Revision as of 13:40, 19 September 2014

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

What happens when a member criticizes Church leaders?

Questions

Once critic of the Church, Denver Snuffer, told his stake president and the First Presidency::

I was shown a section of the Church Handbook of Instructions that mandated discipline for criticizing the church’s leaders. I explained I hadn’t done that. I quoted from past church leaders’ diaries, journals, talks, letters or writings. But I did not criticize.^[2]:42

Answer

Snuffer's account is not accurate. He has repeatedly criticized and attacked Church leaders.

Snuffer claims that his stake president agree with this after he 'explained' it to him:

I denied this accusation and after giving the explanation President Hunt agreed.^[2]

However, his stake president seems to see the matter very differently, as revealed in a letter he wrote to Snuffer which Snuffer made public:

you [Denver Snuffer] have mischaracterized doctrine, denigrated virtually every prophet since Joseph Smith, and placed the church in a negative light....^[3]

Snuffer reports that:

I asserted [to the stake president] that if he believed I was really "apostate" he would never have stood down. For that reason it was him merely following commands from higher up, and not a local matter.^[4]

Yet, the Stake President clearly did not agree with this view:

[A]s you know, a stake disciplinary council was held on your behalf on September 8, 2013. The council's conclusion was that several of the claims that you make in Passing the Heavenly Gift constitute clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church and its leaders. Consequently, the council determined that you should be excommunicated from the Church for apostasy.^[5]

It seems more likely, then, that Snuffer's stake president concluded that further attempts to reason with Snuffer on this issue was pointless. Anyone who can make so many criticisms and complaints, and then insist with a straight face that they've never criticized Church leaders is either dishonest, or not open to reasoned discussion.

Detailed Analysis

This claim is blatantly false. Snuffer's book and other pre-excommunication writing^[6] is filled with criticism of the Church's leaders:

LDS leaders = Popes

He compares modern leaders to the Popes, making false claims:

• "The proud descendants of Nauvoo who have always retained control of the church’s top leadership positions, claim to hold all the keys ever given to Joseph Smith. They teach that they can bind on earth and in heaven. They are the ‘new Popes’ having the authority the Catholic Pope claims to possess."^{[7]:303, see also 66, 263}

If this is not a criticism, what is it?

LDS leaders foster "cult of personality"

Snuffer repeatedly claims that leaders of the Church foster a "cult of personality."^{[7]:241, 264, 352, 359–360}

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

LDS leaders believe they should be "adored"

Snuffer claims that prophets believe

they are entitled to the adoration of followers.^{[7]:359–360}

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

David O. McKay liked to be 'lionized'

Snuffer makes a false claim relying on a misrepresented text to claim that David O. McKay "liked his ‘celebrity status’ and wanted ‘to be recognized, lauded, and lionized'."^[7]:349

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

1. REDIRECT Question: Did David O. McKay like to be "recognized, lauded, and lionized"?

LDS leaders = Proud

He repeatedly labels all general leaders since Nauvoo as "proud":

• “Ever since the expulsion of church members from Nauvoo, the highest leadership positions in the church have been held by Nauvoo’s proud descendants.”^[7]:113
• “The proud refugees from Nauvoo and their descendants have always claimed they succeeded in doing all that was required.”^[7]:381
• “If [my] new view of history is more correct than the narrative offered by the proud descendants of Nauvoo…”^[7]:420
• “The Nauvoo saints and their proud descendants would necessarily diminish. This view is unlikely to ever be accepted by a church whose leadership is filled overwhelmingly by those same proud descendants of Nauvoo. There hasn’t been a single church president without Nauvoo ancestors.”^[7]:119

It is clear that he intends the term "proud" in its negative sense, since he elsewhere accuses the leaders of great arrogance:

I am repulsed by people claiming they are to be respected as some giant, freaking, priesthood key holding, omni-competent replacement for God! I am tired of that! I don't want any more of that! I've had enough!^[1]:31

This is a gross misrepresentation of how LDS members see their leaders, or what the leaders claim. But, it is the attitude that Snuffer imputes to them—clearly stuffed with pride and arrogance.

To be "proud" is to be guilty of great sin. This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

LDS leaders only "administrative apostles"

Snuffer's attitude toward modern Church leaders is displayed in his chapter title, "Prophets, Profits and Priestcraft."^[7]:185 The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are said to be "modern administrative Apostles,"^[7]:61 who cannot bear the proper Apostolic witness that Snuffer can: there are “two different kinds of Apostles”—”one is an administrative office in the church. The other is a witness of the resurrection, who has met with Christ”.^[7]:34

To accuse others of priestcraft and valuing "profits" over prophecy is not a compliment. It is not praise to say that the Twelve Apostles are only "administrators" instead of witnesses of the resurrection.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Church leaders use "Babylonian methods"

Snuffer accuses Church leaders of changing the Church, and using "[B]abylonian methods":

• "The book brings to light the [B]abylonian methods church leadership uses to make rapid and dramatic changes. We are not now the same church restored by Joseph Smith....."^[8]

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

LDS leaders = not true messengers

Snuffer writes:

Part of the ceremony [made] it...clear to those who participated that there were no mortal sources who could claim they were ‘true messengers.’ Mortal men were universally depicted as false ministers in the ceremony Joseph restored. The only source of true messengers was God or angels sent by Him.^[7]:276

LDS prophets and apostles claim to be true messengers from God. Snuffer says that they are not. This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

LDS leaders forced stake president to act

Snuffer claims that senior Church leadership engineered his excommunication.^[9] However, his stake president made it clear that he was acting based upon a spiritual manifestation to him:

The issue for consideration to [your] disciplinary council is whether the continued publication of Passing the Heavenly Gift constitutes an act of apostasy and, if so, what the appropriate remedy should be....

I cannot deny, however, the spirit’s influence on me and the responsibilities I have to protect the interests of the Church. I have tried to persuade you that [your book Passing the Heavenly Gift] is not constructive to the work of salvation or the promotion of faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ.^[3]

When confronted with this claim, the stake president corrected it, but Snuffer sticks to his claims regardless:

He said the decision to discipline me was "his alone" to make. In response to that I reminded him that we were interrupted by a phone call from one of the Presidents of the Seventy and he was instructed "to stand down. That he then did 'stand down.' And that if he really believed I was worthy of discipline he would never have stood down, but would have acted then." Therefore, this was not his doing, but the doing of those in the hierarchy. He agreed he had been called, and that he had stood down when told to do so, but that he would be the one responsible for making the decision. I told him the decision had already been made, and not by him.^[10][11]

Snuffer claims that the stake president was (wrongly) forced by Church leaders, and that he only ratified a decision they had made.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

"Instructions from above" are not from Salt Lake City

Snuffer tells his followers:

• instruction from above...for me...has little to do with 47 East South Temple.^[12]

Snuffer claims that instructions from Church leaders (at the Church Office Building at 47 East South Temple) are not from above, while claiming that he does get instruction from God above.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

LDS leaders wish to hide the Church's desire to accommodate the homosexual agenda

Snuffer tells his audience that the Church is easing "toward open acceptance of socially progressive mormonism. This is the product of social, political and legal pressure," as evidenced by the Church's support of anti-discrimination ordinances for homosexuals.^[8]

• "This accounts for the difference between the reaction of the church to socially progressive Mormons (who are tolerated) and me. Those who advocate for the place the church has already decided to go are not a threat to their plans. What I write can create a good deal of difficultly in arriving there."^[8]
• "The church needs not only to "teach for doctrine the commandments of men," the church must be able to teach AS doctrine the commandments of men. Meaning that the church must have those aboard who will do, believe and accept whatever the leaders tell the members. Unquestionably. Unhesitatingly."^[8]
• "I will state for all you blog readers: Passing the Heavenly Gift contains content that will make your appreciation and acceptance of the efforts of the institution now and in the future to bend its teachings to conform to social, political and legal trends much more difficult to achieve. You will be happier if you don't read the book. You will be more inclined to sleepwalk along with what is progressively distant from the original restoration. You will not detect that these changes mark the downfall predicted in the prophecies of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants."^[8]

Snuffer claims Church leaders are caving to social and legal pressure on homosexuality, and not following God's will. This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

LDS leaders wink at homosexual lust

• The church introduced a web page on same sex attraction. Two of the twelve contributed to the page. One of them asserted that same sex attraction is not a sin, but only acting on the impulse would be. This is an interesting accommodation which contradicts the Lord's statement that "whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery in his heart." Or, adds to it: "but if you burn in lust for the same sex that isn't adultery in your heart."^[8]

Snuffer here accuses two of the twelve apostles:

1. of teaching contrary to Jesus' words
2. of declaring that "burning in lust" isn't a sin.

Snuffer is clearly misrepresenting the apostles. Snuffer's "opposite sex attraction" is not a sin in and of itself, and someone else's "same sex attraction" is not a sin. Snuffer could sin by burning in lust toward someone, just as a homosexual member could sin by encouraging fantasies of same sex acts. But, there mere fact that Snuffer, or the homosexual member, have an attraction to one gender or the other is not a sin.

It appears that Snuffer is going out of his way to find fault, and reading Church leaders with the least charitable interpretation possible.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Snuffer sustains his leaders?

Snuffer insisted that he and his wife were better placed to get revelation on how a disciplinary council should proceed than his local leaders:

My wife prayed about this and was of the strongest of convictions that the family needed to be at the council. I agreed with her. Therefore, my children were all there to silently observe.^[13]

When he arrived at his disciplinary hearing, Snuffer tells us that:

We spent an hour in the hallway, outside the High Council room, discussing the stake president's refusal to allow my children to attend. My wife was welcome, my children were not. My wife explained that she had made it a subject of prayer, and in answer to prayer wanted them to be there. The stake president refused. He said it would be "a circus" to permit it. ^[13]

My wife reviewed the Church Handbook of Instructions. She explained to President Hunt that the book is silent, and does not bar children from attending. He admitted that was true but it was his decision to forbid them. My wife said it was my court and I ought to be allowed to have them with me. He replied it wasn't my court, but the church's.^[4]

Despite his claim to sustain, Snuffer would not even respect disciplinary council procedures and the stake president's decision to exclude the children from the proceeding.

Snuffer claims that his concern was that his children would assume that he was in reality guilty of some moral transgression. The stake president assured them that this was not the case—his apostasy was the only issue. Even though Snuffer's purported concern had been addressed, he refused to attend if the children were not allowed in, and left.^[13]

Snuffer's attitude is reflected by at least one of his family members, which perhaps explains why the stake president did not wish to permit their attendance at the council:

He said that was a reasonable concern and he said to everyone of us that "this only has to do with a book." One of my daughters responded, almost to herself but loud enough we all heard her: "A book! A book! Are you serious?"^[10]

This is clear evidence that Snuffer's children do not understand the implications of his apostasy either.

Snuffer later makes it sound as if he was refused admission to the council:

I was prevented from entering the room with my children. Therefore I was unable to speak with the High Council about the matter.^[14]

In fact, however, he was simply not permitted to use the council to serve his own agenda. He was able, and could have spoken with the High Council, but instead, chose to leave without participating or learning of the council's decision:

We talked for an hour in the hallway....The door to the High Council room was open. I assume they overheard the discussion. It was a little after 8:00 when we left.^[13]

Despite this self-reported behavior, Snuffer continued to insist that he sustained his local leaders, even while in the act of refusing to follow their instructions or attend the council because his demands were not met:

We talked for an hour in the hallway and ended with me bearing my testimony to the children, pointing to President Hunt and telling them (my children) that I sustained him, pointing to my Bishop and telling them I sustained him.^[13]

Later, Snuffer would claim that the high council

used their dominion over me to sustain the charges and ratify all that went on before.^[2]

This is nonsense. Snuffer's behavior was simply further proof that the charges were true—he was in active apostasy, would not respect the reasonable requests of his priesthood leaders. It had nothing to do with them using "dominion"—they had so little dominion that they couldn't even compel Snuffer to come into the room if he chose not to. All they could do was ratify what Snuffer had already done—cut himself off from the Church.

LDS leaders cannot bear proper testimony of the resurrection

Snuffer claims:

Today, testimonies of the presiding authorities, including the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve, assert only vaguely they are “special witnesses” of the Lord…. A great number of active Latter-day Saints do not notice the careful parsing [sic] of words used by modern administrative Apostles. They presume a “witness of the name” of Christ is the same as the New Testament witness of His resurrection. The apostolic witness was always intended to be based upon the dramatic, the extraordinary…. Without such visionary encounters with the Lord, they are unable to witness about Him, but only of His name.^[7]:62

It is criticism to claim that the Twelve Apostles "are unable to witness about" Christ. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Snuffer also misrepresents the content of many modern apostles' witness:

Response to Passing the Heavenly Gift: Claims about Brigham Young and apostles not being witnesses of Christ

Jump to details:

• Apostles as personal witnesses of Christ
• Question: Did any nineteenth century leader after Joseph Smith report divine visions?
• Question: Did any twentieth century leader after Joseph Smith report divine visions?

Notes

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1} Denver Snuffer, "Preserving The Restoration," Lecture 10, Mesa, Arizona (9 September 2014). https://www.scribd.com/doc/239760895/10-Phoenix-Transcript-Preserving-the-Restoration
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3} Snuffer to First Presidency, Letter (13 September 2013), reproduced in Denver Snuffer, "Preserving The Restoration," Lecture 10, Mesa, Arizona (9 September 2014). https://www.scribd.com/doc/239760895/10-Phoenix-Transcript-Preserving-the-Restoration Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "1st_pres" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "1st_pres" defined multiple times with different content
3. ↑ ^{3.0 3.1} M. Truman Hunt to Denver Snuffer, “Notice of Disciplinary Council,” letter (21 August 2013), 1–2. Online at Denver Snuffer, “Don’t call me. (Yes, that means you too!),” from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 23 August 2013, http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/dont-call-me-yes-that-means-you-too_23.html
4. ↑ ^{4.0 4.1} Denver Snuffer, "Don't Know," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 9 September 2013, http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/dont-know.html
5. ↑ Truman Hunt, letter to Denver Snuffer (18 September 2013), posted on Denver Snuffer, "No Title," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 20 September 2013, http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/no-title.html
6. ↑ His post-excommunication writing is little different. We will not review those examples here, since they could not have had a bearing on his excommunication. Readers will note, however, that not much has changed before and after.
7. ↑ ^{7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 7.12} Denver C. Snuffer, Jr., Passing the Heavenly Gift (Salt Lake City: Mill Creek Press, 2011).
8. ↑ ^{8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5} Denver Snuffer, "Compliance (So Far As Possible)," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 4 September 2013, http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/compliance-so-far-as-possible.html
9. ↑ Snuffer to First Presidency, Letter (13 September 2013), 1–2; reproduced in Denver Snuffer, "Preserving The Restoration," Lecture 10, Mesa, Arizona (9 September 2014), 41-42. https://www.scribd.com/doc/239760895/10-Phoenix-Transcript-Preserving-the-Restoration
10. ↑ ^{10.0 10.1} Denver Snuffer, "The Facts," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 20 June 2014, emphasis in original, http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2014/06/the-facts.html Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "the_facts" defined multiple times with different content
11. ↑ Compare also a similar account cited above from Denver Snuffer, "Don't Know," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 9 September 2013, http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/dont-know.html
12. ↑ Denver Snuffer, “Current Events,” from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 26 August 2013, http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/current-events.html
13. ↑ ^{13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4} Denver Snuffer, "Last Night's Family Home Evening - Don't call me," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 9 September 2013, http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/last-nights-family-home-evening-dont.html
14. ↑ Snuffer to First Presidency, Letter (13 September 2013), 2; reproduced in Denver Snuffer, "Preserving The Restoration," Lecture 10, Mesa, Arizona (9 September 2014), 42. https://www.scribd.com/doc/239760895/10-Phoenix-Transcript-Preserving-the-Restoration