are deceived.  Snuffer is not a legal administrator, and therefore, the Lord does not back what he is doing.  And so, from that point of view, he is the leader of a subversive, secret combination in the Church, having no legal standing in the eyes of the Lord.

 

This is why your analogy with Alma is not correct.

And that is the exact same argument that the church at Nephi would've made.

Snuffer's acolytes would compare themselves to Alma and his group.

That is why it is essential that you deal with Snuffer's teachings, not his lack of allegiance to the men with the "button". Simply saying "Well, you are not following the prophet!" will not suffice. You have to become intellectually engaged in what they are teaching, and dispute those things.

[Darren10]

Waterman writes this blog: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/ The fact that he is less well known than the others mentioned here might also be an indicator of why he hasn't been disciplined. On the other hand,before I started frequenting boards like this I didn't know who Snuffer and Dehlin were, either.

From the current first post:

The days we're living in now are the days prophesied in 2nd Nephi 28, as Church leaders insist the people place the leader's anemic counsel ahead of the teachings of the "dead prophets" in the Bible and Book of Mormon.[1] "Hearken unto us and hear our precepts" is the way Nephi has them word it. Yet when they teach, Nephi says, "they teach with their learning" (verse 4), by way of scripted speeches read from teleprompters, and not by the power of the Holy Ghost. Never are any of them heard delivering an unmistakable message from God as was common in the days of our founding prophet. Yet they claim to have the identical gifts he had.

I'd say that's DEFINITELY excommunicatable.

[DragonLancer]

And that is the exact same argument that the church at Nephi would've made.

Snuffer's acolytes would compare themselves to Alma and his group.

That is why it is essential that you deal with Snuffer's teachings, not his lack of allegiance to the men with the "button". Simply saying "Well, you are not following the prophet!" will not suffice. You have to become intellectually engaged in what they are teaching, and dispute those things.

 

I have known about Denver Snuffer since 2009, and know all about him.

 

Actually, no.  Anybody can teach parts of the truth and be right or wrong about doctrine, and Denver happens to be right about this or that doctrine in some cases.  But that is only because he is a scriptorian and a cloven-tongued lawyer with a lot of intelligence.  This is why he is more successful in crafting his lies than the usual apostate, and "Satan upholdeth him".

 

 Satan can quote scriptures and try to convince people with true doctrine if he wants, which he did in Eden when he presented things that were true, with his little twist that was not true.  Snuffer does the same thing, being "right" about some things philosophically and doctrinally.  In fact, I would say it is true that people can indeed seek after the Lord's face in the flesh without waiting for a second anointing.  However, it is NOT true that this gives them a separate dispensation of authority through which they can exist separate and apart from the body of Christ!!!  Excommunication DOES matter, and maintenance of one's standing with the Church is 100% essential.

 

 And keeping true theophanies secret and confidential is absolutely essential and fundamental.  Instead Denver Snuffer told the world about his purported experience with the Savior, and because of that, that is evidence that it is a lie.

 

But the core of this is not about doctrine, or even experiences with Christ.  This is about choosing the right side.  I actually did own two of Snuffer's books, but disposed of them.  And so, I was actually was impressed with some of his understanding on some points when he actually had some of the light of truth in him still.  But I did know early on that he was a liar from the first about his Second Comforter experience.  At first I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, until it became obvious that he was not for real.  But now, he has allowed that lie to entirely overcome him to the point that he has been ejected from the Church and delivered up to the buffetings of Satan until he repents and admits to the world that this was all a lie about his experiences and his "commission" from the Lord to do what he is doing.

 

I am already intellectually engaged.  I am an author of several blogs and books.  I do not agree with the brethren on every point either.  But I do know who are the legal administrators, and I know the bounds the Lord has set, and I will submit the second somebody tells me to stop printing something or stop saying something, regardless if it is true or not.  Because I have made a commitment to maintain my good standing with the church at all costs.  If local leaders or whoever in authority says jump, my only question is "how high?"

 

And this isn't about a dispute.  I will not "dispute" what they teach.  This is about the fact that I have put out my opinions on issues that don't really matter for my salvation, and those opinions are things I'm willing to sacrifice for my good standing.

 

Snufferites in some cases, and other apostates in general, on the other hand, are willing to throw themselves into the volcano for the sake of their "integrity."  That is a false manifestation of a false integrity.  True integrity means covenant keeping, and that means sacrifice of all else in order to maintain covenants as kept.  When you are excommunicated for apostasy and disloyalty, you have broken covenants, and therefore, you are not maintaining integrity.

Edited May 8, 2015 by DragonLancer

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have known about Denver Snuffer since 2009, and know all about him.

 

Actually, no.  Anybody can teach parts of the truth and be right or wrong about doctrine, and Denver happens to be right about this or that doctrine in some cases.  But that is only because he is a scriptorian and a cloven-tongued lawyer with a lot of intelligence.  Satan can quote scriptures and try to convince people with true doctrine if he wants, which he did in Eden when he presented things that were true, with his little twist that was not true.  Snuffer does the same thing, being "right" about some things philosophically and doctrinally.  In fact, I would say it is true that people can indeed seek after the Lord's face in the flesh without waiting for a second anointing.  However, it is NOT true that this gives them a separate dispensation of authority through which they can exist separate and apart from the body of Christ!!!  Excommunication DOES matter, and maintenance of one's standing with the Church is 100% essential.

 

 And keeping true theophanies secret and confidential is absolutely essential and fundamental.  Instead Denver Snuffer told the world about his purported experience with the Savior, and because of that, that is evidence that it is a lie.

 

But the core of this is not about doctrine, or even experiences with Christ.  This is about choosing the right side.  I actually did own two of Snuffer's books, but disposed of them.  And so, I was actually was impressed with some of his understanding on some points when he actually had some of the light of truth in him still.  But I did know that he was a liar from the first about his Second Comforter experience.  But now, he has allowed that lie to entirely overcome him to the point that he has been ejected from the Church and delivered up to the buffetings of Satan until he repents and admits to the world that this was all a lie about his experiences and his "commission" from the Lord to do what he is doing.

So basically what you are saying is that you can't dispute his teachings, only that he is teaching them outside of the authority of the men with the "button" to allow him to teach them. So is not truth, truth?

As to your underlined sentence:

Untrue. The prophets of scripture regularly shared their encounters with God, his Spirit, or His Angel, with those whom they were addressing. This non-disclosure of sacred encounters with the Almighty is a relatively new phenomenon. 

Edited May 8, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[smac97]

O.K.

 

But suppose this teaching is wrong.

 

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.

First, I'm not sure why "this teaching" is relevant here. A blog post does not binding doctrine make.

 

Second, I think "this teaching" is fairly problematic.  It is an analysis of Mosiah 26:1–4 and how the children of the Nephites who were too little to have heard King Benjamin's discourse ended up rebelling against the Gospel. The blogger takes these four verses as evidence that the parents of these children "followed the instructions of King Benjamin, and sought to circumscribe their choices or even compel or coerce obedience to God’s commandments." I see no evidence as to the mechanics whereby these children ended up rebelling against the Gospel. It could have been poor parenting, I suppose. But there could have been a lot of other causes/factors as well.

Third, what does this have to do with excommunications during the Joseph Smith?

 

Suppose the idea that parents should be totally permissive, and that King Benjamin wasn't speaking as a prophet when he said that good parents wouldn't suffer their children to "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."

No, I'm not going to suppose that. There is no reason for such a supposition. Mosiah 4:14 is canonized scripture. It is sound counsel. It comports with other scriptures regarding parental obligations.

Suppose the doctrine that he was wrong, and parents should in fact let the children decide what they want to believe, who they want to serve, what t.v. shows they want to watch, what channels they want to have access to, what clothes they want to wear, whether or not they want to be baptised, and perhaps what gender they want to identify with (without anything but mild parental suggestions) is false, and that (hypothetically) I've been told it's false, and I go on teaching it?

I won't make that supposition. You can if you like, but then you are teaching doctrine which contravenes those of the LDS Church. Teaching false doctrine can be a basis for excommunication.

Could I be rightly excommunicated for that today,

That would be a matter for your local leadership to determine.

and would Joseph have approved of anyone being excommunicated for something like that in his day?

I'm not inclined to answer this. It seems too speculative.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ERayR]

So basically what you are saying is that you can't dispute his teachings, only that he is teaching them outside of the authority of the men with the "button" to allow him to teach them. So is not truth, truth?

As to your underlined sentence:

Untrue. The prophets of scripture regularly shared their encounters with God, his Spirit, or His Angel, with those whom they were addressing. This non-disclosure of sacred encounters with the Almighty is a relatively new phenomenon. 

 

Ordained Prophets are called to share their sacred encounters.  The rest of us are not.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Ordained Prophets are called to share their sacred encounters.  The rest of us are not.

 

Please, show me where the scriptures state that "the rest of us" cannot share sacred experiences with others, that only "ordained prophets" are allowed that privilege.

And what constitutes and "ordained prophet" anyways? Many, if not most, prophets of scriptures where found outside the leadership structure of "the Elders of the church".

[DragonLancer]

So basically what you are saying is that you can't dispute his teachings, only that he is teaching them outside of the authority of the men with the "button" to allow him to teach them. So is not truth, truth?

As to your underlined sentence:

Untrue. The prophets of scripture regularly shared their encounters with God, his Spirit, or His Angel, with those whom they were addressing. This non-disclosure of sacred encounters with the Almighty is a relatively new phenomenon. 

 

Oh no.  I can dispute plenty of his teachings.  There are a number of things that he has right, like anybody else that writes books.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Oh no.  I can dispute plenty of his teachings.  There are a number of things that he has right, like anybody else that writes books.

I suggest you focus on those things instead of "LOOK! He's not following the prophet!"

I know of at least one wrong thing: Seven women needed to approve Priesthood in order for the man to function in his calling.

[DragonLancer]

As to your underlined sentence:

Untrue. The prophets of scripture regularly shared their encounters with God, his Spirit, or His Angel, with those whom they were addressing. This non-disclosure of sacred encounters with the Almighty is a relatively new phenomenon. 

 

You are 100% Wrong.  This is not a usual thing, even for prophets.  They are only to do so when constrained to do so by the Spirit, and even then, usually only privately.  It is only in the most extreme of exceptions when the Lord has commanded prophets to do this.  Denver Snuffer is a regular Joe like anybody else and has absolutely no right at all to do it publicly, and the rest of us everyday Joes, if we have had calling and election, have no right.  The Lord never commanded Denver Snuffer to do such a thing, because not only is he no longer a "regular" legal administrator (i.e. regular priesthood holder), but he never was a legal administrator in the sense of having keys to lead the Church.  And to justify himself, he disputes the very nature of priesthood keys.

[DragonLancer]

I suggest you focus on those things instead of "LOOK! He's not following the prophet!"

I know of at least one wrong thing: Seven women needed to approve Priesthood in order for the man to function in his calling.

 

The fact that he doesn't follow the prophet and that he is leading people astray is his fundamental problem.  And I have no interest in focusing on the rest of his stuff, because it isn't all that interesting.  I read some of his books at one point, but the rest of his stuff pretty much makes me snore.  So no, I can't see why I would spend any more time reading anything else he has written, especially since the time of his book on the Second Comforter, I saw the light in him get dimmer and dimmer until he is entirely walking in pitch blackness at noonday at this present time.  So the glimmers of diamonds in the rough in his writings got sparser and sparser as time went on until they are just basically uninteresting rabid anti-Mormon spew.

Edited May 8, 2015 by DragonLancer

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So, again, us peons need to just sit down and shut up. The guys with the button will tell you what you need to now, just keep your head down and do as you are told. 

Edited May 8, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Investigating]

35 And it came to pass, that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying, How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains? And Enoch said unto the Lord, How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?

44 Wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer? But, behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and, behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them, and he whom I have chosen hath pleaded before my face;(1)>

 

Thank you.

 

But this is where talking to these people gets a little complicated for me.

 

I told you they recognize an exception to the "all requests must be granted" thing, and that's when there are conflicting requests.

 

If there was so much violence on earth prior to the flood that it repented Noah that God had made man on earth, Enoch, his followers, and Noah and his family probably wanted God to put a stop to it.The floo

 

The flood could have granted those requests.

 

Isolating those wicked spirits in some kind of prison could be a way of granting the requests of spirits they would otherwise abuse, and any suffering in that prison could be caused by these spirits abusing one another.

 

The people I'm thinking of (and I do think most of them are what you'd call Snufferites) are fond of quoting the passage that says that God uses the wicked to punish (or slay?) the wicked.

 

What they (or some of them) seem to object to is the idea that God ever actually (Himself) punishes anyone for their own good, or denies their requests because He knows what's best for them (or the idea that parents, or apostles, or prophets, or bishops, or branch presidents should ever do the same.)

 

And I've seen that passage, where the demons asked Jesus to cast them into the pigs, quoted several times to prove that (apart from some conflicting request) God is obliged (by the golden rule) to grant even the request of demons.

 

It seems to me they're wrong, but can anyone quote me some passage from the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Doctrine and Covenants, or Mormon History (especially when Joseph, who they all recognize as a prophet, was in charge of the Church) that clearly shows they're wrong?

 

And why did Jesus grant the requests of those demons?

 

I've been scratching my head over that one since I started talking to them.

[DragonLancer]

So, again, us peons need to just sit down and shut up. The guys with the button will tell you what you need to now, just keep you head down and do as you are told. 

 

Say whatever you want.  You have that right.  As the Church told John Dehlin before he fell on his own sword in his pride and got himself excommunicated, he can say whatever he wants, until the time that it becomes something that effects not just him, but starts to lead others astray.  But if you are LDS, you know the rules, and so did Dehlin, and so did Snuffer.  And you know that there are consequences if you choose to exercise your freedom of expression to the degree that you start to lead others astray or start to effect the faith of others.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Thank you.

 

But this is where talking to these people gets a little complicated for me.

 

I told you they recognize an exception to the "all requests must be granted" thing, and that's when there are conflicting requests.

 

If there was so much violence on earth prior to the flood that it repented Noah that God had made man on earth, Enoch, his followers, and Noah and his family probably wanted God to put a stop to it.The floo

 

The flood could have granted those requests.

 

Isolating those wicked spirits in some kind of prison could be a way of granting the requests of spirits they would otherwise abuse, and any suffering in that prison could be caused by these spirits abusing one another.

 

The people I'm thinking of (and I do think most of them are what you'd call Snufferites) are fond of quoting the passage that says that God uses the wicked to punish (or slay?) the wicked.

 

What they (or some of them) seem to object to is the idea that God ever actually (Himself) punishes anyone for their own good, or denies their requests because He knows what's best for them (or the idea that parents, or apostles, or prophets, or bishops, or branch presidents should ever do the same.)

 

And I've seen that passage, where the demons asked Jesus to cast them into the pigs, quoted several times to prove that (apart from some conflicting request) God is obliged (by the golden rule) to grant even the request of demons.

 

It seems to me they're wrong, but can anyone quote me some passage from the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Doctrine and Covenants, or Mormon History (especially when Joseph, who they all recognize as a prophet, was in charge of the Church) that clearly shows they're wrong?

 

And why did Jesus grant the requests of those demons?

 

I've been scratching my head over that one since I started talking to them.

I am going to be honest... I am not really sure what you are asking here? I am trying, promise.

[Investigating]

No, I'm not going to suppose that. There is no reason for such a supposition. Mosiah 4:14 is canonized scripture. It is sound counsel. It comports with other scriptures regarding parental obligations.

Sorry.

 

You misunderstood the question, and it's because of the way I worded it (or because I left something out in editing.)

 

I've corrected that now.

 

The question is.

 

Suppose the idea that parents should be totally permissive, and that King Benjamin wasn't speaking as a prophet when he said that good parents wouldn't suffer their children to "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" is wrong?

 

Suppose the doctrine that he was wrong, and parents should in fact let the children decide what they want to believe, who they want to serve, what t.v. shows they want to watch, what channels they want to have access to, what clothes they want to wear, whether or not they want to be baptised, and perhaps what gender they want to identify with (without anything but mild parental suggestions) is false, and that (hypothetically) I've been told it's false, and I go on teaching it?

 

Could I be rightly excommunicated for that today, and would Joseph have approved of anyone being excommunicated for something like that in his day?

I'm supposing (with you) that this teaching is wrong, and that parents have the responsibilities you speak of.

 

First, I'm not sure why "this teaching" is relevant here. A blog post does not binding doctrine make.

I said that was a sample of the kind of teaching I'm talking about.

 

I've seen it repeated on different Mormon blogs and discussion forums.

 

The teaching is that unless there's some conflicting request (such as God's "request" that we shouldn't kill) the golden rule implies all requests be granted, and all "paternalism" (on the part of God, parents, government, or Church leadership) is wrong.

 

 

Third, what does this have to do with excommunications during the Joseph Smith?

I'd like to know whether any practical examples from his leadership of the Church can prove or disprove the claims I've seen regarding the evils of paternalism?

 

 

There is no reason for such a supposition. Mosiah 4:14 is canonized scripture.

I know Mosiah 4:14 is canonized scripture, but so is that other passage the blogger quoted, that I've never understood, and that he appears to take as reason for such a supposition.

 

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. (Mormon 9:31.)

 

Does that passage imply that God allowed Mormon, his father, and those who wrote on the gold plates before them to make doctrinal errors?

Edited May 8, 2015 by Investigating

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Say whatever you want.  You have that right.  As the Church told John Dehlin before he fell on his own sword in his pride and got himself excommunicated, he can say whatever he wants, until the time that it becomes something that effects not just him, but starts to lead others astray.  But if you are LDS, you know the rules, and so did Dehlin, and so did Snuffer.  And you know that there are consequences if you choose to exercise your freedom of expression to the degree that you start to lead others astray or start to effect the faith of others.

I have no use for Dehlin. I think Snuffer has been used to open some eyes, but I think he has mostly brought to light what anybody searching could have already found. I know I knew most of the stuff he presents that others think is new, he just explains it fairly well.

As for "the rules", I have little use for man's rules. I will go wherever I feel the Lord, His Spirit, and the Scriptures direct me- not matter the "consequences".

[Investigating]

I am going to be honest... I am not really sure what you are asking here? I am trying, promise.

I'd like to know whether any concrete examples from the Bible, the BOM, the D&C, or Joseph Smith's leadership of the Church can prove or disprove the claims I've seen regarding the evils of paternalism?

 

If you have a child whose allergic to cats, and your child asks you to get him a cat for a pet, can you (as a parent, rightly, while keeping the golden rule, and holding on to a remission of your sins) decide that what your child is asking isn't good for him, and deny his request?

 

Could a Church leader exercise Church discipline if you were merely teaching some false doctrine?

 

Did the LDS Church have the right (or responsibility) to tell Denver Snuffer to stop publishing his book?

Edited May 8, 2015 by Investigating

[cinepro]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand the point of the question.  

 

I know it's supposed to be a witty example of some kind of "gotcha" question where a person answering either "Yes" or "No" is incriminating themselves, and thus implying that the question is disingenuous.  But as far as I can tell, we all have full QWERTY keyboards and are able to enter multi-worded answers.  

 

So the answer to the question would simply (and hopefully) be "I have never beaten my wife."  

 

Likewise, if you find the questions in a post to be somehow leading or implying entrapment, why not just answer it using words?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I'd like to know whether any concrete examples from the Bible, the BOM, the D&C, or Joseph Smith's leadership of the Church can prove or disprove the claims I've seen regarding the evils of paternalism?

 

If you have a child whose allergic to cats, and your child asks you to get him a cat for a pet, can you (as a parent) decide that what the child is asking isn't good for him, and deny the request?

Yes, as the one being asked to give the gift, you must exercise you stewardship appropriately for the safety and well-being of your child. If the child is an adult, you tell them to get their own cat if they want. They become their own stewardship.

 

Could a Church leader exercise Church discipline if you were merely teaching some false doctrine?

The can do anything they like- a better question would be "Should a ....". I think it depends on the doctrine and the intensity with which you are teaching it. "False doctrine" is often a matter of opinion- if you don't agree with the particular opinion being expressed and no real harm is done- leave it alone. If someone is teaching sex with bunnies is the way to heaven, you should probably intervene.

 

Did the LDS Church have the right (or responsibility) to tell Denver Snuffer to stop publishing his book?

Sure, they had the right to ask him to stop and throw him out if he didn't. It's their organization, their rules. If you work for Apple, expect to be fired if you go around telling everyone how awesome MS is and that they should throw out their Apple and only use MS. You may be right, but that doesn't give you a right to work there.

[DragonLancer]

I have no use for Dehlin. I think Snuffer has been used to open some eyes, but I think he has mostly brought to light what anybody searching could have already found. I know I knew most of the stuff he presents that others think is new, he just explains it fairly well.

As for "the rules", I have little use for man's rules. I will go wherever I feel the Lord, His Spirit, and the Scriptures direct me- not matter the "consequences".

 

Good luck with that then.