View source for Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Denver Snuffer/Excommunication/Sustaining Church leaders

{{Main Page}}  
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Denver Snuffer/Excommunication/Sustaining Church leaders
|H=Response to Denver Snuffer's Online Claims regarding his Excommunication: Sustaining Church leaders
|S=
|L1=Snuffer's wife claims revelation on how disciplinary council should be conducted
|L2=Snuffer claims stake president was forced to act by high Church leaders
}}
</onlyinclude>

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

<blockquote>
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.<ref name="FHE">Denver Snuffer, "Last Night's Family Home Evening - Don't call me," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 9 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/last-nights-family-home-evening-dont.html}}</ref>
</blockquote>

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

<blockquote>
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. <ref name="FHE">Denver Snuffer, "Last Night's Family Home Evening - Don't call me," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 9 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/last-nights-family-home-evening-dont.html}}</ref>

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.<ref name="don't know blog">Denver Snuffer, "Don't Know," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 9 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/dont-know.html}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====Joseph Smith rebukes such claims====
Snuffer and his wife do not understand or follow the teachings of Joseph Smith. In April 1833, Joseph wrote a member of the Church:

<blockquote>
I will inform you that it is '''contrary to the economy of God for any member of the Church''', or any one, to receive instruction for those in authority, higher than themselves; therefore, you will see the impropriety of giving heed to them, but if any person have a vision or a visitation from a heavenly messenger, it must be for his own benefit and instruction; for the fundamental principles, government, and doctrine of the Church are vested in the keys of the kingdom.<ref>Letter to Jared Carter dated 13 April 1833 in {{HC|vol=3|num=338-339, emphasis added}} Also in {{TS|vol=5|num=24|date=1 Jan 1844|pages=752}}</ref>
</blockquote>

According to Joseph Smith, Snuffer and his wife ''cannot'' receive revelation for what their stake president&mdash;higher in authority in the Church than they--ought to do about a matter of Church government. If they did not get their revelation from God, where did it come from?

====Snuffer refuses to attend if his demands are not met====

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&mdash;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.<ref name="FHE">Denver Snuffer, "Last Night's Family Home Evening - Don't call me," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 9 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/last-nights-family-home-evening-dont.html}}</ref>

{{More_old|Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Denver_Snuffer/Excommunication/Unrighteous_dominion#Failure_to_attend_councils|l1=What did Joseph Smith think of such tactics?}}

====Snuffer's family does not accept that apostate writings can be grounds for discipline====

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:

<blockquote>
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?"<ref name="the facts">Denver Snuffer, "The Facts," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 20 June 2014, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2014/06/the-facts.html}}</ref>
</blockquote>

This is clear evidence that Snuffer's children do not understand the implications of his apostasy any more than their parents do.

====Snuffer claims he wasn't "able" to speak to the council because his demands were not met====
Snuffer later makes it sound as if he was refused admission to the council:

<blockquote>
I was prevented from entering the room with my children. Therefore I was unable to speak with the High Council about the matter.<ref>Snuffer to First Presidency, Letter (13 September 2013), 2; reproduced in {{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Mesa|pages=42}}</ref>
</blockquote>

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:

<blockquote>
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.<ref name="FHE">Denver Snuffer, "Last Night's Family Home Evening - Don't call me," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 9 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/last-nights-family-home-evening-dont.html}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====Snuffer claims to sustain leaders even while defying them====

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:

<blockquote>
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.<ref name="FHE">Denver Snuffer, "Last Night's Family Home Evening - Don't call me," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 9 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/last-nights-family-home-evening-dont.html}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Later, Snuffer would claim that the high council

<blockquote>
used their dominion over me to sustain the charges and ratify all that went on before.<ref name="1st pres">Snuffer to First Presidency, Letter (13 September 2013), 2; reproduced in {{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Mesa|pages=42}}</ref>
</blockquote>

This is nonsense. When Snuffer tries to get people to behave as he would like them to behave, he is just expressing himself. But, when others do not respond to his efforts, Snuffer then labels them guilty of trying to exercise "unrighteous dominion." Snuffer has ever right to refuse to attend the council, except on his own terms&mdash;but, the high council and his stake presidency are likewise justified in not bowing to Snuffer's efforts to control ''them''. 

He wants to have it both ways&mdash;everything he does is justified; if anyone else thwarts him, they are guilty of "unrighteous dominion."

Snuffer is always, in his mind, in the right.

{{More_old|Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Denver_Snuffer/Excommunication/Unrighteous_dominion|l1=What did Joseph Smith think of this type of claim?}}

====Conclusion====

Snuffer's behavior offers further proof that the charges against him were true&mdash;he was in active apostasy, would not respect the reasonable requests of his priesthood leaders. It had nothing to do with them using "dominion"&mdash;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&mdash;cut himself off from the Church.

Snuffer and his wife claim to receive revelation about what their leaders should do&mdash;but Joseph Smith says that this is impossible.

==Snuffer claims stake president was forced to act by high Church leaders==

Snuffer claims that senior Church leadership engineered his excommunication.<ref name="1st pres b">Snuffer to First Presidency, Letter (13 September 2013), 1&ndash;2; reproduced in {{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Mesa|pages=41-42}}</ref> 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.<ref name="disc council notice">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, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/08/dont-call-me-yes-that-means-you-too_23.html}}</ref>

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.<ref name="the facts">Denver Snuffer, "The Facts," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 20 June 2014, emphasis in original, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2014/06/the-facts.html}}</ref><ref>Compare also a similar account cited above from Denver Snuffer, "Don't Know," from the desk of Denver Snuffer (blog), 9 September 2013, {{antilink|http://denversnuffer.blogspot.ca/2013/09/dont-know.html}}</ref>

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.

{{More_old|Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Denver_Snuffer/Excommunication/Unrighteous_dominion#Duties of Priesthood leaders|l1=What did Joseph Smith say about leaders' duties in such cases?}}

{{endnotes sources}}



[[Category:Denver Snuffer]]