Sunday, September 15, 2013

The Denver Snuffer Debacle

Imagine you're on the Board of Directors of a major U.S. corporation -let's say Kentucky Fried Chicken, just for the sake of this analogy. Although yours was once among the fastest growing restaurants in the country, growth is now stagnant. Not only are you failing to attract new business, you're losing your most loyal customers by the tens of thousands every year. So you do what any large corporation would do. You tweak the brand. You add crispy chicken to the menu. Then Hot & Spicy Chicken, and finally Boneless Chicken. You add new desserts and open more stores around the world.

What you find most alarming is that customers who couldn't get enough of your product in the 1950s and 60s have simply stopped showing up at your restaurants. They talk fondly of childhood visits to Kentucky Fried Chicken as having been an important focus of family life growing up, but the magic just isn't there for them anymore. What's worse, quite a number of former customers make a lot of noise about their dissatisfaction with your product, which isn't helping. The company goes into full damage control mode on the internet to try and salvage the brand's image.

In the middle of all this trouble, you hear about one of your employees out of Idaho. He is not a member of top management, just a nobody from the hinterlands; but this guy is saying things that are resonating with your customers. It's true, he tells them, their suspicions are correct.  Kentucky Fried Chicken has been going downhill ever since the death of Colonel Sanders. But his message to your customers is one of optimism: Don't Despair. Stay with the brand.  Management may have made some goofball mistakes over the years, but managers are only human and those mistakes can be corrected. The good news is that Original Recipe Chicken is still available if you look for it.

As a member of the board of directors, what do you about this employee? Well you fire him, of course.

Flubbing The Heavenly Chance
At a time when the information highway has exposed the LDS Church to a great deal of criticism (some of it warranted), God dropped a gift right into the laps of the befuddled leaders which they promptly rejected like it was a hot potato.  That gift came in the form of an unassuming man named Denver Snuffer, whose most salient quality is his testimony of Jesus Christ and the Restoration. Brother Snuffer maintains a blog and has written several books about Mormonism. His writings have persuaded a sizable number of disaffected Mormons to stay in the faith. He reminds his readers that the core fundamentals of this religion are true and valid, and that by repenting God will forgive us of our mistakes.

Naturally a heretic like this had to go.

Last week, exactly forty years to the day since he was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Denver Snuffer Jr was excommunicated for the charge of "apostasy," a charge that is leaving many people scratching their heads in bewilderment. If Denver Snuffer is an apostate, then everyone of us who embraces the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations of Joseph Smith must be an apostate, too.  That would shrink the membership rolls of the Church considerably.

Snuffer's sin, you see, is that he wrote a book. That may seem incredible to anyone hearing about this for the very first time, but the letter from Brother Snuffer's stake president is very clear about his book indeed being the reason for the action. Snuffer's stake president told him all he has to do to remain in good standing with the Church is to pull the book from publication and disavow its contents. (I wonder if he thinks it's also possible to gather up all existing copies and have them burned in the public square?)

Excommunication is the most severe punishment this Church can inflict on a member, so I'll bet you're thinking this Snuffer character has written a devastating pack of lies regarding corruption and debauchery within the highest echelons of the LDS hierarchy. That must be why they want to silence him.

But no, it's nothing like that at all. In the final chapter of the book, Snuffer comes to the conclusion of his thesis, and here it is: "Joseph Smith was restoring something different than what we have today." That's a conclusion most us would consider self evident and hardly controversial. This is what Snuffer said recently about his motivation and reasons for writing it:
"I wrote Passing the Heavenly Gift as a reconstruction of the events of this dispensation. The framework was primarily the description in the Book of Mormon of the latter-day Gentile behavior. This includes specifically, the prophecies of Christ in Third Nephi. I also used Joseph Smith's prophecies in the Doctrine and Covenants, his sermons and history. Taking this scriptural framework, (not as an historian but as a believer in the prophetic insight about us) I then tracked through our history. I used a lot of primary sources, including journals and diaries of church leaders. 
"What I found was that the events in our history could be viewed as an exact match for the prophetic warnings given us in scripture (Book of Mormon/D&C). The result was not history, but truth. If the book is true (and I am persuaded it is the most correct account of our dispensation written so far) then we need to awaken to our present peril and repent. If it is not true then we have nothing to worry about; the church is entirely intact, has the fullness, and all is entirely well in Zion. It would be very exciting if Passing the Heavenly Gift is wrong. 
"The trouble is that I don't believe it's wrong. We have very serious issues confronting us, and a great deal of work to complete before we attain unto what the Lord expects of us. 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."
I think what it was that put Snuffer in the doghouse with Church leadership was his assertion that Joseph Smith's successors sometimes made mistakes. This flies in the face of the image the Magisterium is currently attempting to convey: in the true Church, the leaders are incapable of making mistakes, for if the leaders were ever in error, the Church could not be true.  Snuffer, by declaring that yes, general authorities too have things to repent of, has directly confronted Oz The Great And Powerful. He is become Abinadi before the court of King Noah, speaking truths that mere mortals are not permitted to utter.

Doomed To Repeat
I have never been of the opinion that the entire Quorum of the Twelve was behind the ouster of Denver Snuffer from the church.  Despite what some believe about the the operation of the institution at the highest levels, the Church (TM) is not a monolithic entity where all are in agreement with one another on all matters.  Some time after the notorious 1993 excommunications of the September Six, for example, it was revealed that Boyd Packer had been the instigator behind that unfortunate purge, and that other members of the Twelve had serioius misgivings about Packer's actions. Sadly, they made no attempt to rein him in, just as a decade earlier none of Bruce McConkie's colleagues corrected him when he publicly declared that members should not seek a personal relationship with the Savior. Regarding Packer's rogue action, Steve Benson tells of Dallin Oaks admitting to him with a frustrated shrug, "you can't stage manage a grizzly bear."

The blowback from the September Six excommunications had a very negative effect on the image of the LDS Church after it was picked up by the national media and given wide exposure. Many rank and file Mormons were baffled at the action once they learned that every one of those disciplined had been loyal, believing members whose devotion to their religion had heretofore never been questioned. Their crimes seem to have been that they spoke about teachings that had once been commonly held in the church (such as the doctrine of a mother in heaven), and wondered aloud why the modern leadership insisted on suppressing its history.

Joseph Smith himself had objected to anyone being disciplined over their beliefs, but by 1993 the leadership seems to have forgotten his warning.  The backlash of bad publicity the Church experienced  after the September Six fiasco left a lasting impression, as many loyal members began to look critically at the leadership for the first time in their lives. The Magisterium had learned a valuable lesson. It didn't pay to excommunicate a believing member simply because he dissented from the views of the leadership. Such extreme measures tended to hurt the brand.

But it's now been twenty years since the September Six debacle, and memories are short. As George Santayana famously said, those who refuse to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. And this Denver Snuffer affair is poised to come back and bite us all on the butt.

Going after Denver Snuffer is the equivalent of the Holland city fathers coming across the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike and telling him to scram. Our leaders don't like Denver standing there for all to see and hear; he's calling attention to the cracks in the modern structure. But this foolish act of booting him out is just making the situation more obvious. Those who have read Denver's books and heard his testimony will only be more inclined to distance themselves from the corruption they see at the top of the institution. Denver's entire message is that we should be cultivating a testimony of Christ. The Magisterium's mantra appears to be that we should be cultivating a testimony of them. Whether that is their true intent or not, that is the perception. To the outside observer, that is the product they are selling, and the product has some serious, detectable flaws. 

Disobedience Is The First Law Of Church Leadership
For all their preaching to the congregation about obedience, our leaders themselves seem to disobey God whenever it suits them. We know, for instance that when they decided to commit five billion dollars in Church funds toward the building of a lavish shopping center, they deliberately ignored the commandment given in D&C 26:2 and 104:71 where the Lord instructs them that monies placed into His treasury shall “not be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by voice and common consent” of the whole membership.

The leaders seem to have forgotten that church money is held by them in fiduciary trust on behalf of the members to whom that money rightfully belongs. Rather than asking for a simple show of hands, they made an executive decision to spend the money according to their own desires, in violation of God's clear commandments.

In like manner, the leaders of the Church today simply ignore the rules God laid out for them to follow regarding the excommunication of a fellow member. What we do know about the Denver Snuffer debacle is that one member of the Seventy and one member of the Twelve gave the orders to Snuffer's Stake President to move ahead with the decision. This is in violation of the rules initiated by the divine Head of the church in such matters. His law does not permit actions to be initiated from high up in the Church hierarchy.

The scriptures require such actions originate at the local congregation, and only after at least two members of the congregation come forward as witnesses against the accused. In an action involving the stake high council, six members of the council are required to stand as advocates of the accused, and six against. The Stake President is to remain impartial. This almost never happens today as he is usually the guy who brought the action, decides the evidence, prosecutes, judges, and executes the judgement. The scriptures are clear that the Lord designed the procedure precisely to keep all that power out of the hands of one man. Then there's the HUGE problem with the missing Elder's Council which is required, and...

You know what?  There are simply too many violations of God's law taking place in church courts these days today for me to enumerate here. Instead of my laying out the list, I think I'll just recommend you read this recent masterpiece, The Law Against Dissent. Then you can figure out for yourself who the apostates are in this action. The irony is making me too dizzy to continue.

Boogah Boogah!
There is one more aspect of all this that I don't think Church leaders yet realize: Excommunication as a scare tactic just doesn't work anymore. There was a time when the stigma of being excommunicated from the Mormon Church was enough to keep some people from voicing their opinions, but that is no longer true. This is a vestigial consequence of the September Six affair. As people came to realize that these good members had been dealt with unjustly, excommunication came to be seen as a club that was often wielded indiscriminately by bullies, and not necessarily a sign that the excommunicant was wicked, unfaithful, or lacking the spirit. Many of us are acquainted with people who have been ousted from the corporate Church, yet radiate a spirit of godliness far surpassing those holding title and office within the Church who presided over their departures. This difference is noticeable to all.

Since I am not known for showing the proper deference to Church leaders over their pretended "authority," I am often asked if I am afraid of Church discipline. Answer: not one bit.  No one but me has the power to take away my membership in the church of Christ. Jesus himself has removed that authority from the jurisdiction of men (see D&C 10:67-68). If they were to boot me out of their official club, the one organized by corporate charter in 1923 to which none of us are members anyway, I wouldn't even blink.

Let me be clear about something. Although I believe there to be good and just men serving as general authorities in the church today who are doing all in their power to put this ship back on course, the Corporate Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the outfit Denver Snuffer just got booted out of, is not the real church.  That organization is irrelevant to me. It has no effect on my beliefs, and no bearing on my salvation.

If I were excommunicated from that club I would wake up the next morning no different than the day before. I would still have my testimony and my priesthood, my knowledge and my love of the gospel intact. There would be nothing about me that would be different. I would continue to keep this blog as before, writing about what I find to be both pure and impure about modern Mormonism.

By the way, none of this nonsense has had any effect on Denver Snuffer either, as evidenced by what he wrote yesterday regarding these Ten Points.

*****

253 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 253 of 253
Anonymous said...

There are only a very few humble followers of Christ. Keep seeking. You're onto something.

Gary Hunt said...

Log,

Your statement above is ambiguous. Please clarify in what way you are sorry.

Your statement...

“Most of the comments around here, even Rock's, are generally pretty caustic towards the GAs.”

...is not truthful. This is a fact, not a belief. The written record is there for all to see. It is also a fact, not a belief, that you use the Straw Man fallacy. Your comments are based upon a false premise. You have have misrepresented what most of the commentors have said by saying..."Most of the comments around here,..." or that they are "railing" against the general authorities. Then you base your argument upon the false premise you set.

Anonymous said...

When on my mission the people who had the least were the most spiritual and Christ like people I ever met. The poor members were very pleasant to be aound and had such faith. All the wealthy members I have dealt with were aloof, holier than thou, etc. Not all wealthy members are snobs. Do not get me wrong. There are members of every stripe who think that certain church callings/positions means being special/favored. I have had so many bad experiences with members I have actually thought of leaving the church.
Muslims think Christians are crazy for believing that Christ came back from the dead. Catholics literally literally believe that their sacrament (wafers and wine) actually turns into Christ's flesh (wafer) and blood (wine) and that they are literally consuming Christ's body. That is cannabalism. So Mormons beliefs are not that crazy if people would actually do research into other faiths/sects/religions.
Now I have to wonder why D. Snuffer get excommunicated and yet John Dehlin still has his membership. I am not criticising either man. It just shows hypocrisy of the leaders. If Dehlin really is protected by high up friends then there needs to be an outcry of unjust dealings against Snuffer. God is no respector of persons. The Apostles/First Presidency also needs to be no respector of persons. If. Snuffer is exed then Dehlin needs to be exed. Otherwise Snuffer needs to be reinstated. IMHO Dehlin has done much more damage than anything Snuffer has done.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I am indeed following that conversation with enthusiasm, Fusion, and I'm grateful to you for posting those links. (I found it first thing this morning and had intended to comment here, but got distracted with other work.

This discussion between two great minds should prove a lerning experience for all of us. I am currently leaning toward Denver's view regarding the provenance of section 110, but willing to see if the Watcher can persuade me to change my mind.

I took not of your astute comment on that page, as well as those of several other regulars here. If only Sunday School could be this interesting, all participating with informed input. Then maybe church would be a place we could learn something now and then.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Fusion, that should read, "I took NOTE of your astute comment..."

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I don't think either Denver Snuffer or John Dehlin has done any damage to the church. both men have been instrumental in helping others retain their faith.

Log said...

The facts concerning the provenance - "the place of origin or earliest known history of something" - of D&C 110 are as is recounted in PTHG. OWIW posted a link in this thread citing a master's thesis which recounted the same historical facts that Snuffer laid out in PTHG. Therefore, it would be interesting if OWIW were to assert Snuffer has the facts wrong.

In PTHG, all Snuffer did was lay out the facts, without drawing any conclusions.

In fact, I believe OWIW agrees to the facts as Snuffer has laid them out, since he cited approvingly that thesis which said the same thing (only Snuffer did not make the pro forma faith-based claims that D&C 110 is authentic, &c., in PTHG, as the thesis author did), and has nothing to contribute to the issue of the provenance of D&C 110.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Snuffer has convinced me that the current church leaders are just corporate directors with no gifts. If Dr. Snuffer is not good enough for them, then neither am I because I am not as holy as him. Very few are. Excommunication is the narrow righteous path, and few their be that find it.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous
1. So I Married an Axe Murderer
2. ...makes you crave it fortnightly... as in: every two weeks
3. You're welcome

Log said...

I don't believe the statement is ambiguous at all - I am sorry that you believe I have committed fallacies or spoken in any manner less than truthfully.

If you really wish to disprove my statement, comb through the blog, collecting each and every post and every comment which references the GAs or their decisions, even obliquely. Keep two running counters - call one "caustic", and the other "non-caustic" and for each of those comments which criticizes the GAs, their decisions, or uses negative value-laden words to refer to them, add one to the "caustic" counter. Each of these comments which does neither of those, add one to the "non-caustic" counter. At the end of the examination, if the "caustic" counter does not exceed the "non-caustic" counter, I will admit that my impression, that "most of the comments around here, even Rock's, are generally pretty caustic towards the GAs," was mistaken.

But I'm pretty confident in my impression, and I'm not interested in contention.

Thomas said...

Is a critical statement or negative statement regarding a General Authority always a caustic statement?

Is a critical statement or negative statement regarding a non-General Authority always a caustic statement?

Possibly some of the critical or negative statements could be in the "non-caustic" counter.

Log said...

Is a critical statement or negative statement regarding a General Authority always a caustic statement?

Among Mormons, who are forbidden to judge nor revile, I say yes - I cannot imagine a celestial kingdom where there is hardness of heart or backbiting.

I'm sure others would fain disagree.

Alas, it won't be until the Lord shall bring again Zion that the watchmen shall see eye-to-eye.

Thomas said...

Okay thank you. And the same answer regarding a critical statement or negative statement regarding a non-General Authority?

Log said...

Yes.

me said...

I hope I'm okay quoting Denver Snuffer here, as I think this might address the caustic comment debate.

"[Now, as a complete aside, I want to address the misapplication and overreaching misinterpretation of the idea one is "evil speaking" when a person explains something that concerns them. First, we are dealing with the souls of men. We are addressing salvation itself. If there is an error in doctrine or practice, everyone has an obligation to speak up, from the least to the greatest. (D&C 20: 42, 46-47, 50-51, 59, among other places.) Second, the "truth" cannot ever be "evil." Though the truth may cut with a two edged sword, truth is not and cannot be "evil." Therefore, if someone should say something that is untrue or in error, then correct their doctrine, show the error, but do not claim what is good to be evil, nor support what is evil by calling it good. (2 Ne. 15: 20.) Using a broad generalization to stifle a discussion of the truth is a trick of the devil, who is an enemy to your soul. It is not the way of our Lord. He was always open to questions, always willing to answer questions, ever willing to speak the truth even when it caused those with authority over Him to be pained by His words. We must follow Him, and not men, in that example. Even if we would personally prefer to not endure insults but remain silent. So, rather than condemn something as "evil speaking" that you believe to be wrong, explain the error and bring us all into greater understanding. But if something is true, then even if it disturbs your peace of mind, it cannot be evil.]"

Steve said...

After attending the 1st 3 talks, I appreciate his emphasis on doctrine and his attempts to redirect our attention from him to the Lord and the scriptures. When was the last time you heard substantial (2+ hours) talks on the coming Zion, Faith (with emphasis on the Lectures on Faith) and Repentance (as a function of gaining light and truth not concentrating on what you want to avoid)? Refreshing as a breath of fresh air.

Leonard R said...

The movie was "So I Married an Axe Murderer".

Great article.

LDSDPer said...

*sigh*

Not everyone is supposed to study the same things, learn the same languages, develop the same gifts--

and yet there is very much a herd mentality on these things in the church--

This is what I am meaning--

Not everything applies to everyone. Even the Word of Wisdom makes this clear--

it was written for both the weak and the strong; not everyone has the same issues--and some can handle what others cannot.

Not everyone is intended to serve a mission; not everyone is meant to marry at exactly the same time, and, for those who are still LDS, not everyone will marry in the temple, etc., etc.--

These are the things about which I am writing--

some people should study politics; others should focus more on gardening; it is impossible for any one human being to do it all, and each person has talents and strengths and weaknesses; finding one's own mission is an important thing to do --

LDSDPer said...

continuing--

some people study music; some people study science; it would be a shame if everyone were 'forced' to do the same things--

a true shame, and yet that often happens, inadvertently, when people get caught up in culture and do not seek personal guidance from the Holy Ghost--

LDSDPer said...

I read part of that--

the one who is watching blog--

Not sure what to think--

I can understand a person who doesn't want to be adamant about the truth or error of a particular 'thing'--

because human beings can only focus on so many things at a time--

I would never travel around and lecture, and I have my questions about the validity of anyone doing that--

but just because someone isn't sure about a doctrine--

doesn't mean he/she is good or bad--

I am undecided about many things--

Ha, I find myself agreeing with Elder Holland on this one thing--

concentrate on what you do believe--

I know what I do believe, and I focus on that--

I find myself running into corners in my mind just trying to get all my prayer needs covered--

!

I don't want to take 'sides'--

Not sure there are sides--

but I have to agree with what Denver said on his most current blog--

church leaders telling people not to go to Denver are only making things worse, maybe--

unless people are really that obedient--

Goodness; I live in a part of the country that simply doesn't have enough members for anyone to listen to anyone LDS talk about anything!!!

LOL!

Toni said...

"I'm lacking an example of true servants of the Lord railing against anyone." Elijah, mocking the priests when their god failed to light their offerings on fire.

Toni said...

No. Denver Snuffer is not a nutjob. That's what makes him so different from so many others.

LDSDPer said...

What did Joseph Smith do when he silenced the vulgar and obscene guards in the prison?

Anonymous said...

This post, particularly the paragraph starting with "Let me be clear", are apostasy, pure and simple. Anyone that believes that paragraph AND has a Temple recommend has lied to get in the Temple. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve aren't just board members for a corporation, they are Prophets, Seers, and Revelators in every way, as much as any one else in history has ever been. To believe otherwise and hold a Temple recommend puts you on the high road to apostasy, and either you will remove yourself from the church, or you will be removed when the cleansing occurs.

me said...

To help balance the scale of opinion, I for one, say, "Amen" to that paragraph.
And if that means lying to be able to get a temple recommend then maybe there is something wrong with the licensure of getting 'into' the temple.
Maybe you 'anonymous' ought to look up the definitions of those words, prophets, seers, and revelators, and see if those men really qualify.
And I hope you are right about removing or be removed when the cleansing occurs, cause I wanna be as far away from the cleansing as possible! :)

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't want to be in the Church when the cleansing starts and found supporting all the evils the Church promotes.

LDSDPer said...

@anonymous 1:01--

"high road" and "cleansing"--

you sound elated over the possibility that others may be in error--

and be "removed"--




what is all this talk of "cleansing" anyway (me and 8:58 as well)

in the scriptures "cleanse" or "cleansing" refers to healing or the atonement--
or going from mortality to immortality; it is not being used as a synonym for punishment--

so, where is this coming from? I am afraid those who are using the word in this context are not reading the scriptures--

I am reminded of ethnic cleansing, which is a horrible way of saying "genocide"--

if you remain standing while others are destroyed, are you going to stand on the sideline and cheer?

*appalled*



Log said...

51 ¶And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,

52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.

53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.

54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.
And they went to another village.

me said...

My sincerest apologies LDSDPer for my comment about 'cleansing'. It was said tongue-in-cheek. 'If' there is going to be one such cleansing, then I was referring to the fact that it would be within, not kicking out.

And of course, if those who remain, stand and cheer... well, that just doesn't make any sense, does it.

LDSPer said...

Thank you, "me"--

:)

You don't owe *me* an apology, of course; I realize there are people in the church who are very spiritually darwinstic, or, perhaps socially/organizationally darwinistic--

those who say the 'proper' things are 'in'; those who do not are 'out'--

Christlike people will mourn the destruction of even the vilest of sinners, and people who question organizations are not, in doing that, the vilest of sinners--

Thank you--

And, Log--

indeed!

Greg S said...

The leaders tell us to vote and participate in the political process. They tell us it is our duty. So the scriptures teach me not to steal, lie, covet or murder.
And the government, no matter who is 'voted' in to power, does all those things. And it is based on force which is the opposite of what Jesus taught and modeled.
So the church leaders are telling me I need to vote to be ruled(loss of agency) vote to rob others(taxation) Vote to kill others(war on drugs, terrorism, poverty, etc.) and support lying and coveting.
I don't get it.

Anonymous said...

John Dehlin openly says he no longer believes there is a God, openly questions Joseph Smith being a true Prophet, questions veracity of BofM, and there is so much more he criticizes about the church and past and present leaders. Yet he still has his membership. Not Right! If D. Snuffer gets exed then so should Dehlin. God is no respector of persons and so the Brethren should not be respectors of persons. We should write letters to the COB and complain of their inconsistent policies regarding excommunication. And how it was done wrong to Snuffer at that. Anonymous letters of course.
Boots

LDSDPer said...

Who is John Dehlin?

Anonymous said...

If one questions the church leadership enough to write such letters, why would they care to keep following those leaders and stay in the Church?.

The 1st thing prophets have to do is 'prove' they are true prophets by their actions & words.(and love). If they can't prove such, then no one should put any faith or trust in them, let alone to care who they ex & who they don't.

If they are false prophets it all makes no difference anyway, it's a false church with no authority to lead or save or damn anyone.

You either believe God leads this Church and doesn't need anyone's help or advice, OR, the leaders are imposters who make all kinds of constant mistakes & teach all manner of falsehoods. I believe the later.

LDSDPer said...

oh. Thanks, Log.

Anonymous said...

Fusion, thanks for the link. I am reading his posts right now.

Fusion said...

haha! Thanks Rock

Fusion said...

No worries.

I enjoy what the Watcher/Onewhoiswatching brings out in his blog- most of it simply cannot be found in one location on any other blog. It's deep but worth it, especially the nuggets of historical documentation that he lines up with scriptures. Enjoy!

LDSDPer said...

I find this spiritual/intellectual/historical 'debate' to be really unique, considering that probably 75% or more of LDS don't even know it is going on--

and that is another debate or non-debate:

the world of Mormon blogs versus the world of Gospel Doctrine classes in which everyone already knows all the answers--

and most class members just read the scriptures (if they read them) that are found in the lesson manual--

two very different worlds--

I, too, find the work of one who is watching to be almost overwhelming in its detail--


Log said...

And, to imagine, if I hadn't said someone who tries to review a book he hasn't read is acting as a fool...

Log said...

LDSDPer,

Spektator put your comment up at Just and True. I saw nothing to add or detract, so I didn't respond.

There is always a sorting event, I think, going on in any generation. The Mark Hoffman forgeries were one such event. The tempest-in-a-teapot which was the "BoM / DNA" controversy was another.

LDSDPer said...

Log,
I never paid much attention to those; they were media events; sure, there was deception, but--

I take the scripture (paraphrasing) about even the very elect being deceived to be literal; we're all deceived, even in little things--the air around us is filled with deception--no human can cover it all--

the important thing is to choose Jesus Christ and to follow Him, and if/when we do that we can find common ground and don't have to get caught up in battles--

so I believe, but I didn't believe that ten years ago, and I had a change of heart, and that is what I now believe; everyone comes to whatever point he/she needs at whatever time he/she is ready--

You are right; I wouldn't try to review Denver Snuffer's book; I've never been interested in reading his books, but I feel very badly about how he was treated; I don't like the black listing--

and yet that is just how I feel; what happened with him is not really my business; I just feel vulnerable (my husband and I and our children), because we're not BYU Education Week/EFY Mormons--

we are very involved in other things--

must get back to work now--

LDSDPer said...

Rock, the 'load more' isn't working, and I hope you and Connie are all right--

sometimes I think that the people who read your blog are too demanding; *we* don't expect you to write all the time--

*we* just enjoy what you have to say, but the welfare of your family is more important to us than whether or not this site 'works'--

I hope all is well--

you are being prayed for; please give Connie some cyber hugs--

LDSDPer said...

it's working now--

sorry--

don't worry--

Alan Rock Waterman said...

LDS DPer,
The Load More function always gives me fits. Sometimes it helps to reboot, then use a different browser.

If anyone has asked me a specific question and doesn't get an answer, most likely it's cause I couldn't get in because the page wouldn't load.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Cyberhugs delivered. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Those in the Mormon church need to realize that Brighan young had no authority He lost his authority and was in apostacy at the time they murdered Joseph Smith Jr. Joseph Smith Jr. Was in the process of filing slander suits on all that said he practiced polygamy. He said he didnt believe in polygamy. He said it was aduldrey.yet Mormons call him a liar. Joseph Smith III WROTE HIS AUTOBIO. READ IT. THE III

Anonymous said...

Before assessing Mr. Snuffer, I would recommend reading Gregory Smith on the Interpreter website, who has has just completed a two part commentary on Passing the Heavenly Gift, and Mr. Snuffer does not fair well. A good attorney should always try to understand the position he is arguing against, and if Greg is correct, Denver has failed to do this or argue persuasively. Embarrassing himself might be putting it too mildly. Denver is a caricature of a true martyr and not the prophet crying in the wilderness that he and some others might suppose. Fred

kj said...

There are still many fourth generations still living though,and a couple of third. My father is a great grandson of Joseph and Emma And I know of several others. Were you speaking primarily of those on leadership who are third or fourth generation?

SEO Moz said...

Makemylove.com, India's leading matrimonial portal site strive hard to provide you the perfect match with a touch of tradition from a wide array of community, caste, city and much more for the global Indian community you can find your life partner with help of makemylove
matrimonials sites indiaUS Matrimony Sites












Alan Rock Waterman said...

Anybody interested in finding a bride in India?

Yeah, me neither. Take a hike, Spammer!

Arch Stanton said...

I've never read any of Snuffer's stuff and honestly hadn't even heard of him until news of his excommunication hit the presses. Now that I've heard of him I really can't find much to disagree with. And his excommunication seems to do nothing bur prove his words. I may have to get a copy of his book (or books) and give them a read. From what people are saying though, and from what little I've been able to gather from Nuffer's web site, Rock seems to have hit the nail on the head. I do not in any way see how Snuffer was engaged in apostasy or otherwise usurping the priesthood organization and leading members astray. From what I can tell Snuffer only said the same things lots of other members, including myself, have been saying for a while, except he did it a little more eloquently and drew attention to himself, too much attention. What I really don't understand though is how this action is to be reconciled with the recent essay that the church released on Blacks and the Priesthood. Is the church not now openly acknowledging the fallibility of the leadership? Or are they only acknowledging the fallibility of Brigham Young? LOL. The essay isn't very direct, but if they are disavowing the theories and policies put forth by these past leaders, that sure seems like a tacit acknowledgement of fallibility to me. And if they were fallible then, what has changed that they aren't just as fallible now? In which case, what did Snuffer say that is even wrong?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

It is indeed a puzzle, Arch, that not long after ex-ing Denver for calling into question the infallibility of the leadership, the Church's official website would do just that.

I think what really got under the Magisteriums's skin, and the reason they ordered him to recall his book, "Passing the Heavenly Gift," was that the book called into question whether the Brethren actually had the keys of authority they claim.

Somewhere around page 76 or thereabout, I recall Denver quoting Wilford Woodruff saying at the time of the succession crisis that most of the Twleve had no idea what keys they held or what they were for. That's a bombshell, considering the current claim to authority is all Magisterium has to hold onto.

That's why, I think, Denver's testimony of Christ and the restored gospel meant nothing to those who opposed him. What is most important to LDS, Inc today is that all members in good standing have a testimony of the authority of those over them.

Denver Snuffer didn't have that testimony (neither do I) and though he remains a member in good standing of the Church of Jesus Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Incorporated found him a liability.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 253 of 253   Newer› Newest»