Is Excommunication Useful?

My limited experience indicates that it isn’t mere doctrinal exploration, it is your intent regarding publicizing it, your attitude towards it, and your willingness to be corrected.

Also, seeing angels, etc. isn’t the problem I have with his writing. It is that he sets himself up as an authority, deals almost commercially with things that, if they were true, would be sacred, and uses his experiences promote himself and make money, which is the very definition of priestcraft.

Plus his name sounds like a serial killer, though he can’t help that. 😉

.

Avraham Gileadi’s excommunication was EXPUNGED by the Church, an admission that it should never have happened. He did not have to be rebaptized. There is no longer anything regarding an excommunication in his official church record.
Also, his books and talks are very knowledgeable. Well worth the time and money.

Silver Rain – I have read some of his works, and am fairly familiar with his blog. It is true that the experiences that he claims to have would in some way make him an “authority”…however I find him regularly trying to dissuade those who read his works from viewing him as an authority of any kind, and instead says his books are only useful to the extent they point other’s to Christ. He would be the first to agree with you regarding his “nothingness”. He often writes trying to encourage others to place no man/woman/institution between them and their relationship with Christ. And he includes himself in that.

As to the commercial nature of his books – he does not gain any financial compensation for the books. He donates all proceeds to the church missionary fund. He deliberately wants to make sure he avoids even the appearance of priestcraft.

However, if what you said were true (that he was selling them for the purpose of getting gain)…what would that say of the book deals for leaders of our church? Will you hold them to the same standard? Last time I went in to Deseret Book, I saw books with no more than 100 pages selling for $20 because they had a GA’s name attached to them.

I say that not to criticize, but just to point out that perhaps we overlook motives of some simply because of their calling in the church…while ascribing motives to another because they don’t have that calling.

FWIW – The Second Comforter is one of the most beautiful books on the Fulness of the Gospel as contained in the Book of Mormon that I’ve ever read. Too bad about the proceedings, I pray for all involved that they will be inspired/comforted.

Is Excommunication Useful?

The Lord gives the answer.

14 And it came to pass that after he had poured out his whole soul to God, the voice of the Lord came to him, saying:

29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also.

30 Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me.

31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation.

32 Now I say unto you, Go; and whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people; and this shall be observed from this time forward.

33 And it came to pass when Alma had heard these words he wrote them down that he might have them, and that he might judge the people of that church according to the commandments of God.

34 And it came to pass that Alma went and judged those that had been taken in iniquity, according to the word of the Lord.

35 And whosoever repented of their sins and did confess them, them he did number among the people of the church;

36 And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out.

37 And it came to pass that Alma did regulate all the affairs of the church; and they began again to have peace and to prosper exceedingly in the affairs of the church, walking circumspectly before God, receiving many, and baptizing many.

38 And now all these things did Alma and his fellow laborers do who were over the church, walking in all diligence, teaching the word of God in all things, suffering all manner of afflictions, being persecuted by all those who did not belong to the church of God.

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 26:14, 29 – 38)

Denver has a choice. I hope he chooses to keep his membership and follow the counsel of his Stake President. If not, then by his choice (agency) he will be dealt with according to church policy.

I read Denver’s first book on the Second Comforter. I enjoyed it. However, after praying about Denver, I felt misgivings and decided not to buy or read any of his other books. I’ve kept up with Denver’s teaching by reading Tim Malone’s blog. I suspended judgment about Denver, I never mention him on my blog, but told Tim I had a wait and see attitude about him.

I watched Tim, someone I greatly respect, lessen because of Denver’s influence. To me, this is a indicator of the fruit Denver’s teachings are having. I’m glad I stayed away.

It’s easy to see why excommunication would not be viewed as useful.

After all, we are a society that no longer values social norms and a community.

So the poll results are unsurprising.

Is excommunication useful? To the adulteress after dismissing the Pharisees Jesus said: Go and sin no more. Yet the church says:You will be notified of a court date.. It seems in Jesus’ absence the Pharisees won!

By the way, is it just me, or has the term “pharisees” become used the same way Hitler and Nazis get used? It’s like some sort of Christian version of Godwin’s Law.

No, it’s not apparent at all Howard.

Jesus wasn’t a church leader. He wasn’t responsible for administering the church at all. He confined himself to preaching and performing miracles.

He left that to Peter.

But… you know Howard, the only example we have of Peter dealing with this sort of problem is Annas and Saphira.

So you know what… I guess you’re. Jesus wasn’t an advocate for excommunication.

He just nuked the trouble-makers on the spot.

Thanks for making this realization possible.

So you point is Jesus would have “nuked” Denver on the spot!?

Actually no Howard. I’m not calling for any orbital bombardments today. It was a tongue and cheek way of pointing out that Jesus isn’t quite as permissive as you make him out to be. I’m with J.D. Salinger on this one:

“If you’re going to say the Jesus Prayer, at least say it to Jesus, and not to St. Francis and Seymour and Heidi’s grandfather all wrapped up in one.”

Having read a bit of what Denver has written, particularly the book in question, he interprets Church history in a way that calls into question some of our most cherished beliefs about ourselves. Those questions are probably no more welcome than Jesus calling the Jewish leaders hypocrites and whited sepulchers. For me and my house Denver has helped us remain members of the Church and press forward to be one with Christ.

What if the man is being honest and writing such things at the command of the Lord? What if the stake president is wrong in this instance? What if he is being pressured by those higher in the hierarchy? If you were Denver, and were commanded by the Lord to do such things, would you cease and desist because a man with a calling and keys asked you to do so? Would it be “humility, courage, sacrifice and trust in Christ” to stop if your Lord had commanded you to write the books and give the talks? What if you simply felt that this was an instance of unrighteous dominion? Would you continue on your plans or change them?

Feel free to leave your own simplified paragraph of summary if you wish MH.

It is my observation that we tend to see these things through a single set of eyes, usually from the person who is being called to the council and attempting to position themselves publicly. In this case, there is a bit more information since he chose to publish the letter from the SP.

We discover that this has been going on for at least 18 months. It appear to surround the last book he published and his tour promoting it. I’ve not seen the book nor know it’s contents. So I cannot judge the contents as heretical or not. It is obvious that the SP think it bear the scrutiny of a DC.

As a Church member, we are free to believe whatever we want, to think whatever we want and to even believe we were transported to Kolob in a ’57 Chevy, if we want. What we do with that belief is another story. We are not permitted to espouse doctrine or experience against our stewardship. it is not our right. of course, we can still choose to do it, but at the peril of our Church membership in some situations.

This may be one of those situations.

A DC is not a punishment though it is thought to be that by many. Being Ex’ed is not a punishment, though some would position it that way. It is a way to relieve a member of his or her responsibilities until they work out their repentance and return to full fellowship. There are certainly some punitive things such as not wearing the garment, paying tithing ot taking the sacrament

For some, it takes years for that to happen, for some, it never does. It’s primarily up to the former member to make their way back.

Excommunication is to protect the “image” of the church, period. It does nothing for the person being ex’d. Jesus is the great healer. He doesn’t cast off people. He leaves the 99 and goes after the 1. He doesn’t wait for the 1 to make their way back to the fold.

Is excommunication at all analogous to banning someone from a blog/discussion group? Do we ban someone to give them time to “cool off” and allow them to come back later when they aren’t being so subversive or damaging to others participating? Do we ban just to protect the “image” of the blog?

Just a thought, since there are a good number who haven’t been anything but 2nd hand commentators to excommunications, but have been on oneside or another of a ban.

Nick, perhaps the LDS Church is simply being more responsible and protective of the excommunicated in general. Keep in mind that the people going online trying to make martyrs of themselves are in the VAST minority of excommunications overall.

Although, I’ll admit this pisses off bloggers – who are, by nature, people who want to see “the whole story” told, no matter who it hurts, or whether it’s even useful.

Seth R – it is clear that you haven’t read any of his works, your characterizations are way off.

He does not advocate a return to polygamy (and has a 6 part series detailing why not), if anything he thinks they went WAY too far with it after the death of Joseph. He has never advocated a return to a time when blacks didn’t have the priesthood…my guess is he would probably site this as evidence that things did go a bit of course with church leaders, and how easy it is for them (and all of us) to be led astray by the arm of the flesh.

You want a better summary? Fine. He believes we should take seriously the counsel of Pres. Benson (and the Lord per D&C) and return to a diligent study of the Book of Mormon, so that we can cast off our unbelief and come out from under condemnation. Why the Book of Mormon? Because it contains the Fulness of the Gospel. How could it contain the “fulness” if we still needed all that D&C stuff? Because it clearly teaches the path back to God by way of faith in Christ, because each of the chief prophet/authors of the BoM have seen Christ, been ministered to by Him, and encourage us to develop a faith that will provide for us the same blessing…because God is no respecter of persons and “every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am.” He teaches the temple is not an end, but instead a symbol of the journey you are supposed to take, whereby you participate in ordinances associate with each priesthood (dressing yourself with robes of righteousness the ordinances convey through your faithfulness and righteousness and by the power of Christ’s atonement), learn to receive and recognize true messengers (whether earthly or heavenly), cast out Satan and his influence in your life and progress in light and truth until a time when you can be presented to speak with the Lord through a veil, and eventually be embraced of him and told to enter His presence.

Oh wait…is that what Oath and Covenant teaches? Learning to receive Priesthoods, Servants, then Christ, and ultimately the Father and all the Father has?

THAT is the fulness of the Gospel, and the Book of Mormon testifies of it’s reality, and invites you to gain your own witness. What else is Nephi trying to say in 2 Ne 32. It turns out he too is frustrated by our unbelief, our unwillingness to actually receive the blessings God has laid out, because we won’t seek and won’t ask…and we won’t understand even when it is written as plain as word can be. What does Nephi teach in that chapter? Enter in by the way, truly receive the Holy Ghost, with a baptism of fire, consequently learn to speak with the tongue of angels, so you can learn all things that you should do. Continue in that way until Christ Himself shall manifest to you and teach you more things, which things he was going to elaborate on but the spirit said to keep quiet because we who will read the book just won’t be ready.

These are the things he teaches. Come unto Christ, in every sense of the word.

He makes no money from the books cause he donates it all to the missionary fund. He charges nothing for the speaking events.

He wrote a 6 part series on why he is a mormon and why he sustains the leaders of the church. He is grateful to them for the role they fill. He is grateful the church provides missionaries to the world, they print the BoM, they build temples all over the world which introduce people to a journey to receive the Fulness. He has written time and again they have every right to lead, that he intends to serve faithfully as long as they will have him. The book under question tries to deal with the difficult parts of our history, and though I’ve never heard of someone leaving the church for reading it, I have heard others come back to church, since that is what he encourages.

But who cares right? Let’s just condemn a man we clearly know nothing about. Let’s sensationalize by pretending he teaches certain things he never has, Let’s cast judgment and throw our stones. Off with his head!

For the record Dannyk, I have no idea whether the Snuffer actually ought to be excommunicated or not.

Just so we’re clear.

My responses have been solely in response to all the knee-jerk whining about how the fact that the LDS Church is excluding people makes it evil, pharisiacal, etc.

Seth, I obviously wasn’t clear. What I was trying to say is that if you always assume that a “one-sided” excommunication story is falsified, self-aggrandizing, etc., then you’ll always end up condeming the individual who is telling his/her story. This is necessarily the case, since the LDS church has a policy (usually, though not always followed) of not commenting on excommunications.

You basically create a paradigm where the LDS church leaders can count on you disbelieving anything the potential or recent excommunicant has to say, since you’ve already ruled out “one-sided” stories. This isn’t to say that you, or the LDS church, or somehow “evil.” It’s just an observation about the approach you described.

Is Excommunication Useful?

I suppose it depends on the goal. As an institution, the LDS Church has the right (and responsibility) to defend itself against attacks. If the organization feels that Brother Snuffer’s works can potentially cause harm to the organization, then it can proceed using its mechanism to fight such attacks (ie. excommunication). There will be a potential downside, as there will be some people who see these actions as supporting Brother Snuffer’s thesis, but in their calculus, they have likely decided that any bad press coming from the excommunication if less than the potential harm his works can do.

As an individual, I don’t know that excommunication would matter to Brother Snuffer. There are certainly going to be far more people who end up in the Celestial Kingdom than those who were active LDS in mortality – so not being on the rolls of the LDS Church may or may not make much difference there. And if, as he has taught, Brother Snuffer has actually seen Christ and is truly going forward as he feels prompted, then he personally has nothing to fear from any Court. History is replete with examples of people who have followed what they personally felt God wanted them to do, even if it clashed with an existing organization.

So, excommunication as a defense mechanism for the LDS Church – fine. Excommunication as a “punishment” for someone who has seen Christ and who is acting honestly under that premise – probably not that big of a deal.

What I’ve read of Snuffer doesn’t really resonate with me, but I know some people who swear by the kinds of things he teaches, particularly in regards to obtaining some kind of literal appearance from Christ. My old mission president would go on about that all the time, and I have in-laws who love Snuffer’s books. I dunno if he’s worthy of excommunication and didn’t vote on any of the poll questions, but I think the church has every right to police its membership however it likes, although some more transparency in the process would be nice in a church ostensibly established on principles like common consent. Also: good gravy, Seth R, have you ever been involved in an internet discussion where you didn’t immediately wade in to pick a fight? I don’t even think you’re necessarily wrong on this one, just…good gravy.

Casey, at the risk of annoying BOB with a further post, I’ll just say – good point.

Seth R.

What…wait… the bible contradicts itself? I’m glad we agree on one thing!

If the question is “Is excommunication useful” then the other question is what is the purpose of excommunication. I just don’t see it helpful to the individual. Excommunication doesn’t stop Snuffer from writing the books, giving lectures, etc. Excommunication doesn’t prohibit Snuffer from attending church. Excommunication doesn’t stop the Church from issuing a statement distancing itself from Snuffer. Excommunication does (if you are a believing Mormon) affects your eternal salvation. No more baptism, temple covenants, priesthood, sacrament, etc. The only purpose I can see excommunication is good for, is as a threat to get people to toe-the-line.

It’s interesting that this topic has so many responses. I have never read any of Snuffer’s books. I have only heard his name in blog passing and I actually thought it was anonymous blog ID 🙂

What is the purpose of excommunicating DS? To discredit him in the minds of chapel Mormons.

Jeff,

That’s an interesting thought about having direction from Christ. Does that mean that in the two lines of the revelation model (i.e. personal/institutional) personal trumps institutional and that is what concerns the Church? I haven’t thought about it like that if that is what I think you’re saying.

dba.brotherp,

“That’s an interesting thought about having direction from Christ. Does that mean that in the two lines of the revelation model (i.e. personal/institutional) personal trumps institutional and that is what concerns the Church?”

Well, it two-edged sword, I guess. I don’t think that the Church would deny personal revelation so long as it squared with scripture and Prophetic revelation. As soon as it crosses the line over to teaching a principle received from that personal revelation, it becomes the problem. Only one person has that right for the whole Church.

And it counters how the Savior said his church would be led. That has been historically what got many men in trouble was they had revelation for the whole church outside of their authority.

With the case of the other folks I mentioned, it was “Jesus told me directly to practice polygamy, in spite of the Church ban on it because He needs me to…. And even if I was Ex’d because of it, I have my calling and election made sure because of my obedience to Him.”

Howard, you can’t usefully ask whether personal or institutional revelation trumps unless you specify what sphere it’s supposed to trump IN.

SilverRain, What about Joseph Smith, Moroni, Mormon, Helamen, Alma the Younger, etc.? These guys all shared their experience of seeing Christ and it is what we call scripture. How is what Denver did any different? He has never gone in to detail about his “revelations” or “visions.” He just says he has received a whitness. It is funny to me that so many LDS take the postition that he must be wrong because he is talking about it. If God commanded that he share his experience then that is what he should do.

Howard, that seems to me to be a fundamental denial that we live on a planet with other human beings – and that getting your own way isn’t the highest possible value on that planet.

Personal truth is not a synonym for truth that ought to be had for everyone else on the planet.

How is what Denver did any different? DS can’t seem to come to the point succinctly. DS: You know, it took 170,000 words in the book…to lay the entire plan out and I would commend that book to you… and the next one I’m sure.

IF God IS speaking with YOU he has already considered the impact of his direction to others. He will direct you if he wants you to share it or not or just leave it up to you. Much of it is private tutoring but don’t be naively surprised when it conflicts with the church’s stated position because it often does. The brethren dispense general advice, the Spirit specifically custom tutors lessons YOU and many include taboo breaking.

Wow, so many comments! I’m just trying to catch up with them all.

To the post title question, I’m sure the Church considers excommunication a useful tool for attempting to silence someone. Sometimes they try to make it sound as if it is a “court of love”, but I find such rationales ridiculous. If excommunication is a chance to help the sinner repent, it is a horrible method. Just 2 of the September 6 have rejoined the church, and none of the other 7 listed above have returned. That’s not a very good method for “repentance.”

On the one hand, I agree that the Church has every right to discipline it’s members, but I think that they can go overboard in their reactions, and this to me is a perfect example. I don’t think it’s right at all for them to ask him to rescind publication–McKay never asked McConkie to rescind publication of Mormon Doctrine, so there is absolutely a double-standard being applied here.

I also like how President McKay handled dissidents. While he didn’t do anything to support the excommunication of his neice Fawn Brodie, he defended Sterling McMurrin, and refused to go along with any discipline in regards to Juanita Brooks. Brodie also says that McKay was nice to her at family events, despite the fact that McKay was very upset with Brodie’s book. I think that McKay’s reactions to McConkie, McMurrin, and Brooks should be more of teh standard when it applies to Mormon authors.

Andrew, thanks for fixing the poll questions.

I really liked DannyK’s comment #10. This does seem to be a case where Snuffer is being trammeled (or attempted to be snuffed out. I can’t believe I’m the first to write that.)

I’m also surprised that most people are picking the stake president as the one most responsible for the church court. I think that most stake presidents are very busy men, and don’t sit around checking out blogs or reading books of members in their stake unless they are told to by the Strengthening Church Members Committee. I know someone sent my bishop a letter complaining about my blogging at W&T. My bishop was cool about it, and said he thought the letter was “chicken____” (He said he would use stronger language if he weren’t bishop.) My bishop just doesn’t have the time or inclination to read books and blogs–he’s too busy, and I suspect the stake president is too busy too. Someone had to have tipped off the stake president, and I suspect it is the SCMC, which is a clipping service with an apostle at the head and Seventies on the committee. I know John Dehlin’s stake president didn’t get involved until he got a letter from someone–now that could be Joe Blow member, or it could be someone higher, but my money in Snuffer’s case is somebody higher than the SP is making the call.

I just browsed Snuffer’s blog. It sounds like an “EFY” for adults. There must be a market for this. Maybe some young enterprising individual could make some $ and start an “EFA” 🙂

Reading the portion of the letter to Brother Snuffer, it does not sound like it is actually a summons to a disciplinary council–or was that part edited out. It is interesting that the letter has the following advice:

“To avoid the disciplinary council, I ask you, again”

So, if he follows the list of 3 requirements that the SP asks, does that alone negate the need for even a disciplinary counsel? It seems like usually such letters go with a committed plan to hold a council, yet this one rings as sort of a ‘pre-disciplinary council advisory’.

This type of letter could simplify many things if it were put into practice. For the adulterous man, the letter could say, “To avoid the disciplinary council, I ask you, again: 1. Stop having extramarital affairs. 2. Stop posting about having extramarital affairs on Facebook. 3. Stop promoting your extramarital affair in public.”

Stop hoping someone “presiding” somewhere is going to lift you to heaven. No one can do that. There is only One who matters and “He employeth no servant” at His gate. (2 Ne. 9: 41.) When you focus on me, or some man as a leader, you are an idolater. (D&C 76: 98-105.) Put an end to your idolatry and look to Christ.

True and very well said!

hawkgrrrl-

Thanks for you thoughts. I have understood the ordinances were necessary to experience the first and/or second comforter.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 84:20 – 22)

Regarding George Pace. I know someone who knows him well. He said that the McConkie rebuke ended up being a blessing, as well as one of the most difficult experiences of his life. As for Elder McConkie, some say he was rebuked to some degree by his apostle/associates for the manner and content of the talk he gave.

I’m told Bro Pace is one of the best examples of a latter day saint around.

FYI Brian – when he says he wrote a book about the topic, the book is the Second Comforter, and it describes the doctrine of the second comforter as shown in the Book of Mormon. He actually says very little to nothing about his own experience in the book, preferring instead to use the words of Nephi and other prophets as a type, and the Book of Mormon as a road map to the experience of having Christ minister. He uses 3 Nephi as an example of real life ministrations of Christ mimicking the endowment, which endowment is designed to turn your mind towards just such an event where you could be presented before the Lord to learn directly of Him.

I’m curious what it is that you object to. The doctrine itself (that Christ does minister)? Or the fact that he wrote about the doctrine? Or is it that you think he wrote a tell all of what his experience was when Christ minister to him (which he didn’t do)? About the only stuff he says of his own experience is similar to what you quoted above “I know He lives, for I have seen Him.” The rest is based in scriptural accounts of those who have received the Second Comforter.

Hah, wise words Miss Oary!

Just wanted to adress Snuffers new blog comments where he says: “Stop hoping someone “presiding” somewhere is going to lift you to heaven. No one can do that. There is only One who matters and “He employeth no servant” at His gate. (2 Ne. 9: 41.) When you focus on me, or some man as a leader, you are an idolater. (D&C 76: 98-105.) Put an end to your idolatry and look to Christ.”

This I believe is false doctrine. If there is no presiding authority, then every man is his own authority, and this is idolatry: “walking after the image of your own God.” How can we exercise humility before God if we do not submit to His earthly authorities? It doesn’t matter if you have a vision. Lots of people claim to have seen Christ. But in our church it is different: Adam had seen Christ, but still submitted to “messengers from the Father.” Joseph Smith submitted to, and received his authority, not from his claim of a vision with Christ, but from angelic post-mortals, who passed keys on to him through the laying on of hands.

Snuffer accepts and submits to the priesthood authority of Joseph Smith, but seems to believe that the current Priesthood is in apostasy. Unless Peter James and John come down and restore the keys to Snuffer, he is no better than Martin Luther or any other Protestant reformer starting their own church based on whatever they think or feel. Protestant reformers were as confident as Snuffer, that they had the truth. But look at them now. They have churches and followers of every stripe and doctrine. But there is no power in their ordinances, no priesthood, no claim of authority, and thus in the end, their branches are as dead as the tree they cut themselves off from.

But Mormonism is different. It’s central characteristic is its claim to have keys and authority. Everything else is whistling in the wind: correlation, finances, polygamy, blah blah blah. The church can be imperfect and still have authority. God calls the weak things of the world, the unlearned and despised. Sure, at a certain point you might wonder if the authority had been taken away, maybe after something like the Spanish Inquisition. But after correlation? The church is allowed to struggle in imperfection, but not in evil and murder. Rejecting the authority of the church over something so trivial I believe is foolhardy. Especially if Snuffer still feels “the power of God manifest in the ordinances” of the temple. Isn’t this evidence that the priesthood still has power and authority in our day? Would you be foolish enough to risk cutting yourself from something you know to be so real?

Snuffer is also free to disagree all he wants, to think that modern leaders are imperfect or misguided in various ways. There is nothing wrong with that. But to reject their authority is different. By doing this, one sets oneself up as a greater authority than the church, and that is the greatest idolatry of all.

Suppose I wrote a series of books detailing the ordinances of the temple, discussing the meaning and importance of the various teachings, symbolism, and covenants made there. I might try to correct what I believe are misunderstandings of some of the more arcane and archaic language used, and illuminate some of the more obscure references within the ceremonies.

I would point out that the things taught in the temple are also taught openly in the scriptures; that Joseph Smith himself performed temple ordinances in private homes; that there are no “secret doctrines” in the Church, that understanding these teachings, covenants, and ordinances is essential for our exaltation. I might insist that the members of the Church generally, and the modern-day authorities of the Church in particular, have conflated the sacred with secret; that these things ought to be discussed more openly among the members of the Church. I could even quote from language of the ordinances themselves, showing that these things ought to be taught freely and openly, and before the world.

I might even speculate that the authorities of the Church are embarrassed by the teachings of the temple, or do not fully understand them, and that is why they do not speak of them more openly, preferring to keep them “secret”.

I would donate all the proceeds from the sales of these books for the building of more temples. I would accept speaking engagements at which I would discuss these insights without asking any fee. My only concern would be getting the message out: this is the way to exaltation, and we must become more conversant with it. I would encourage everyone to discuss these things more openly.

Do you see why I might expect correction from the authorities of the Church?

I think there is a strong parallel with the previous example to the discussion here.

Nate –

Though I certainly can’t say for certain…my understanding is that Brother Snuffer does not believe that the church is in a total state of apostasy and lost all authority, but that they did lose the rights as an institution to administer the fulness of the priesthood. D&C 84 is probably instructive of what I understand his views to be.

Just like Moses tried to prepare Israel to behold the face of God (defined as entering into a fulness in that same section), but they hardened their hearts and so God gave them laws and ordinances instead of the real thing. Had they succeeded, Moses would have been able to establish a Zion society like Enoch before him. Even though they rejected the fulness, they still retained authority to do a great many things…and in the continuing history of Israel there were a few who entered into that fulness themselves, like Elijah…primarily because God is always willing to reveal himself to those that have faith.

The same *could* be said of Joseph…that he too was trying to prepare people to enter into a fulness with God, to behold him not symbolically, but literally. He too was trying to establish a Zion people. But, when his own “friends” and church members betrayed him and encouraged him to turn himself in, they too rejected in some form or another the fulness that the Lord through Joseph was trying to prepare them for. They still retained authority to do a great many things (baptism, HG, even temple ordinances etc.), but they lost the ability to establish a Zion like people that could walk and talk with God. That didn’t stop people here and there from making that connection to God through their faith…but we never become a Zion people on the whole.

I don’t think Denver ever says that they church has NO authority, nor that members should not sustain the leaders and serve faithfully. My reading so far says he believes they have every right to lead, they are doing their duty in spreading the Gospel to all the world, and providing temples to all people of the earth. He has a great reverence for ordinances.

But he believes Joseph intended for more, that he intended for the blessings of a Fulness of the Gospel to be more widely distributed, that he wanted to build Zion and have angels walking among us and a people prepared to behold God. That’s what I believe DS says we lost. And that it won’t come back until we come out from condemnation, take seriously the teachings of the Book of Mormon, and seek the face of God ourselves. Only when desire to repent sufficiently and believe sufficiently to behold his face, will Zion and a fulness of God’s glory be restored to this people.

I have to say that I loved what George Pace had to say. I have his books, I have his tapes and I think I had the chance to see him speak at a Know your Religion some years back. I was disappointed that BRM rebuked him in light of BRM’s own foibles.

I believed Bro. Pace then as I do now. But his presentation was always given as a “imagine what this would be like, if you could experience it.” Not a “I had this and so can you if you are just worthy enough like me.”

As a result of him, I spent some time collecting all the accounts of people’s encounters with the Savior, mainly GAs. Some very beautiful experiences I can only hope for, even in a dream.

#94 / Rigel:

To be fair, you took that quote grossly out of context … and that’s rather unfortunate. I wandered over to his blog to read exactly what he wrote, and here is the full paragraph for context. Next time we should all try to be a little more judicious in what we copy/paste and the conclusions we draw from it:

Third, my former Stake President defended me against complaints from the Strengthening the Members Committee. His last Sunday as Stake President eighteen months ago he called me in and we talked for several hours about the events that began years before his release. He had defended me continually during his presidency, but he explained there was going to be a new Pharaoh in Egypt who would not know Joseph (so to speak) and he couldn’t vouch for what was coming. The new Stake President has investigated, delayed, discussed this with me, pushed back against downtown, been called in for “training,” and received input from the top leadership in the church. He told me a great deal at the start about what was going on behind the scenes, which matched what the former Stake President had been telling me during his tenure. Those details are unimportant, and I have no intention of making them public. Right now, I don’t think President Hunt thinks he has any other choice. He probably doesn’t. That is fine. I bear no ill will toward him or any other member of my stake. No one gets ahead in the institution by disregarding instruction from above. Actually, I do the same. However, for me, “above” has little to do with 47 East South Temple and the institution is not where I expect any future. I try to help the church regardless of its opinion of me. I simply have no axe to grind no matter the outcome on September 8th.

#95, B.O.B. I think in context it’s even clearer that he is saying exactly what Rigel implied. It’s actually kind of a low blow to so subtly imply rather than speak with candor that he indicting the Stake President’s motivation as getting ahead in the institution. And then the following contrast of “above” he makes clearly points out how Denver really feels in the matter. That is that the SP’s “above” is merely following men, while Denver follows a different “above” insinuating Christ or God, which clearly shows that Denver believes he is far more enlightened here. Talk about spitting in someone’s face, as the Stake President who actually holds keys/authority for revelation in the matter has specifically told Denver that he has prayed about the matter and is following the Spirit here, and then Denver essentially says, no, sorry, your actually just following men because you know you can’t get ahead in the institution otherwise, but don’t worry, I forgive you, because I am the nice enlightened guy in the matter. And then to me most significantly Denver implies that the decisions at Church Headquarters have nothing to do with his “above” – the true mind and will of God in the matter. How can such sentiments be characterized as anything other than apostate? Unless of course you believe the church is apostate, which is clearly not the position of the church, and something I know for myself to be utterly false. Yes, this recent blog post is certainly telling.

Howard #98. Personal revelation of course. We’ve spoken in comments elsewhere enough that I know we both have strong testimonies of this principle. I recognize that my testimony is not binding on you or anyone else here, as Denver’s is not either, but it is not my testimony alone on this point, I’ve never heard a witness or declaration other than this from all the individuals in our time who hold the authoritative and heaven-sanctioned keys of the kingdom (that the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is the true and living church of Christ today, and therefore not in apostasy).

@ Mormon Heretic. So you believe the church is in apostasy as in the days of Jesus? That there needs to be an opening of a new dispensation, that they keys in the church today no longer have heaven’s sanction? Denver would agree with you. But it is my testimony that this truly is the last dispensation, and it will continue to roll forth until the redemption of Zion. It is my witness that there will never be a need for another restoration again in the lifetime of this earth. Do we have a long way to go? Yes. But I know we are on the path.

“Steve, it feels to me like you are justifying the status quo and justifying the errors, instead of saying “hey, let’s correct some of these errors.””

Then I was not clear enough. I would love for all errors to be corrected, and I would love for us to be a Zion people here and now. It’s only that I recognize that it is not feasible for God to snap his fingers and that suddenly a people will go from a state of apostasy to Zion overnight. If Rome cannot be built in a day, how much more Zion? So then, if it takes time for progression from full apostasy to the perfection of Zion, then if we are somewhere in between would you not expect to find errors? This is not to say that the errors should not change in time, or that I wish to stall where we are – that I do not want to continue towards Zion running as fast as we have strength. But even the scriptures recognize that when the wheat is still young, we do not then go about pulling out all the tares at once, but let them grow, let progression happen, and in time, at the proper time, the tares and errors will be weeded out. That there are yet many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God that are yet to be revealed. We are worlds away from what I envision the church becoming, and I long in my heart for those days to come, but I know the Lord guides those who bear the Keys of the Kingdom today to decide what those next steps are that we are ready for as a people to take. They are indeed declaring repentance to this wicked and sinful generation. We ought to be patient, and not assume to know the Lord’s timing in these things, for it is not within our stewardship not bearing the full keys of the Kingdom to be able to see what is right for the collective church as a whole at this time. All the men in your list, save one, held such keys – and of course it is Denver Snuffer who does not and never did hold such keys, and he has even denied holding any such authority. Then why put him in a position that he has not even claimed? Without this authority, Denver cannot know what should be declared to the Saints as a whole, it would be against the order of revelation in the established order of the Priesthood keys of the Kingdom. And it is most assuredly contrary to the order of the Priesthood to command those at his head in what next steps should be.

“Steve, God has never snapped his fingers. He didn’t do it for Jesus, he didn’t do it for JS, he’s not doing it for us. WE need to desire to become a Zion people.”

Sounds like we are in agreement there.

You’ve compared the current church to the San Hedrin twice now. Sure you can make parallels if you think the church has fallen into apostasy as in previous dispensations, although Denver is not an apt comparison to true prophets who did claim to be ordained with authority from on high and did receive keys from God for their callings. But the spirit has witnessed to me that there is no such apostasy in our day, and it will never be the case again, that the restoration by Joseph Smith was the final restoration – that will culminate in the establishment of Zion. It’s no simple task to prepare a people for the large birthing pains they will indeed suffer to finally bring about Zion, but I know the Lord is preparing this people in the way He would have it done at this very time.

“Really, we have moved far away from 19th century Mormonism. Isn’t that apostasy?” Where you see digression, I see progression. Just because Joseph Smith was so advanced as an individual, doesn’t mean the church also was in his lifetime–or that collectively they were even remotely close to where Joseph Smith advanced personally (We had people like John C. Bennet in the first presidency, and leaders apostatizing left and right to say nothing of the general church membership). The higher ordinances you mentioned were only revealed in the final year of Joseph’s life, and like polygamy, council of fifty, etc. was hardly widely known or practiced in his lifetime. Joseph Smith was indeed advanced, and I agree that we have hardly reached the vision that he was receiving for the church in the Nauvoo era. When Joseph Smith died, the keys remained, but we were left as a people to progress without being spoon fed to the same degree we were being with Joseph Smith. A degree of independence was needed that we could truly grow as a people. And from JS’s death until now, we have been making that progression. Are we collectively close to where Joseph Smith was at the end of his life? Not even, if I were to take a gander I would maybe put us as a people in our collective understanding closer to what Joseph was learning/revealing in the early Kirtland Era. But collectively now we are much stronger than the previous generation, which was stronger than the generation before them, and so on. If you want to advance beyond the collective average, please do so, every individual should run as fast as he/she has strength. But do not suppose what is right timing for you, is necessarily right for the collective whole. And we should not make the mistake of comparing the average Saint’s progression today with the spiritual progression of those early leaders charged with restoring and establishing the church in this final dispensation. To do so is unfair, of course the Lord sent spiritual powerhouses for such an incredible task. Rather you must look at the church as a whole from beginning to end to really see its progression.

I think my position is pretty clearly laid out at this point, and I probably won’t need to clarify much further. You are free to believe what you see as correct, and I retain such a right for myself. For me I feel a witness that our leaders do hold the keys of the kingdom today, and they are exercising them just as the Lord would have them do. We must work together IN the Lord’s authorized Kingdom if we are to build Zion, not work to divide the house against itself and surely not to operate without and outside of divinely authorized and heavenly sent keys.

The undeniable truth is since Joseph Smith the power of God as expressed through the church and it members has diminished greatly and the collective power of man through the church and it members has grown greatly as expressed through inflated membership records and the building of buildings. That is in some level pharisaical apostasy.

Funny thing though about all the “Oh noes! Think of the starving children!” crowd is how they seem to find it fashionable to gripe about the issue only with respect to churches.

“Stop building meetinghouses and donate to the poor!”

But you don’t see any of these blowhards lining up to protest their local city council’s decision to fund a new recreation center for their comfy little suburb.

Why? Because they care about their recreation, and they don’t care about religion – except for a neutered, watered-down sort of religion that mainly consists of going on hikes and enjoying nature, or having a fashionable yoga class to “get in touch with themselves” and never dares to be socially relevant or effect public policy change.

Meetinghouses build community Howard. Something modern secularists wouldn’t know if it jumped out of the bushes and kicked them in the face. And community creates shared human resources and support networks. There is a ton of ministering to human needs that goes on every week in my ward Howard – and it’s in large part enabled by that modestly furnished, sparsely decorated meetinghouse we have. Everything we do would be twice as difficult without it.

But getting rid of it would certainly go a long way toward destroying our supportive faith community, disuniting us as a group, and making the business of our church much more difficult.

But I rather suspect you know this, and that this is exactly the thinly-veiled aim behind your remarks.

You have it right Dannyk.

SethR, this blowhard is a sell what you have, give to the poor, follow him disciple of 10 years now who communes with deity and has had his own special witness of Christ. Most of my time and some of my money is regularly donated to helping others including those struggling in third world poverty, the homeless and many who lead desperate middle income to very well to do lifestyles because their philosophy or psychology or their lack of spirituality is literally killing them. Unlike your accusations I know what I’m talking about.

Seth R:

But you don’t see any of these blowhards lining up to protest their local city council’s decision to fund a new recreation center for their comfy little suburb.

Why? Because they care about their recreation, and they don’t care about religion – except for a neutered, watered-down sort of religion that mainly consists of going on hikes and enjoying nature, or having a fashionable yoga class to “get in touch with themselves” and never dares to be socially relevant or effect public policy change.

Maybe they don’t ask the local city council about helping the poor as much as they do they church, because maybe they view the Church as the vehicle that should be taking care of the poor instead of vice versa. Maybe the city, for instance, should have found a for-profit investor to build City Creek while working hand-in-hand with the church to fund $2B worth of initiatives to help the poor – clean water campaigns, housing for low income families or whatever it might be. Maybe there’s this monumental struggle because they see the church doing stuff that businesses should be doing and [nearly completely] abdicating their mission to care for the poor. Maybe that’s the reason for the gripe – but I guess you could create a straw man (as you did) and try and deflect the issue to something else.

Elsewhere, I know GBH was very proud of the record building growth (meetinghouses, temples, the conference center, etc) and used that to directly relate how strong the church was (i.e. more buildings = stronger church).

I happen to rather strongly disagree with that. If you go a back through the story of King Noah, they too used the argument that growth/expansion/building programs were a sign of their strength. I’m not comparing the modern day church to that, but I do think it’s a rather weak argument. And, mostly, I think it’s a very distracting focus for the Church to take on. As humans, though, “spiritual” growth is unseen and we, frankly, prefer visible metrics to tell us how we’re doing, hence the argument that more buildings = stronger faith.

Jeff I see City Creek as idolistic, not meetinghouses. I see the strong focus on the metric of meetinghouses and temples as a misplaced mortal diversion away from spirituality, what meetinghouses did Christ build? And speaking of mortal diversions look at this discussion, my comment offering up buildings as evidence is being used as a diversion from the much more important main point since Joseph Smith the power of God as expressed through the church and it members has diminished greatly

SteveF:

I know that none of the 15 men who lead our church today suffer from any degree of apostasy

This is, you should know, humanly impossible. To imply that someone is free from any degree of apostasy is to basically label them as perfect, or as close to it as possible. And, frankly, it’s against church doctrine. I know you’ve come to this argument trying to espouse the “one true doctrine” of the church, but you should be more careful about what you write.

The Church is not in apostasy, the leaders are not in apostasy, but rather the fullness of the keys of the Kingdom are here today, and they are being exercised in righteousness at the head. The keys thus properly used, become a living system of progression, rooting out errors and aiding us as a people to grow towards a greater perfection that will continue to come as we strive towards Zion.

So, for instance, when Pres. Monson loudly cheered, “One, Two, Three … Let’s Go Shopping!” at the dedication of the City Creek shopping mall, are you saying that he was properly using his keys? That he was rooting out errors, helping us grow to a “greater perfection”, that we were striving for Zion? I’m confused here, because every step towards Babylon is, by its very nature, a step away from Zion and I’m rather of the mind that an edict to “Let’s Go Shopping” is rather contrary to the command to establish Zion. It’s axiomatic.

The problem with your argument is that it presupposes errors, mistakes and sets up a system that cannot be questioned, you’ve created an absolute shell that is impervious to errors.

And, contrariwise, you’ve also distanced yourself from the very nature of D&C 121. I’m of no moral standing here, but using the terms “keys” and “righteousness” and referring, ad nauseum, to the righteous leaders exercising those keys is a way of seeking to enforce action by appealing to authority. In my mind, a continual appeal to authority and keys as reasons to do this or that negates their very nature. The Priesthood, it now seems, exists as a means of social control and enforcing mainstream ideology.

People like Denver just don’t fit in anymore, what with all the boxes and boundaries you’ve created (inside, outside, keys, no keys). We should be welcoming of divergent thinkers, people that work outside the box … instead we try to change them to fit our mold and, when that doesn’t work, groupthink takes hold and we try to control them and enforce the mainstream ideology. And, when that enforcement doesn’t work, we kick them out.

* When we progress and our brothers and sisters have not achieved something new we have discovered, we don’t leave them behind…

Sorry, but all is not well in Zion.

“And did these special experiences continue widely after the death of Joseph Smith? Yes, they did and they do today!!! Read BRM’s talk, that’s the main point!!!” – Howard

and, “While that’s nice, it is a far cry from the dreams and visitations of early church members such as Jacob Hamblin, Helen Mar Kimball, etc. We’ve lost such a gift.” – MH

Despite looking like a contradiction, I think we’re actually in agreement here, just looking at 2 sides of the same coin. Are these experiences happening today? I believe they are, and I believe these incidences are steadily increasing compared to previous generations. As for the early early church, I think many of the spiritual experiences (not all) can in large measure be attributed to the great spirituality of Joseph Smith spilling over and helping young faith to achieve great heights. But when the church was left without Joseph Smith, I think we’ve had to, on a collective level, learn and mature for ourselves over time guided in whole by the keys of the kingdom and Christ as the head of His church.

Can individuals have these experiences today? Yes, of course, and I believe they do. I do not have a problem with this part of Denver’s doctrine preaching that people can have such experiences (except to presuppose that everyone should necessarily learn and have these things right now or they are under some sort of condemnation – Denver does not and cannot know the hearts and status of each individual’s progression, that is for the Lord and only the Lord to decide – and it is to be taught to the collective whole it will come through his established channels.) There are many other people that witness and share about dreams, visions, and spiritual experiences they have had, and yet they do not experience church discipline. Why? I hope we can objectively realize that the church condemns no one for having or suggesting we can have such spiritual experiences, that has never been the issue! My issue with Denver is his sweeping condemnation of the church, and presupposing that the Lord has not been in control of His church from the death of Joseph Smith until today. I know this is false. This to me is simply a cop out for the tough questions. How easy is it to just say, “Well, all of those problems, it’s just because everybody was wrong, so let’s dismiss everybody and everything that has happened for the last 150 + years and go back to some supposed glory days.” (in which the people were in fact unable to live the higher laws revealed to them.) This narrative is so easy to suggest in fact, that this why history keeps repeating itself, and people continue to prefer the dead prophets over living ones.

B.O.B. “The problem with your argument is that it presupposes errors, mistakes and sets up a system that cannot be questioned, you’ve created an absolute shell that is impervious to errors.” I disagree, this narrative I have suggested does allows for errors, mistakes, and imperfections to exist, but then subsequently relies on personal revelation to know if these things are evidence of apostasy, or rather a part of the natural birthing pains of establishing Zion. Some feel it is the former, I feel it is the latter.

#124 “one can apostatize from the church and remain connected with God, clinging to the iron rod is for those who don’t know God.”

#112 “would you like a formula to tell how to get personal revelation? It might be written in many ways. My formula is simply this:

1. Search the scriptures.

2. Keep the commandments.

3. Ask in faith.”
This is a major contradiction, as a major key to having a relationship to God and receiving personal revelation is keeping the commandments. The commandments, the word of God (otherwise known as the iron rod) are essential if we are to know God. Didn’t Christ himself lament that people will call Him Lord and yet not do what He says? Does He not say to build a church and follow the prophet?

I know I’m coming in late to the conversation, but there is a huge element of the gospel being forgotten in this whole discussion. Inherent to following God is taking care of his children in both spiritual and temporal means. Its no accident that immediately after Alma the elder tells his congregation that they need to both be witnesses of God and comfort those who stand in need of comfort that the people then founded a Zion society. This is the key that many, including Snuffer, miss: God wants a righteous society in order to save as many people as possible. The gospel, as much as individual effort and progression are important, requires a communal effort. Societies, however, do not exist in a vacuum. They require resources, which means there will be commerce, businesses, and money. They deal with imperfect people and the outside world, which means there will be politics and compromise (compromise on theological truth isn’t just something mere mortals do btw, God rescinded the higher law in favor of the law of Moses). As much as Snuffer might long for the Nauvoo period, he forgets that Joseph was also creating one of the busiest commercial cities on the Mississippi, building an army, and running for President. These practical realities are just as important and vital to a Zion-like society as the theology which they stand on. Thus we have the theological and moral responsibility to the building of the Kingdom in all of its aspects, not just the ones we like.

Yes, kd those two statements are an apparent contradiction. That’s because BRM’s formula suggests that keeping the commandments is a requirement; when it is not. I have a personal testimony of this (as do others who have posted) because I have enjoyed ongoing profound personal revelation during times I have been having sex out of wedlock and drinking beer, none of which gets in the way of God conversing with us through the Spirit, he will talk to anyone capable of listening. Contrary to popular LDS opinion the Spirit does not flee us.

Depending on where you start, the iron rod may be a necessary step to eventually hook you up with the Spirit which begins your personal lessons which may eventually include taboo breaking.

B.O.B

I would argue there is a lot of evidence actually for prophetic authority within the standard works. For example, Christ explicitly told the Nephites to follow the twelve He selected there (3 Nephi 12). Alma on two occasions There is the classic scripture from Amos 3:7. As well, Paul is very explicit in the need for prophets and apostles in Ephesians 2 and 4:11-14 (vs 14 is very applicable in the case of Snuffer, though I’m not accusing him of some kind of malice or ill will). Plus Alma in both Ammonihah and in the land of the Zoramites outlines the same pattern which preach my gospel outlines, that Christ has sent prophets to lead the church throughout history. However, the fact of the matter is that we aren’t protestant, we don’t believe in sola scriptura and in scripture being privately interpreted. The question at hand is do the prophets represent Christ or not? If they do, then we are only following Christ by following their counsel.

On the subject of the church, thats a great scripture and I think its accurate of the church. Is that the only scripture? No, there are many and they give additional requirements of the church. I agree we shouldn’t be blind followers, avoiding contrary views just because they are contrary. However, there is the need to police the church, to build “unity of the faith.” If people are challenging the authority of the church or promoting a new interpretation of the faith, it becomes a problem.

B.O.B #130 – AMEN!

I appreciate this post in that it brings out voices from many different perspectives. I find myself disagreeing with Mormon Heretic, which is rather unusual. I find myself wanting to be offended at the comparison of this individual to the Messiah in his confrontation with the Sanhedrin and Abinidi in confrontation with Noah. I’m trying to turn my emotions down and respond…do a bit of a Bednar and choose not to be offended.

King Noah was preceded by his father Zeniff who was not only a righteous king, but created agricultural, textile, and military industry. The construction of ‘spacious buildings’ to house these industries would have been necessary to support them. These ‘riches’ of the kingdom would have been passed to the stewardship of Noah. So when people liken the building program of the LDS church to Noah, I argue that it is not the same. The building program is more directly comparable to Zeniff. Noah built a palace and a throne, not buildings for the carrying on of economics. He created a vineyard industry, then drank in excess. In his palace and on his throne, his reign was marked by laziness, spending time with multiple women, and demoting the diligent priests to be replaced by those who were prideful.

If you follow our Apostles schedules, you know that their time is spent in work. Hawkgrrl described seeing Elder Oaks in Malaysia and I saw him the very next week at Stake Conference in Oregon. His newly called companion GA stated he could hardly keep up, that it took two steps to keep up with every one of Elder Oaks, and with Elder Perry (who had just turned 90) it was even more rigorous. Our Apostles are not spending time in resorts being idle during these travels, every waking hour at our Stake was busy in interviewing and selecting and installing a new SP. They are not dining at the finest restaurants, but eating meals served simply but elegantly in round rolling tables in the church. They are not spending time with multiple women–when would they be able to?

So comparing the leadership of the church to Noah does not ring true, although I understand who people who love and support brother Snuffer and view excommunication as punishment would react with feeling that he has been treated without due process.

I would view Brother Snuffer more closely, to follow the lead in likening scriptures in this situation, to the Zoramites and their Holy Stand:

“Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren (the followers of the standing LDS prophet); and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers (who followed the prophets from Brigham Young onward); but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no (“connection to”) Christ (in the “devalued gospel” that lacks “the power to save”).

I would also view him as the Prodigal son in the parable, the quest to “enlighten” individuals one by one with focusing on personal upward progression similar to a journey into a far country in riotous (spiritual) living. In the meantime, the elder son (leadership of the LDS church) continues to do the less glamorous work of making temples available to the people, structuring missions for the preaching of the gospel, printing and distributing scriptures to people in various languages (bridging those ‘cultural inroads’ that Brother Snuffer casts in a negative light).

#127 therefore we’ve had to dumb it down so much that all we can feel is a personal prompting to go visit some sick church member

This makes me feel sick. I have never felt closer to the glory of God as when I visited and participated in a Priesthood blessing for a child with terminal cancer. This surpassed in power the personal revelations that I have received. I could have been sitting home focusing on how the ‘structure’ of the church that funnelled to me a Priesthood assignment from a leadership chain is less important than separating myself from my brethren and focusing on my personal election as an individual. But there’s this scripture that says when you are in the service of your fellow beings, ye are only in the service of your God. Our Prophet leads and teaches “Reach out and Rescue. Brother Snuffer retorts: “They intend to build Zion one day when they get around to it.”

#97 SteveF–thanks for responding more eloquently than I could.

While I disagree with Denver Snuffer, excommunicating people sends the message that the church isn’t open to discussion and hurts the image of the church. Far too many people in the church feel they can’t be honest in a culture that constantly says “i know,” They created the harmful culture that produces Denver Snuffers. They would be better to address the culture issue than attack the fruits of their own making.

So, MH, dropping the specifics around this particular case, let me ask you about your thoughts on excommunication as censorship in general. Chad Hardy was excommunicated for conduct unbecoming a member of the church when he published his “Men on a Mission” calendars, featuring shirtless returned missionaries contrasted with their missionary uniform photos juxtaposed. Would you view that form of church discipline as a form a censorship? Where the church leaders trying to spiritually kill Brother Hardy?

Another member I know was excommunicated after having an awakening that the church and her early-life marriage prevented her from being sexually fulfilled. She shared her joyful exploration of her sexual experiences with other men on Facebook. She declined to attend a disciplinary council and offered no witnesses. Was excommunication, then, a form of censorship in her freedom to express herself in writing on Facebook? Another spiritual killing?

I am assuming you feel that literary authors exploring in writing their disagreements with the doctrines or administration of the church are different somehow. What is the justification for their pass?

I guess I didn’t answer your last question, What is the justification for [the authors’] pass?

Michael Quinn, Avraham Gileadi, Lavinia Anderson, Margaret Toscano, and Maxine Hanks (I’m sure I’m leaving some others out) were all BELIEVING Mormons, unlike Hardy or this woman (at least it sounds like the woman wasn’t believing.) In all cases, The men and women I listed were trying to state historical truth regarding Mormon history, addressing abuse of ecclesiastical leaders, or expressing feminist theology. They were trying to correct wrongs. They weren’t trying to tear the church down, though I am sure Church leaders, concerned about the image of these authors’ writing, did feel they (with the best of intentions) were tearing the church down. These authors were trying to make the Church better, more honest, and more transparent.

That is a far cry from Hardy who wasn’t trying to improve the image of the Church. (Well maybe he was in a “South Park” kind of way.) I don’t know the background of this woman you mention, but it seems she certainly had much different, less noble desires than the Sept 6 that I mentioned. If a person is honestly trying to follow Christ, I think there is no sense trammeling them.

Did it ever occur to any of you that maybe, we precious individuals might need to change a little for the institution as well? NO! But it has occurred to me that I must change to become Christlike and Godlike.

I don’t care about the Denver Snuffer MH. I have no opinion on whether he should be excommunicated or not. I’m talking about the usefulness of excommunication in general. You seemed to be painting the whole process as one that should prize the needs of the individual over all else.

If that was the sense you intended, I disagree with it.

Howard, you cannot be a true Christian without participation in human institutions. The person who eschews all such institutions and avoids them, is uncharitable, and unconcerned with the needs of those around him. As such, he is in violation of the second great commandment – to love thy neighbor.

You cannot do it without institutional participation. You are deluding yourself if you think you can.

Damn straight.

Jesus’ parable didn’t involve the 1 little lost lamb beating up on the rest of the flock.

Seth:

If the church represents the body of Christ, which is comprised of nothing more than individuals, what gives the church the right to dictate something it does not, inherently, own? Without the members, the church doesn’t exist. The church is but a mere representation of us. As such, why can’t people lobby for change, advance different view points, seek for a course direction? To suggest that the members should be subservient to an organization that has no life outside of the members seems, to me, rather bizarre. I realize this isn’t mainstream thinking, but I’m puzzled by the notion that members cannot seek to enact change from within without risking their “membership.”

Even the term “membership” seems out of place in the larger discussion.

Seth, how in the hell is Denver beating up the flock by telling them to follow Jesus?

That they really feel that everyone who preaches “to follow Jesus” is worthy of excommunication? That’s obviously laughable. I’m not so sure it’s laughable if you replace the word everyone with the word someone because the LDS Church (TM) pretends to broker it’s members relationship with Christ and someone like Denver is telling them to go direct. In affect to take out the middleman. So that would make him a business threat, wouldn’t it?

Excommunication in a broad sense seems on my reflection to be tied into the opposition in all things necessity. ( I would lump excommunication, disfellowshipment, and probation together for this discussion) The opposites being communion, admission, receipt of spiritual gifts/endowment (not necessarily The Endowment as in the temple ceremony). 1 Corinthians and 3 Nephi instruct that the sacraments not be taken unworthily or damnation to the soul results. 3 Nephi takes it one step farther that if you know a man that is unworthy, you should forbid him from taking the sacrament.

One can ‘excommunicate’ themselves in a way by not taking the sacrament. It would be part of changing the way of thinking that occurs with repentance. If the sacrament is considered a rebaptism, then receiving baptism before repentance makes a mockery of the ordinance.

With added spiritual gifts such as the Melchizedek Priesthood or Temple Endowment they are being conveyed by use of higher keys. Again, there is a level of self-excommunication that can take place by committing anything on the list of the ‘amen to the priesthood’ list or breaking a temple covenant. With the principle of opposites, the higher key use for being endowed with a spiritual gift is also necessarily invoked when the spiritual gift has been removed by a self-excommunicating process.

I would agree that the complete excommunication should not be used when any of the lesser forms of discipline could suffice. When someone has essentially committed self-excommunication (the facebook adultery example or the ‘I don’t care if I am being excommunicated for my calendars so I’m going out with a bang’ example) the council is simply reconciling the membership in the church to what the member has already demonstrated is their desire.

But you are always going to have some members that take the I’m right your wrong, no your wrong I’m right path to the end. If simply telling the flock to follow Jesus was sufficient, there were plenty of churches Joseph Smith could have followed that did so. But in crept that ‘authority’ thing, or the “I’m right” thing. With that authority came the spiritual gifts we believe in.

Does Denver recognize the authority that holds the keys of all of the spiritual gifts for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? Can one keep the final covenant made in the temple without doing so? Is he not saying I’m right and your wrong? And if he is, has he not already enacted a self-excommunicating process from this authority? Has he already not taken a Hardy-like response in saying that he is not concerned about the outcome? He stated, ” However, for me, “above” has little to do with 47 East South Temple and the institution is not where I expect any future.”

I would hope that something other than excommunication can result. I do not see the 3 requirements as contrived. It is an invitation. It invokes the same principle of humility that comes by voluntarily abstaining from taking the sacrament.

I think the brethren from Joseph Smith to this day, and really all the prophets who have held the Priesthood of God from the beginning of the earth to this day, including the Savior, would disagree with your characterization pitting the organized Church and Kingdom of God and a personal relationship with deity against one another. They go hand in hand, one cannot be complete without the other. So I’m not sure if that would make the brethren blind to that or not as I’m sure they’d rightly dismiss the idea entirely.

Sure I’ll tell you where. The Church is the wife of Christ, and we the children. And if Christ has granted his authority the church by sealing himself to her, and has not divorced/rejected/revoked that authority, then we as the children cannot expect to somehow break the sealing and relationship with the wife/mother, and somehow expect to retain our relationship and sealing relationship with the husband/father that has bound Himself to her.

The heavenly church exists, it is an eternal principle, we don’t exit from it and it does not exit from us if we expect to be eternally bound with Christ.

..and we cannot be saved or become joint heirs with Christ and inherit what God has without inheriting these keys, thus becoming an eternally and inseparably connected part of this Holy order.

Maybe I chose the wrong word, as it was not intended to offend. Rather I meant to point out that I think it is clear Denver is not up for discipline for “teaching people to follow Christ”, and to propose as much is to me ignoring the objective facts before us. The charge is for apostasy.

You did answer my question, it sounds like you agree that apostasy is grounds for excommunication. The question is whether or not then Denver Snuffer really is guilty of apostasy. To me the final answer to that question is in the hands of the Stake President, and I think he has the right and duty in his position to evaluate, pray, and make that call.

I agree that holding the belief that polygamy and/or the priesthood/temple ban were mistakes is not apostate by nature. Every member should be free to their private interpretations. I don’t think declaring this as a personal belief is apostate either. (Although I do think it would be wrong to declare this as revelation for the church as a whole – inasmuch as it is personal revelation, that it is personal revelation should be kept private as revelation concerning unrevealed matters to the church as a whole should come through the proper channels.)

I really don’t think any of this is the issue in Denver’s case. I think the problem with what he wrote is that it claims that since the time of Joseph Smith we have been in steady decline, abandoning truth, and that the leaders on a general basis have been leading us astray from the real truth. It is a big leap from simply saying, admitting, or expressing belief that there have been mistakes. And I think in this way, it really is denigrating the prophets in a way and level entirely different than admitting that as mortals they have made mistakes from time to time.

And then I think the story goes further. And I think 2 important questions must be answered to see how we might view the situation.
1. Do those who hold keys have the right to determine by revelation what is and what is not harmful to the flock they are entrusted to oversee?
2. Do those who hold keys have the right to revelation to give commandments to those within their stewardships?

I am interested in your answers to these 2 questions. My belief is that the answers are both yes and yes. Therefore, I believe the Stake President had the write to determine by revelation that those claims made public by Denver were damaging to the Kingdom rather than helpful. And then therefore he also had the right by revelation to instruct/counsel/command Denver to redact these public teachings.

It sounds like this very thing happened, and Denver chose not to comply. It is at this moment that I believe Denver was not only guilty of teachings I consider apostate (“actively working against the church”), but that he was guilty of apostasy itself, by rebelling against authorized revelation and counsel/commands by continuing his fight against the church.

Furthermore, Denver has just recently posted what his speaking tour is to consist of: http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/08/we-dont-need-new-church.html, which to me furthers the narrative described above.

Following this comment I will copy and paste a comment I made on a separate blog about Denver’s recent post.

MH, how many times do I have to tell you that I am not discussing the Denver Snuffer, nor do I care what he is or is not doing?

I’m talking about excommunication and excommunication only. I have little to no interest in this guy. I was telling you there are circumstances where throwing the one sheep under the bus is absolutely the morally correct thing to do. I have no interest in tying it in to the Snuffer’s situation.

Tom, in theory you can love and serve others without belonging to anything organized.

In theory.

The reality is that most people who don’t participate in such cooperative ventures actually get little to no real Christian service done at all. So it largely becomes a lip service sort of thing.

“Oh yeah, I care about people, sure… Just don’t ask me to get tied down to any organizations that actually make it happen.”

Welcome to the moral wasteland of secular America. Where hiding in your suburban bunker and having correct ideals and aspirations is an acceptable substitute for moral living.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matthew 7:15)

I think the problem with what he wrote is that it claims that since the time of Joseph Smith we have been in steady decline, abandoning truth, and that the leaders on a general basis have been leading us astray from the real truth. It is a big leap from simply saying, admitting, or expressing belief that there have been mistakes. And I think in this way, it really is denigrating the prophets in a way and level entirely different than admitting that as mortals they have made mistakes from time to time.

I’m not defending DS but your “big leap” and “denigrating the prophets” conclusions DO NOT necessary follow. Steady decline, abandoning truth and leading us astray may have and probably did occur over time via subtle negligence. There is considerable evidence for this: Compare the early church’s experience with gifts of the spirit, BRM’s talk on personal revelation in #112 above and the barely discernible whisper commonly described in LDS chapels today. Compare the book of thus saith the Lord revelations spoken by Joseph during his brief ministry with the drought of revelation since. Clearly something important has been lost!

By the way Howard, just so I’m not disagreeing with you on absolutely everything – I’d like to point out that I’ve long held open the possibility that revelation in the modern LDS Church has been severely watered down, and that inspiration isn’t happening today as strongly as it once did.

I’ve had those suspicions myself. And I’ve always been very up front with clarifying that my testimony of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the Restoration, and even Brigham Young is much stronger than my testimony of the modern LDS Church hierarchy and structure.

Howard #175. I’ve already given my thoughts on whether there has been growth or decline, digression or progression over the past centuries. I do think it is indeed apostate to teach that the current church and its leaders are leading us AWAY from the “real” truth.

You said that the things spoken of in BRM talk can and do happen today. Do you not think in shear numbers alone then that these things happen more than they did in say Brigham Young’s time, even if these incidences may be more spread out? I do. I’ve witnessed them, you said you have too. I think the church is much stronger than you give it credit for. Do you think the church that almost fell apart several times in Joseph Smith’s lifetime, or even the church in Brigham Young’s time could have survived if we plopped millions of people like we have in the church now into the church then? I think it wouldn’t have even been years before the church flew to pieces.

We continue to strengthen in numbers, and we continue to strengthen our roots and core in the center to uphold and withstand breaking under the pressure of this growth. And don’t you worry, the day is coming that the gifts that you speak of will become more widely visible, enjoyed by a greater number of saints, and spoken of more commonly and freely. But that will not happen by breaking in factions, or drastically steering the current course of the church in a new direction. It will come in line upon line growth in patience and love following and sustaining the current leaders and keys of the Kingdom, and working together as a community being bound in true friendship and love as we progress together.

To achieve a nation of Kings and Priests, Queens and Priestesses that Zion may cover the whole of North and South America, cannot be done by breaking up what we have already achieved and starting over. Can’t you see that realistically/logistically that that would require another 150+ years of growth just to get where we are today? We’re not perfect, but I know the Lord is guiding us on the very path of growth and progression we need in order to reach this eventual goal, a marvelous work and a wonder that will bless all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples.

I’m now repeating myself, but I think you get my drift.

em>You said that the things spoken of in BRM talk can and do happen today. Do you not think in shear numbers alone then that these things happen more than they did in say Brigham Young’s time…? Numbers aren’t the issue. I know they take place both in and out of the church so what then is the meaning of LDS authority of LDS priesthood? The issue isn’t frequency of occurrence the issue is the church accepts and teaches this watered down version lowering members expectations and when expectations low would you expect them to commonly be exceeded? Of course not. So the rationalizing white washing skim milk correlated gospel has over time become powerless belief steeped in “authority” but where’s the beef?

We continue to strengthen in numbers Growth has fallen to levels consistent with the general population growth, not significantly more.

It will come in line upon line growth in patience… Poppycock, it hasn’t so far, what will cause it in the future?

I don’t want to break up what we have and start over, I want our prophets to engage God so that they become Prophets.

“Growth has fallen to levels consistent with the general population growth, not significantly more.” and “Poppycock, it hasn’t so far, what will cause it in the future?”

If one method begins to fail, another will come in its stead. “The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.”

If one method begins to fail, another will come in its stead. Steve, how do you know DS isn’t a method or part of a method to bring the gifts spoken of? How do you know I’m not? Why couldn’t we be?

It’s not a rejection Steve it is a transendance, there’s a difference by using rejection you redefine my meaning and derail our discussion. I’m saying once you become one with Christ you have out grown the mortal church as it stands today and you move up to the spiritual church.

Let’s do a replay of the early 1800s … just for fun.

Had Joseph Smith been born into an “authorized” and key-filled church, he would have been excommunicated for going outside of those “authorized” and key-filled channels. Had we any insight into his mindset, I bet we could be sure that his primary concern was finding God and Christ, not finding those who claimed to have some magical set of keys.

I think the conversation about “keys” is an idol we worship to our detriment and a huge, huge distraction. We disparage the Catholic church – who we’d probably agree somehow lost their keys into some couch cushion – while celebrating our inability to fall in those same traps.

Ignoring history while claiming moral and spiritual superiority is a very dangerous road to go down.

Some misguided comments here. I’ve read many of Denver’s books and believe him to be honest and sincere. In fact I think he has seen Christ. We could doubt him like those who doubted Joseph but what if he isn’t lying or insane? If you think the Church’s past is golden you are fooling yourselves. He tries to help people understand why the Church went in some of the directions it did using the scriptures and quotes from the people at the time. I would suggest reading his Second Comforter book and Come Let Us Adore book. He has stated several times that all “proceeds” go to the missionary program. I have no reason to not believe him.

Don’t judge [Denver Snuffer] because he sin’s differently than you do. – Uchtdorf Humm, isn’t this precisely what the church has in mind with Denver’s disciplinary council?

*Correction on the italics

Sure, I agree with what your saying that if a church claims authority / keys, it doesn’t make it so. And if Joseph Smith discovered those claims were wrong, then sure he would be excommunicated for apostasy from a church that had no authority in the first place, and therefore it would be of no eternal consequence. If that’s what you’re saying, then I agree. The Church can claim “ad nauseum” (which I think must be your favorite phrase) that it holds authoritative keys, but it does not make it so. However, in this discussion, since most people in this conversation to my knowledge are believing members, I am working off the assumption that the current claims to keys/authority within the Church are true claims, which is also what I know to be true. Not only that, but Denver Snuffer has also claimed he recognizes and believes the Church does hold authoritative keys that have come down from heaven to JS and have been passed down to the present Church (although I believe he questions whether or not the keys in D&C 110 have been passed on), so it seems most helpful to work within a framework of the Church holding keys that are actually authoritative in this particular conversation.

As for the Church judging Denver, I think by revelation and by JS’s precedent, the Church has the right, and even the duty, to excommunicate members if they have truly fallen into apostasy and will not repent. If you are referring to me judging specifically, then I might ask – if you believed a child trafficker was going around the neighborhood looking for children, would you not warn your neighbors? Or would you do nothing, as not to judge someone who “sins differently than you do”? As I previously mentioned I grew up in and around a false spirit that permeated many of my families discussions and teachings that nearly destroyed my family, as in it literally brought lives to the brink of ruin because of decades of misinterpreting this spirit as being of God.

“for nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the Spirit of God.” – Joseph Smith

I recognized the very same spirit permeating Denver’s writings immediately as I read them (long before this disciplinary council came up), that became more and more apparent the more recent his writings. So, it is and has been my wish to warn my neighbors of this danger, that they may not also fall prey to this deception and come under the great injury that I once experienced and also witnessed many others experience.

If you wish to disregard what I am saying, so be it. But I hope that there are others who might pause and consider that what I am saying may indeed be the truth.

hawkgrrrl. “church which is run by Christ would excommunicate someone for having had this experience and telling others that they should seek after similar experiences”. I agree with your logic, but I don’t think there is any evidence that the church excommunicates anyone for this doctrine or promoting this doctrine. I know several authors, general authorities like BRM and regular members, that have discussed and promoted these things without any issues with the church. I think the church rather approves of these things, and any sentiments that may exist to the contrary in my mind can be attributed to unfortunate cultural flaws not endorsed by the church. In my last Stake Conference, we actually had a talk given that primarily focused on these higher blessings, specifically seeking a visitation with the Savior, and it was endorsed by our Stake President.

No, I don’t think there is any evidence that the church does what you suggest. In Denver’s particular case it is expressly about apostasy–preaching against the prophets from the death of Joseph to this time claiming that they are leading us astray and that by following their teachings we will be cut off from heaven. And tied in with this my guess would be his take on the importance (or lack of importance) of ordinances, authority, and the church organization as a whole. I think these teachings are the problem independent of whether or not he has promoted to seek a meeting with Christ in this life or not. I personally have no problem with that part of his teachings, and I doubt the church does either.

MH, I would like to know what you think the answers are to the following:
1. Do those who hold keys have the right to determine by revelation what is and what is not harmful to the flock they are entrusted to oversee?
2. Do those who hold keys have the right to revelation to give commandments to those within their stewardships?
and then an additional:
3. Who, if anyone, has the right to determine what is and what is not apostasy?

MH, I find it interesting that you criticized me earlier for assuming your motives, but that you are more than willing to presume to the know the motives of our church leaders and assume the negative.

Denver’s criticisms are more than light, he claims the leaders plan to “sell a devalued gospel” that will “condemn to hell those who believe it”. That’s more than just mere criticism; don’t you think that is entering the realm of speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed?

I didn’t realize I missed your questions, maybe I thought they were meant to be rhetorical. What questions would you like me to answer?

Steve, (1) Do you think Snuffer is like Ed Decker (of the Godmakers infamy) or do you see a difference?

Like Denver, I think polygamy was a mistake (and I’ll even go so far as to blame JS for that mistake.) Like Denver, I think the priesthood/temple ban was a mistake (and I blame that squarely on BY.) (2) Does that mean I’m denigrating, or simply disagreeing, with past prophets? (3) When John Taylor called blacks “Agents of Satan”, is it ok to disagree with Pres Taylor? (4) When Pres Kimball said that interracial marriage should be avoided, is it ok to disagree? (5) Is anyone who disagrees with practices or positions such as these worthy of excommunication?

MH,
1) They are both alike and different. They both have chosen to fight against the Church. Ed Decker famous for his movie, and Denver made his attack with his book, blog, and now a tour. Although I feel like Denver is much more dangerous, rather than out and out lie or use what can be easily recognized as propaganda like Ed Decker where any person can get the facts and refute it or at the very least refute the tactics, Denver has promoted a much more subtle spirit of deception that can deceive the well intended and those with “excessive zeal” as in BRM warning that Howard just posted, but that undermines the church and its authority all the same.
2) I did answer that question, but in short I said I do not think that constitutes denigration, but simply disagreement. I went on to explain what I felt was the difference.
3) Yes. 4) Yes 5) No, at least not in my mind.

1. Do those who hold keys have the right to determine by revelation what is and what is not harmful to the flock they are entrusted to oversee?
2. Do those who hold keys have the right to revelation to give commandments to those within their stewardships?
and then an additional:
3. Who, if anyone, has the right to determine what is and what is not apostasy?

Steve, I think many people claim revelation inappropriately. Let me give you an example. Both Captain Willie and Franklin Richards promised the Willie and Martin Handcarts that they would arrive in the Salt Lake Valley safely. 168 people died. If that’s not a false revelation, I don’t know what is. Levi Savage warned the people against it and was roundly rebuked by both Willie and Richards. (I reviewed the movie 17 Miracles if you’re interested.) Levi was an amazing individual, and it is an absolute shame.

So, in answer to your questions, in theory I do support revelation, but in practice it isn’t so nearly cut and dried as you make it to be. With 168 dead people, it is clear to me that those Church leaders faith is not as good as Levi’s wisdom. Brigham lambasted Franklin Richards for allowing the saints to leave so late in the year. We need to be much more careful about claiming revelation. We also need a better definition of apostasy. Ed Decker is apostate. Denver Snuffer is not. Like Levi Savage, I feel it is completely appropriate to question my leaders. I don’t like inappropriate excommunication, and I fear greatly that this is an example of unrighteous dominion, just as Franklin Richards and Captain Willie were guilty of unrighteous dominion.

“Denver Snuffer is not.” What gives you the right to say this is the actual truth, while it is other people who are in error? Or is this simply an opinion that you keep stating as fact?

The example you gave is a good reason why in the church there exists an appeals process, I agree that decisions can sometimes be the wrong ones. But you never actually answered my questions:
1. Do those who hold keys have the right to determine by revelation what is and what is not harmful to the flock they are entrusted to oversee?
2. Do those who hold keys have the right to revelation to give commandments to those within their stewardships?
and then an additional:
3. Who, if anyone, has the right to determine what is and what is not apostasy?

You can find it in context in the very first comment I made on this thread.

You might be right on that quote, I read a “they” were it said “the”.

Steve,

(I did not ask whether they would have correct revelation or not).

Seriously? You actually took time to think about it and wrote that? (a) What’s the point of receiving incorrect revelation?

May I remind you that “No power or influence CAN or OUGHT to be maintained by power of the priesthood.”

if you want to play Q&A, then I want you to answer a bunch of questions. I will letter mine to distinguish them from your numbering system. First, here are my answers to your questions.

1. Do those who hold keys have the right to determine by revelation what is and what is not harmful to the flock they are entrusted to oversee? (I did not ask whether they would have correct revelation or not).

I know you want a simple yes or no, but that is an absolute FALSE dichotomy and I won’t submit to it. Those who have the right to receive revelation are RESPONSIBLE to make sure that the revelation is correct. Your disclaimer is HUGE RED FLAG. If I can claim to receive revelation even if it is wrong, what is the point? My revelation better be right. To not care if it is right or wrong is a travesty. That’s been my point all along. In this situation, the stake president is receiving his revelation from the SCMC, not from God. And if you don’t believe that, go to Snuffer’s blog and tell me why his account is just like the Sept 6, which I blogged about in Latter-Day Dissent.

2. Do those who hold keys have the right to revelation to give commandments to those within their stewardships? (I did not ask whether they would have correct revelation or not).

No, only God has rights. Leaders don’t have rights, they should be more concerned to do what is right. Even Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine said that stake presidents shouldn’t ask members to stop drinking Coke, and they should stop asking married people if they have oral sex. Leaders don’t have any right to add to commandments. Leaders should only enforce real commandments. They should not make up commandments such as “stop publishing your book”, or “stop your book tour”. This is COMPLETELY outside of their jurisdiction and is an absolute certain case of UNRIGHTEOUS DOMINION.

3. Who, if anyone, has the right to determine what is and what is not apostasy?

God is the best arbiter. But outside of that, we should have a real definition. Ed Decker is apostate because he is actively fighting against God (and the church). Denver Snuffer is not apostate, nor was Michael Quinn, or Lavinia Anderson or a whole host of others. So let’s get a real definition and quit adding to it anything a leader or the SCMC finds disagreement with. Because when we leave it nebulous like it currently is, then we are no different than the Salem Witch trials. Get a real definition. The current state of affairs is too ripe for abuse.

Did you know that people got excommunicated prior to 1843 for breaking the Word of Wisdom? Was that a sign of apostasy too?

Just one comment to add. Who are the Lord’s anointed? The idea that it is only church leaders is hard to defend. It should either be Jesus alone or all endowed members.

“No, only God has rights. Leaders don’t have rights”. Under this logic, Joseph Smith and any prophet for that matter has no right to give commandments to the church. If no person on earth has rights, who can really determine which commandments are the “real commandments” that should be enforced.

I’m not sure why your’s or my definition or a definition of apostasy that we come up with together should have any weight on what or what does not constitute actual apostasy.

Joseph revealed an appeals system to prevent the abuse you speak of, but I guess that doesn’t really have any meaning since who is to say this appeals process is right, and who at the end of this appeals process has any right to a final answer in the matter? According to you, no leaders can claim such rights.

It is clear that our views on authority are too widely spread to come to any meaningful conclusion here, or under your reasoning if I understand it correct for really anybody on earth to come to a meaningful conclusion together.

MH, I did not intentionally take 219 out of context. That is actually how I understood your meaning. If it is in error, feel free to point out what I misunderstood, I am open to clarification.

Oops, I missed answers to 1, 2, and 3. 1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) Those with keys of authority above Levi, which may have included Franklin Richards and Captain Willie if I understand the situation correctly, and their superiors. (And just to point it out, In the model I described above Levi was justified in disobeying, and could have properly worked this out with his direct leaders’ superiors at a later time.

Regarding the Willie company.

We need to see things from the Lord’s point of view. The Lord could have inspired numerous people to prevent the death and suffering in the Willie company. The Lord chose not to. Why, the Book of Mormon gives a plausible explanation in the account of Alma the older and his group who fled from king Noah.

Why would the Lord allow these people to be taken captive by the Lamanites. And then put though more humiliation when king Noah’s priest were given charge over them.

There was terrible suffering and death but we learn from the following verse the answer:

21 Nevertheless the Lord seeth fit to chasten his people; yea, he trieth their patience and their faith.
22 Nevertheless—whosoever putteth his trust in him the same shall be lifted up at the last day. Yea, and thus it was with this people.
23 For behold, I will show unto you that they were brought into bondage, and none could deliver them but the Lord their God, yea, even the God of Abraham and Isaac and of Jacob.

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 23:21 – 23)

We need to allow the Lord to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life as he sees fit. It may be that many of the Willie company were “lifted up” by the Lord not preventing the tragedy.

It requires faith to accept the Lord’s will when it isn’t pleasant.

The above comment was made by Jared

The more I think about it, I’m gathering that Levi was some sort of wilderness survival expert or something, is that right? (that kind of rings a bell to me). If so, I think after the company decided to follow Willie and Richards, it was honorable for him to go with the company despite his opposition to the decision. Maybe because of his unique expertise, and as someone qualified to do something about the probable impending harm, he did have some sort of moral imperative to go with the company to help and serve where he could to try and save lives (similar to the rescue companies that came to save them thereafter) even though he disagreed. But if there was I don’t think this moral imperative was due simply to the fact that his leaders said so. If this decision was as obvious as it is made to sound, there were probably several people who decided not to go with the company, and I’m guessing you believe that they were justified in their decision, right?

As for Richards, and BY “amen-ing” his Priesthood, I think that was a decision that BY had the right and duty to make, to decide if Richards’ error was made in earnest, negligence, etc. and whether his acts were worthy of further repercussions beyond a severe chastisement.

I think in such a life/death situation, people may rightly question the leaders’ decision and can in righteousness desire to wait and make an appeal to a higher authority to question whether or not such a decision is truly the will of God.

Steve, Ray is a good friend of mine, and Tim is a blogger I am quite familiar with. Ray and I agree on many things (we are both admins at StayLDS.com) but not everything. I reviewed Tim’s blog, and from what I can tell, neither you nor Ray have read PtHG. I haven’t either. You are perfectly welcome to support Ray’s position. I happen to disagree with Ray on this one, and that’s perfectly fine. Ray is still a very valued friend of mine.

Regarding Levi Savage, I encourage you to read the link I posted in comment 207 where I reviewed the movie 17 Miracles about Levi Savage. I actually agree with you that Levi would have been justified to stay behind in Omaha with about 100 other saints who did stay behind rather than continue on that ill-fated journey. I was merely pointing out that your “appeals” process that you like to spout would have resulted in more deaths. Levi was a saint in the true sense of the word. There is a poignant speech by Levi that shows his true character.

What I have said I know to be true; but seeing you are to go forward, I will go with you, will help all I can, will work with you, will rest with you, and if necessary, will die with you. May God in his mercy bless and preserve us.

The movie is based on historical accounts, though they re-arranged events and combined accounts of both Willie and Martin Handcart accounts. That quote above is from a diary account, and Jasen Wade (who plays Levi Savage) was awesome. I HIGHLY recommend you watch that movie if you haven’t seen it. It is faith-promoting and doesn’t shy away from dealing with the conflict between Willie and Savage.

We’ve beat this horse to death, and are at an impasse. I’ve enjoyed debating this with you, but I have no desire to keep beating this horse.

I wrote a response, but it looks like it isn’t posting. Suffice it to say that assumptions often are wrong. I have no desire to write a book review of PtHG, and it would take that type of analysis to detail why I have such huge problems with it – and I already have written elsewhere how I view many of his comments on his blog. I see two very different people from before and after he wrote PtHG.

This is a case where two friends will have to agree to disagree.

Anyone have insight on why Snuffer’s kids would not have been allowed into the hearing?

Verdict is in: excommunicated. It’s a tragic ending, in my opinion.

Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of my baptism into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I marked my gratitude by giving a talk in Boise, Idaho. On my way to the meeting, at 10:30 yesterday morning, President Hunt called to tell me I’d been excommunicated. He emailed me on Monday and asked if we would like to come to the stake center that night (with the children) to hear and discuss the outcome. I replied as follows:

“President Hunt,

For clarification, we weren’t of the conviction that the children should be at the disciplinary counsel to hear the “outcome.” We had already discussed that at length in our family beforehand. We all were prepared for any outcome. What we are absolutely certain of was that they should be allowed to see the process as it took place.

In our discussions with them we talked of the Spirit that attends a disciplinary council. We discussed the format and the procedure. We reviewed the scriptures and what they say about disciplinary councils. We were certain this would offer them an opportunity to hear from people who disagree with their father and hear how other people interpret the scriptures and how they relate to the history of the church. We were looking forward to the opportunity for them to see the scriptures used by me and then by the members of the high council testify of gospel truths. The Spirit witnessed to Stephanie this would be a faith promoting meeting for them to attend. The outcome was a non-issue.

In any event, again we would like to thank you for your service. We know this has been difficult and bear no resentment for you or anyone involved. I am saddened, even ashamed that there wasn’t an open process which allowed my children to have this important opportunity. I’ve prized the underlying principles of the gospel which involve persuasion, knowledge, meekness and avoid control, compulsion and dominion. I wanted my children to witness this glorious process in which men of good faith and belief come together to work through an important disagreement. I had wanted them to behold the Spirit leading to unity. Inasmuch as the kids are scattered, (Kylee went back to school this morning at 4 a.m., Benjamin and Kalisa live hours away and can’t return because of work commitments), we see no need to meet to discuss the outcome. Please send the letter announcing my excommunication so we can end this tragic ordeal.

I meant what I testified to last night. – Denver”

The paperwork will arrive sometime later. It was certainly symmetrical to have the news given exactly on the 40th anniversary of the occasion. Almost like a sign, really.

I saw another sign yesterday. A dove was waiting for me on the lawn at work. She didn’t stir as I walked by her. But she did take note of me (and I of her).

Boise was a wonderful experience. Beautiful day. Great occasion. I returned home about 1:48 a.m. Joyful day, and gave me an opportunity to talk about the faith I very much believe in and will continue to practice.

The next talk will be in Idaho Falls. There are stake presidents there “warning” people in the church to not listen to me. They are preaching fear.

Christ instructed us not to fear. (D&C 68: 6.) Fear is the motivation of hell itself. (Moses 1: 20.) If you are fearful, then don’t attend the talks.

I rejoice in liberty, because freedom to believe in Christ is liberty itself. (2 Cor. 3: 17.)

I am grateful to the LDS Church for providing to me the instructions, ordinances and scriptures. I believe the faith which was restored through Joseph. That hasn’t, indeed can’t, be taken away from me.

“Joseph Smith was betrayed and killed as a result of steps taken by church members. True enough it was a mob of Carthage Greys who shot him. But he would not have been in a position to be shot if it had not been for the betrayal by church members. When we (meaning church members) caused or contributed to his death, we offended heaven in a way that required three and four generations to pass before we receive another opportunity from the Lord. With the recent passing of Eldred G. Smith, we have a milestone representing the end of those required generational passings. Now is the first time it is possible for the Lord to recommence the restoration. But it won’t commence again without us knowing what we lack. Conceit and arrogance will never redeem us from our fallen state. But contrition and repentance might. Passing the Heavenly Gift is intended to inspire those who are downfallen in their faith, and to help those who are prepared to hear it, that we (all of us, including me) are in a fallen state from which we must awake and arise.”

So, in Denver’s worldview, members’ actions led to Joseph Smith’s murder and God decided to punish the church three and four generations, and only recently has the fourth generation died off. So now, conveniently for Denver, the Lord is ready to give us new light, missing for over 150 years, thanks to those silly members causing Joseph’s death.

fascinating, to say the least.

But WAAAAAY off!

If anyone should be blamed for Joseph’s murder, aside obviously from the actual murderers, is Joseph himself! Did someone hold a gun to Joseph’s head and say, “i want you to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor printing press.” No. He did that. As mayor. And why? Because they printed that Joseph had multiple wives. Well, whose fault was that? Joseph’s of course. Did someone point a gun to Joseph’s head and said, “you must take more women in your life as wives.” No. He chose of his own free will to get sexually involved with Fanny Alger. No one forced him into it.

Joseph had only himself to blame for his own death, if we’re to blame anyone outside the actual murderers. It’s pretty damn arrogant and unrighteous to claim that church members for over 150 years lost out on the blessings from God because of the murder of Joseph Smith. Seriously, this guy should not be taken seriously by anyone. He’s a fraud. And that’s all I’ll say about him.

Seth, cool it.
I think it is pretty much accepted historical fact that destroying the press – seen from the outside as an attack on freedom – did nothing to allay the concerns of the surrounding non-member communities already seriously concerned by Mormon politicking, quite the reverse. And it isn’t like the environment wasn’t trigger-happy, when compared with today.

In all fairness Hedghog – it’s quite possible from your comments that you do not share Daniel’s view that Joseph “had it coming.”

I certainly hope that is the case anyway.

well beyond crabby, I’d say…..

SteveF:

So were those who excommunicated Denver “pretending to be God“? What makes you believe that they had all the information?

SteveF

To assume they acted unrighteously or with unrighteous dominion is just that, an assumption, and an assumption that presumes to condemn others’ actions at that.

But it’s a safe assumption — is it not? Don’t the scriptures say that the numbers are on the side of presuming “unrighteous dominion”/”ecclesiastical abuse” until it’s proven otherwise?

we have learned by sad experience
that it is the nature and disposition
of almost all men
as soon as they get a little authority
as they suppose
they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion

or

Now it is not common
that the voice of the people [the larger portion of the congregation, i.e. members] desireth anything contrary
to that which is right
but it is common
for the lesser part of the people [the smaller portion of the congregation, i.e. leaders] to desire that which is not right
therefore
this shall ye observe and make it your law
to do your business by the voice of the people

In re: to

Do you deny that excommunication is a true principle found throughout the scriptures?

No — excommunication is a true principle of the gospel, one which must be performed on all those church members who do not repent of their sins after they have been admonished against them. Following this commandment keeps those who are in charge of regulating the church justified before God — and also keeps the congregations safer from the effects of false teachings and bad examples.

Do you deny that the keys pertaining to judgment were given to the Church as outlined in the D&C?

I’ll say that the leadership hold the keys to administer church discipline because they have been properly sustained by membership vote to hold their positions — but it is demonstrably obvious that the scriptural patterns for church discipline/excommunication are no longer precisely followed by them [which, since they hold the keys, it is entirely their prerogative to administer church justice either according to the scriptural patterns or according to doctrines/philosophies of man] — which is something that makes it easy for members [like us] to make a claim like

Denver’s case was completely unnecessary and unjustified excommunication

with reasonable confidence.

See this post for detail — but in short, the elder’s council is completely done away with [instead, the high council now tries men of the church who have the Melchizedek priesthood, and the bishopric tries everyone else, for membership], nothing outside of transgressions are brought to trial anymore [you can’t take a property dispute to the church courts and receive a judgment, e.g. — instead, everyone is told to settle the matter amongst themselves or use the state court system], the checks and balances that were present in the three-court pattern have been removed and power has been concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, many of the rights guaranteed to all the members have been weakened or altogether removed.

If we compare the scripturally-revealed pattern of church courts with today’s current practice, it can plainly be seen that today’s practice and procedures effectively remove the justice that was inherent in the original pattern — or in other words, the current church court system is no longer based upon just principles but is corrupted by forms of injustice.

We should not pretend to know something that we have no right of knowing, or to cast judgment were we have no right of judgment. Let those given stewardship act within their allotted spheres, and then let God retain final judgment.

According to the Lord — it is the jurisdiction of His saints to have the first and final word, judging both the nations of the earth and also Zion.

behold
I
the Lord
have made my church in these last days
like unto a judge sitting on a hill
or in a high place
to judge the nations
for it shall come to pass
that the inhabitants of Zion
shall judge all things pertaining to Zion
and liars and hypocrites shall be proved by them
and they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known
and even the bishop
who is a judge
and his counselors
if they are not faithful in their stewardships
shall be condemned
and others shall be planted in their stead

The membership are given free reign to judge all things, both inside and outside the church, including all the leaders from the top [apostles and prophets] to the bottom [bishops and their counselors]. The word of two or more saints against any man, woman or child of age in this church is sufficient to condemn that person of wrong-doing, regardless of his or her office, title, or supposed authority.

“it is entirely their prerogative to administer church justice either according to the scriptural patterns or according to doctrines/philosophies of man”

You forgot “or according to further light and knowledge received by those in authority”. The Church’s structure and procedures continued to develop and change through Joseph Smith’s lifetime, is it then impossible that God would continue this development by revelation thereafter?

I’ve previously read the post you linked to, and I find it ironic that you use the things in that article to justify believing “Denver’s case was completely unnecessary and unjustified excommunication”. The primary and beginning point was to outline the doctrines of unity and dissent, and that dissent and particularly repeated dissent is indeed a sin–that if the person will not acknowledge this wrongful dissent/sin and repent, then excommunication is the proper order of things. If you trust the article’s conclusions, then I don’t know how you come to any other conclusion than that Denver’s excommunication was both necessary and justified. You might argue that some of the old church court systems in the D&C appear to offer benefits that may not exist in today’s systems if you trust what is written later in the post, but even then, again why would you assume that subsequent prophets have not received further light and knowledge on the subject outlining how procedures are done today?

And finally, if you truly believe (and/or MH truly believes) that the Stake President and those on his high council have abused their authority in unrighteous dominion, it is not proper to go spouting that about publicly, rather you should first go to the person who has done wrong/offended righteous principles and do something about it. If you believe your conclusions are justified, then go and first consult with and if necessary then seek a church court against the Stake President and his councilors, or if higher authorities were also involved in this abuse, try to consult them first, and if you are not reconciled and believe they are still in error, bring a church court against them as well. If you believe what has been done is unjust, then you will not be blameless standing by and watching it happen without doing anything about it. So go and try to be reconciled with thy brothers first, and seek a church court if necessary – but do not try to publicly proclaim judgment heaping condemnation upon your brothers when you have not done or even attempted these things first.

“why does it make sense to you that Joseph continued to develop and change structure and procedures through canonized revelations, but then we continue this development through publishing new editions of accepted policy documents?”

I probably don’t know the full answer, but as time went on after initial foundational principles were laid Joseph started pushing for policy and procedure to be decided and implemented by head councils that he had given keys to, while canonized revelation faded from being the primary source of policy being only necessary when there was some sort of impasse, but even so these were not always canonized (although many of Joseph’s were after his death). Joseph delegated keys to the councils that they would become “a living constitution” to the church or to the organizations they oversaw.

Are you being sarcastic with the flight thing? I don’t understand. If you saw injustice, why wouldn’t you be willing to do something about it? If it’s not important enough to do anything about, then why feel the need to publicly criticize the situation?

I have no issue with discussing, offering opinions, and asking questions (I appreciate when you add caveats like “seemingly” and “in my observation”). But publicly criticizing those who hold authority has no place in Church as a believing member. See this post and many of the subsequent comments: http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2013/09/youre-not-a-liahona-youre-a-lamanlemuel/3368/

MH, if it is opinion, nobody is forcing you to state it as fact. It’s not a waste of space because the meaning is actually not the same. So if you mean one thing, you should say it, rather then expecting the reader to understand that you mean something else altogether.

“But I think the SCMC is putting unrighteous pressure on the SP…I do believe the SP is being coerced.” Those are serious accusations towards a committee you say is composed partly of apostles and other general authorities. As far as I can tell, you have no evidence, just negative assumptions. But if you are genuinely concerned and truly believe this, what are you going to do about it? Seriously, if I believed this, I wouldn’t just sit around accusing and complaining and trying to make others look bad based on what I believe are probable assumptions, not only because I would think this is not Christlike, but because I would want actual justice in the Church I know is the Lord’s, and I would feel responsible as a member in a position to actually do something or at least make the attempt. So what are you going to do?

You have a Stake President that you have access to, you can start there. I’m guessing you are at least an Elder. Go ahead and claim your right as an Elder, find at least one other Elder in agreement with you (which it seems there are several here you can choose from) and bring your case before the church. Bring forth your evidence and ask your Stake President to get you in contact with those you feel are in error, so that you can discuss in private first, that maybe you can be reconciled first. But if not, or if such a meeting cannot happen, let the Stake President know that you and your fellow Elder(s) ask for a church court against the accused.

The rights are there, you just have to do it.

Oh yeah — I forgot:

When you quote me responding, you should not change the thing I was responding to. I would respond very differently to an opinion on the subject, as opposed to a statement of fact or declaration of truth like “…Snuffer’s completely unnecessary and unjustified excommunication”. They are very different, please don’t pretend they are the same.

You weren’t misquoted. Denver’s excommunication [what MH was talking about when he said unnecessary/unjustified] was about his book [what I was talking about when I said it smells like censorship]. It’s not a leap to connect the two — and your reasoning commits you to the position that for a latter-day saint to make that judgement is tantamount to them “pretending to be God”.

Given the content of the book in question [et al.], it’s quite easy for a member to read the material and come to the conclusion that “the discipline business smells a lot more like censoring a different opinion than protecting the flock from false doctrine” — and therefore, the whole business was “completely unnecessary and unjustified excommunication”.

I believe I already stated that I do not have problems with having personal opinions or personal disagreements. I also do not have a problem with the appeals process outlined in the D&C if you have a concern with a command you have received by those in authority. If you see something you *believe* is out of the way, I also think there is a justifiable and proper order to voice your concerns. Again public judgment or criticism of authority has no place in this order, and this is amply condemned consistently throughout the scriptures. (Again see the post I linked to). Bringing questions or concerns in private to authorities is not a problem in my view. And if you think a leader or member has acted unjustly or unrighteously in their stewardship, you should first try to reconcile the matter in private, and if it is still un-resolvable, you can take the issue to superior authorities and if necessary gather any other members with similar concerns and call for a church court on the matter.

All of this allows for private belief and private opinion, and gives all members the ability to act if they believe injustice is being wrought by those at their head. None of this morally justifies or calls for public criticism of those in authority, nor does it give one stewardship to steady the ark as an individual personally sees fit. I realize Priesthood order can mean a lot of things, but this is the order I was referring to.

I’ve stated my views, you are free to disagree.

I was generous enough to outline exactly what you could do. Is there some reason you are incapable of doing it? Or do you just prefer to be another number joining the long list of critics and accusers of the brethren who are happy to publicly revile, but yet will do nothing about these perceived “injustices” when in comes down to it. Unfortunately telling everyone your house is dirty doesn’t make it any cleaner. You got to do something about it. Lift where you stand.

I didn’t claim to be generous with compliments. I really did try to point you in a direction where you could do something about this. Every time I’ve asked to meet with the Stake President, time has always been made for me. I haven’t ever seen unrighteous dominion to the degree in which it seems you have seen it, so I haven’t had to go as far as you might want to, but I wouldn’t have a problem doing it if I truly believed in my evidence and cause. To me I feel like we’re all on the same side with our leaders; I don’t feel like there is some sort of “they” against an “us”. Maybe you would also agree with that.

I think it is too bad that we’ve had our first conversation on this subject that has been so divisive. I think we disagree on an important point, which is why I think the conversation has gone on so long. But I’m guessing there is probably a whole lot more that we agree on than disagree. I’ll let this conversation rest now.

I don’t think you believe that’s what I mean, so why ask?

I’m not sure why my personal behavior should limit you in any way. You are the one that believes authorities are exercising unrighteous dominion. Don’t deceive yourself into believing you are incapable of doing something about this. If you have actually attempted in every way you can think of, and still no traction, then you have something to say. But if you have not even attempted to fight for justice, don’t hide under a cloak of feigned impossibility. If you believe your cause is just, I trust you can find a way.

I am not going to be able to give you all the answers. I think your right though, because I don’t view the system as having the same flaws you do, I believe I do feel more confident in the system than you do – and so I would be willing to work within it if I saw an issue arise. Whereas you feel the system is broken, and so why try to work within the system when it doesn’t work and therefore won’t get you anywhere. I guess I understand that logic. However, I don’t think you can ever know for sure unless you try. I don’t know enough about those other situations to offer an informed opinion.

It sounds like your main beef is with the SCMC, and maybe you know things there that I don’t. I have still yet to see sound evidence provided for this “unrighteous dominion”. But as for Denver Snuffer specifically, I don’t know why you wish to defend him when he wasn’t even willing to go into the disciplinary council to defend himself. Sure he is publicly defensive, but it is clear he didn’t value his membership enough to defend himself where it really mattered. If it were me, I would fight tooth and nail to retain my membership all the way to the top, until I could go no further. And if still, the decision was not on my side, I would submit to the final decisions of the councils and would make sure I retained or could regain as quickly as is possible, my membership in the church. You have to admit, that if Denver really desired to keep his membership above all else, he could have easily done so. He was stubborn, would not admit to his dissent (which dissent was that he would not stop the “continued publishing of PTHG” as he was directed to by those in authority), and forced the church’s hand. Read the ldsanarchy link Justin provided, there was nothing else the Church could do here once he acted in open defiance. Why defend a man that refuses to defend himself? Why assume some sort of big brother conspiracy, when it is a fact that Denver would not obey the council of his leaders? The act of apostasy was that he was in open rebellion to those in authority, *continued* to do the things he was told not to do, and never repented of this dissension. Since this was the charge, and it is an open fact that this charge has proved true, why assume it was the leaders who were unjustified?

Maybe you have some sort of deeper issues with the SCMC, but I really don’t think you have grounds to stand on in this specific case.

I guess I don’t find it as important to defend one’s membership in the Roman empire as to defend one’s membership in the Kingdom of God that holds divinely approved heavenly keys that are binding in the hereafter.

I don’t believe Jesus’ charges were proved objectively true. But even so, I don’t know of any commandment that we are to be one or in full unity with earthly governments, as we are commanded to be in the church.

I think you may have missed it, I said on those two I don’t know enough information to give an informed opinion.

Yes, I believe that Jesus’ situation is entirely different. The Church at the time was in need of a new dispensation, and Jesus had received higher authority from God to start his ministry and open this new dispensation.

As far as I am aware, Denver has made no claims to heavenly authority to begin a new dispensation. Additionally, I do not believe the Church is in apostasy, and do not believe we are need of a new dispensation. Right now, the Church holds binding heavenly authority, and there is nothing on earth that trumps it.

Seth/MH just to respond, and totally off-topic sorry – I don’t think Joseph had it coming/was asking for it. I just thought Seth’s response (insulting the entire ex-mormon community, to which I do not belong) rather over the top. It wasn’t as though Dan’s opinion had no historical basis. I don’t think that just because press-smashing was more common makes it less inflamatory, and it looks to me that people were more inclined to act on their passions. It’s easy to be dispassionate from a distance. Just so you know where I stand.

Hedgehog, don’t worry – I jumped to conclusions in your case. Thanks for your explanation.

“Does the church NEED to officially distance itself from the Denver Snuffers of the world to protect the flock? ”

Hawkgrrl, I think you are implying that your answer to this question is no. Perhaps you have it right in that his 15 minutes of fame will come and go and not responding any more than the church hasn’t responded to the musical “The Book of Mormon” would be the best avenue.

I would wonder, however, to what level of office would you think someone would need to rise before the flock needs to be protected controversial views/authorship by distancing. I would think this should extend beyond general authorities. Does Brother Snuffer’s book cover suggest that he is a member in good standing? I think of the Elder on ‘God’s Army’ who was reading the “anti” book. He lost faith and left his mission because he latched onto that information without the context. (Yes it was a movie, but many of us can report of similar circumstances). I assume a similar experience could happen to a missionary reading PTHG. Perhaps the distancing could be enough to protect that one missionary from believing he could justify reading it (even though it wouldn’t be on the approved reading list) and perhaps the distancing would be enough that by not reading it, he wouldn’t become disillusioned with his mission by receiving that information in a setting that doesn’t provide much opportunity for context.

There is a difference, a big difference. Denver has a body of work (Books, blog, talks, etc) which is out in the public domain from which people can render a personal judgement about whether he is apostate or not. Any speculation about what went on behind closed doors with the “Brethren” is just that, speculation. You have no body of evidence from which to render any conclusion.

This comment seems to be a commonly described element in the Amazon reviews of PTHG:

Denver’s main assumption is that the “fullness of the priesthood” may not have been transferred to Brigham Young due to the Nauvoo Temple not being completed, prior to the death of Joseph Smith. As stated in revelation, this act, caused the church to not only be under condemnation, but be rejected as a whole. This would have caused the sealing powers to be lost from this dispensation until some latter time.

Sure, I’m in for the book club. Rigel and Jeff, would you like to collaborate on a post? My copy is on the way and is supposed to arrive by Sept 17. Of course it will take some time to read. Anyone else interested in collaborating on a book review?

Rigel, it is my understanding that Snuffer appreciates the temple ordinances we have. I’d be surprised to hear him say that the sealing powers were lost, because it seems to me he believes strongly in temple ordinances. I wonder if that is someone’s (mis)interpretation. I know on his blog he stated that many misinterpret what he says.

I enjoyed this piece from a more recent entry:

“Remember that in all the diversity and wonder of nature there is very little that is identical. Each one of us is unique for a reason. Your unique existence is a reflection of God’s great liberty given to us all. There is no uniformity of thought. We ought to exchange ideas, never try to control the thinking of others. Let everyone believe as they may. If you have a better idea, articulate it and persuade others. But never think your view alone ought to rule everyone else’s thinking. God doesn’t do that. He persuades. He invites. He entices. Gently. Lovingly. Patiently. So stop acting like you shouldn’t be bound by the same constraints. ”

I hope in their wisdom and discernment it was part of The Brethrens’ plan to give Snuffer’s views a wider platform ’cause that seems to be the effect.

No, I don’t think so Daniel.

I don’t think Joseph even saw himself as having done something all that outrageous. And given the historical context, I don’t even see it as particularly outrageous either. I don’t think Joseph would have left Nauvoo to languish in jail over the Expositor at all.

You seriously think he decided to go to jail out of some sense of personal guilt? Really?

That’s not even consistent with the character of the man as YOU’VE tried to portray him. Neither is it consistent with the picture I’ve derived of him.

Joseph went to jail for one reason as far as I’m concerned. To prevent another Far West. To prevent another wholesale bloodbath that was inexorably closing around on his people yet again – and closing in on them for reasons that went far, FAR beyond the destruction of an anti-Mormon fan magazine.

And your statement of “he had only himself to blame” is exactly the sort of outrageous statement I was talking about earlier Daniel. It’s pathetic how resentment and hatred among the ex-Mormon crowd make the grossest sort of bigotry fashionable and acceptable. I’d call upon your conscience to recognize this if I thought it would matter to you.

Unfortunately, I suspect you’ve been feasting on your own bitterness for too long to recognize any longer how filthy it tastes.

damn….who is bitter Seth? It’s certainly not me.

FYI, I’m the Young Men’s President and I teach Youth Sunday School. Not only that, but I rent out my tenant unit to the church so that church is IN MY OWN FREAKING HOUSE, you freaking idiot.

Bruce R. McConkies’s Calvinistic fixation on the world defined in chapter and verse of his own writing– is alive and well in this pattern of excommunications. General Authorities acting like they are the artbiters of all truth suggests their lack of understanding of the gospel and its possibilities that Joseph Smith restored. In this they are not following the example of Joseph nor that landmark of modern prophethood, David O. McKay. To the extent Church leadership behaves like the Catholic Magisterium we come to better understand the Catholic Magisterium.

Denver never said that. Why are you making things up?