Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, And Nauvoo Era Excomunications

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Good luck with that then.

 

Thanks! Back 'atcha!

[The Nehor]

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".

There is that commandment in the Book of Mormon that says while many have the mysteries of God revealed to them they are only to share that which God has granted to the world at large.

[The Nehor]

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.

No, they teach the general gospel. The things we individually need to be saved we need to find ourselves with God's help.

If you feel the need to be the mouthpiece of God for the world without the Priesthood authority needed in the LDS church that you may want to consider another faith.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

There is that commandment in the Book of Mormon that says while many have the mysteries of God revealed to them they are only to share that which God has granted to the world at large.

And only God can make that determination. So why are we armchair quarterbacking? If God ordains it it will succeed, if not, it will fail. 

[Investigating]

 

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.

 

Would you agree with this?

 

Parents usually want "what's best" for their children. Many parents do everything they can to keep their children "safe". They supervise them. They warn them. They limit their choices. They even compel them to do the right thing.

Do you see a problem here?

No power or influence -- no lasting power or influence, anyway -- can or ought to be maintained except by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, kindness and pure knowledge. These are the ties that bind! These are the ligatures that bring a prodigal son (or daughter) back from the brink! Back to his (or her) father and mother!

A "wayward" child may go astray no matter what you do. But the only thing that will bring someone back for good is if they see the wisdom of your instruction, if they have confidence in the truthfulness and efficacy of what you've taught them, if they know you truly love them.

Nothing else matters.

Compulsion inspires only resentment and contempt in the heart of the one so compelled. It robs the one being compelled of agency, limits their accountability, infantilizes their development and sets them up for destruction.

Indeed, damnation.

It is better to let a child fail -- by making poor choices in little things -- and to let adults fail -- even in big things! -- than to take away another's agency to act for themselves and to render that person morally, intellectually and spiritually inert.

Virtue is its own reward. But happiness does not just happen by being virtuous.

Wickedness certainly never was happiness, but being forgiven for having been wicked, after having repented, is happiness indeed!

The one infused with overwhelming gratitude for having been forgiven much is happier still than the one for whom little, or nothing, is forgiven.

When we rob our children of the chance to make mistakes, even big mistakes, and then be forgiven, we rob them of eternal joy and happiness.

First teach correct principles. Then let them govern themselves. Rinse and repeat.

Even if they disbelieve you. Even if they disobey you. Even if they waste away their entire temporal existence and inheritance which you have so unselfishly and lovingly bequeathed to them!

In the end, if you love them, if you want what's best for them, you will let them go and let them do as they desire.

Then, if you are always there for them, looking out for them, waiting patiently, even longingly, even long-sufferingly -- not "enabling" with permissive indulgence and support, not encouraging to continue in sin, certainly not condemning and distancing and disowning -- but beckoning "home" again, "waiting in the wings" as it were with a robe and a ring and a fatted calf and a party, to help "restore" that which was lost by trial and error and mistake, even as a loving father awaits the return of his prodigal son, then you may, indeed, with them find everlasting joy.

For then -- and only then! -- will righteousness be cemented and become eternal with the eternal ligature of love.

 

This is another (rather mild) sample of the teaching I've seen.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Investigating

[The Nehor]

And only God can make that determination. So why are we armchair quarterbacking? If God ordains it it will succeed, if not, it will fail.

Indeed, only he can but he is also clear in scripture that he has appointed certain people to deliver that decision for him and it is not me or you.

[Investigating]

I thank you both for your comments here.

 

But the topic I'm really interested in here has to do with authority itself.

 

Does Thomas Monson, or Denver Snuffer, or anyone in the RLDS have the authority to tell anyone not to openly express (or teach) some idea they have?

 

Do any of us (except in an extreme case, where someone asks us to commit a crime like murder, and there's "a conflicting request from God") have the authority to say "no," when asked to do something?

 

Does a parent ever have the authority to refuse a child's request if he believes granting it would be bad for the child?

 

Does God have such authority (or would making such "paternalistc" decisions violate the golden rule, and cause Him to cease to be God)?

 

And I assume you both agree that scripture (and perhaps history, sometimes) can help us distinguish true teachings from false ones.

 

Is there a passage of scripture, or an incident from LDS history, that you can quote to help me see what's true here?

Edited May 8, 2015 by Investigating

[Investigating]

P.S. I realize my question may seem too basic (to some) to even require an answer, but I'm genuinely confused about this right now (and would like some solid evidence I can point to, one way or another.)

Edited May 8, 2015 by Investigating

[strappinglad]

We are compared to clay pots or sheep. The clay pots are completely under the paternal control of the potter. The sheep have to be constantly watched over and herded to prevent wandering into danger. Quite paternalistic I think. God is under no obligation to follow the golden rule. He destroys nations, should He then be destroyed in turn ?

  Priesthood leaders are told to watch over their flocks. We are told to pray over all that we possess. Why should we worry about it all if we are never allowed to do anything to prevent bad things from happening?I think the entire premise is flawed.

[Investigating]

We are compared to clay pots or sheep. The clay pots are completely under the paternal control of the potter. The sheep have to be constantly watched over and herded to prevent wandering into danger. Quite paternalistic I think.

Thank you.

 

The clay pots is an allusion to some passage in the book of Romans, isn't it?

 

 

God is under no obligation to follow the golden rule. He destroys nations, should He then be destroyed in turn ?

  Priesthood leaders are told to watch over their flocks. We are told to pray over all that we possess. Why should we worry about it all if we are never allowed to do anything to prevent bad things from happening?I think the entire premise is flawed.

 

I kinda think that too.

 

But I wish I could say (or just knew myself) that Joseph approved the excommunication of John Doe, in 1840 whatever, because he was teaching people that the moon was made of green cheese, and wouldn't stop when told to (and that John Doe latter repented and thanked him.)

 

Or that the teaching has to be wrong because Josia 7:8 says thus and such.

 

Or because (on another occasion, perhaps when a demon asked Jesus to just go away and leave him alone) Jesus clearly refused some demonic request.

 

That's the kind of thing I'm looking for here.

 

Some chapter and verse, or name and date.

 

P.S. I know there's no "Josiah" in the BOM, but I didn't want to quote an actual passage here.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Investigating

[ERayR]

I thank you both for your comments here.

 

But the topic I'm really interested in here has to do with authority itself.

 

Does Thomas Monson, or Denver Snuffer, or anyone in the RLDS have the authority to tell anyone not to openly express (or teach) some idea they have?

 

Yes,  President Thomas S. Monson

 

Do any of us (except in an extreme case, where someone asks us to commit a crime like murder, and there's "a conflicting request from God") have the authority to say "no," when asked to do something?

 

General rule:  It is not a good thing to commit crimes, especially murder.

 

Does a parent ever have the authority to refuse a child's request if he believes granting it would be bad for the child?

 

Yes.  It is called being a parent and loving your children.

 

Does God have such authority (or would making such "paternalistc" decisions violate the golden rule, and cause Him to cease to be God)?

 

Yes, he is the ultimate authority.  No there would be no violation.  What is bad about being paternalistic?

 

And I assume you both agree that scripture (and perhaps history, sometimes) can help us distinguish true teachings from false ones.

 

If read carefully, prayerfully, with the spirit for personal revelation.

 

Is there a passage of scripture, or an incident from LDS history, that you can quote to help me see what's true here?

[ERayR]

P.S. I realize my question may seem too basic (to some) to even require an answer, but I'm genuinely confused about this right now (and would like some solid evidence I can point to, one way or another.)

 

If you have talked to a missionary I am sure they must have admonished you to take it to God in sincere prayer.  That is the surest way of all.

[Sleeper Cell]

.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.

 

How is the fact that Jesus granted  a request evidence that Jesus was obliged to do so?  

 

Why did Jesus grant the demons’ request?  Could it possibly be that  it happened to also serve His purposes -- for example, as a sign to those present that the demons had, in fact, been cast out and had “left town.”  Based on their reaction, that seems to be how the swineherds interpreted it.  

 

“Apart from some conflicting request … God is obligated to grant … [any] request?”  So we simply throw out every example where God failed to grant a request as instances where there “must” have been conflicting requests.  And we are left only with those examples where God granted the requests, “proving” He was “obliged” to grant all “non conflicting“ requests. Otherwise He wouldn’t have granted them.  

 

I prefer Mark Twain’s “theology.”  God grants the sort of requests to nominal Christians that He would not grant to a higher grade of Christian -- partly because the latter would not ask for such things.  But mostly because giving a sincere prayer is such as strain on nominal Christians that they need all the encouragement they can get. 

[Kenngo1969]

 

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

 

No offense.  I'm not sure you're doing this deliberately or not, but the goal posts are moving.  First, we started with "holding," and now we're at "teaching."  But yes, that's where the line is drawn.  Joseph Smith himself spoke of relishing the liberty of allowing a man to believe as he wished.  But it's rather difficult to restore a church if one simply winks and nods at competing claims to authority, competing sources of doctrine, and so on.

 

 

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.)

 

If someone wants to treat, e.g.,  "Thou shalt not commit murder" as a request, he's apt to be swimming against some rather strong currents running the other way even in secular society, which still, as a legal matter, treats that supposed "request" as an absolute.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

There are non-hierarchical groups in which they would be perfectly at home, such as the Society of Friends.  The Lord's Church is a house of order, and the maintenance of that order requires a certain structure.  Even the New Testament talks of offices in the church, so their indictment, it would seem, also brings within its scope a large portion of Christianity.  Would these people indict Christ, too?  He said, "Think not that I am come to bring peace upon the earth, but a sword," and "He that loveth father or mother or son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

 

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

 

Speaking one's mind is one thing: attempting to attract a following that competes with the Church of Jesus Christ, potentially sows discord, and so on, is quite another.  Plenty of "mind-speaking" occurs in the councils of the Church before any decision is made in order to ensure that various points of view and options are explored before a decision is made.  That's what councils do: they counsel together.  Perhaps it was a bit different in Joseph Smith's day because very few people, if any, shared his "Big Picture" vision of the destiny of the Church, but, as I said, even he spoke of the privilege of allowing a man to believe as he wished.

[Avatar4321]

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.

I did dispute a number of his teachings in another thread a few months ago. Some are fairly obvious. Mosiah 26 comes to mind.

[ERayR]

deleted

Edited May 9, 2015 by ERayR

[ERayR]

 

 

Speaking one's mind is one thing: attempting to attract a following that competes with the Church of Jesus Christ, potentially sows discord, and so on, is quite another.  Plenty of "mind-speaking" occurs in the councils of the Church before any decision is made in order to ensure that various points of view and options are explored before a decision is made.  That's what councils do: they counsel together.  Perhaps it was a bit different in Joseph Smith's day because very few people, if any, shared his "Big Picture" vision of the destiny of the Church, but, as I said, even he spoke of the privilege of allowing a man to believe as he wished.

 

I see plenty of mind speaking in a good Gospel Doctrine class discussion

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I did dispute a number of his teachings in another thread a few months ago. Some are fairly obvious. Mosiah 26 comes to mind.

 

Good to know. Perhaps you could link me to that thread. I stayed away for about the last 5 months or so.

[Avatar4321]

I'd have to find it.

I don't understand this mentality that God has to give us what we ask because of the golden rule. I ask God for things all the time that I don't get. And I'm not talking about asking for a million dollars though we should get that if this principle was correct.

[Investigating]

 

How is the fact that Jesus granted  a request evidence that Jesus was obliged to do so?  

 

Why did Jesus grant the demons’ request?  Could it possibly be that  it happened to also serve His purposes -- for example, as a sign to those present that the demons had, in fact, been cast out and had “left town.”

Edited May 9, 2015 by Investigating

[Investigating]

Deleted.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Investigating

[rpn]

In JS's time, the Denver Snuffer's left the church for their own church:  he wouldn't have HAD to excommunicate anyone.

[smac97]

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 don't see how you have improved your question. Everything after "suppose..." is problematic. You are asking us to "suppose" that canonized doctrine about parenting is "wrong." It is an absurd hypothetical. It has no application to the LDS paradigm.

Moreover, you are straying from the topic in this thread. You originally asked "Would Joseph have been against excommunicating anyone for believing some false doctrine?" You also suggested 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.)". Again, 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. Denver Snuffer was not excommunicated for merely "believing some false doctrine" or "for holding heterodox views."

So what started out as a discussion with a terribly flawed premise is not morphing into a separate discussion about an entirely implausible hypothetical where the established, entirely sensible doctrines of the Church (about parenting obligations) are hypothetically "wrong," and whether a person teaching them anyway would be excommunicated. I will continue to decline to be drawn in to such a discussion.

Please advise if you have further thoughts or comments about the topic in the OP.

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.

I am sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I think I am a reasonably intelligent person, but I cannot make out what you are saying here. What "conflicting request(s)" are you talking about? Why are God's commandments merely "request(s)?" Who has promulgated this "teaching" about "the golden rule?" Who is makeing "requests" that are to be impliedly granted because of "the golden rule?" What are these "requests?" Who is teaching that "all 'paternalism' ... is wrong?" Why should we give such an absurd teaching any consideration?

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?

What? What "claims ... regarding the evils of paternalism" are you talking about? What do you mean by "paternalism?" Who is saying that paternalism is "evil?"

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

That is a fascinating question. But it's quite separate from the topic in this thread. Please start another thread about it and I will join you there.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

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?

I continue to be baffled by your questions about "the evils of paternalism." That seems to be a topic entirely divorced from the OP. I also don't understand what you mean by "the evils of paternalism."

 

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

Possibly, yes. First, we should note that "teaching some false doctrine" is a markedly different thing from what you asked about in the OP, where you incorrectly referenced excommunication "for believing some false doctrine" and that Denver Snuffer was excommunicated "for holding heterodox views."

 

Second, Section 6.7.3 of the CHI includes the definitions of "apostasy," one of which is to "(p)ersist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority."

 

So if someone were to teach "some false doctrine," and then continue to do so "after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority," then discipline would be mandatory.

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

If it included the teaching of false doctrine, then the Church had the ecclesiastical right and responsibility to tell Denver Snuffer to stop publishing the false doctrine, regardless of the medium used.

Thanks,

-Smac

[sethpayne]

I don't see how you have improved your question. Everything after "suppose..." is problematic. You are asking us to "suppose" that canonized doctrine about parenting is "wrong." It is an absurd hypothetical. It has no application to the LDS paradigm.

 

 

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is theChrist, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

 

Seems to fit the BoM paradigm quite well.