Another "Tare" Plucks Itself: Mormon Stories Editor John Dehlin Excommunicated From The LDS Church, LDS Church Issues Official Statement

In the Parable of the Sower presented in Matthew Chapter 13, Jesus Christ discusses wheat and tares. He cautioned against prematurely gathering up the tares, since there is a danger of gathering up wheat also. From Matthew 13:28-30:

28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Nevertheless, there is no constraint against the tares plucking themselves before the appointed time. And just as both Denver Snuffer and Kate Kelly revealed themselves to be tares, so they have now been joined by John Dehlin, the editor of Mormon Stories. On February 10th, 2015, Dehlin reported that he had received written notification of his excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The decision grew out of his disciplinary council held on Sunday, February 8th, triggered by his public support of same-sex marriage, the LGBT community and the Ordain Women movement, as well as his decade-long website and podcast, Mormon Stories. He had been given a number of preliminary warnings by his priesthood chain of command over the past decade, so the disciplinary council was not a surprise.

-- Read the text of the official excommunication letter published by the Deseret News.

Dehlin's Mormon Stories website was specifically tailored to reach out to LDS members who had doubts regarding doctrine and practices of the LDS Church. One of the outcomes Dehlin frequently cited in his defense was that his outreach prevented many of these doubters from leaving the Church altogether. Nevertheless, the disciplinary council felt this had become outweighed by Dehlin's belief that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are fraudulent and by his rejection of the LDS Church being the true church with power and authority from God. Dehlin also took some heat over the financial compensation he receives from the Mormon Stories website; for his work, Dehlin received nearly $90,000 in 2013, according to his foundation's public financial records. A detailed response by Dehlin was published by the Salt Lake Tribune on February 9th in which he points out that his work was supported by voluntary contributions, that had pledged he would use the money to help pay for groceries, health insurance and medical bills (both of which he pays out of pocket), employment taxes, clothing for my children, tuition, etc., and believes he has used the money exactly as promised

When Dehlin arrived at the North Logan Stake Center on February 8th, he was greeted by up to a maximum of 200 supporters. Dehlin gave a brief address to his supporters, but counseled them against behaving abusively, asking a few who were displaying uncomplimentary posters about Stake President Bryan King to put them away. The Cache Valley Daily reports that the hearing, which began at 6 P.M. MST, lasted four hours, and that Dehlin characterized it as difficult, sad and at times heart-wrenching. Dehlin also said that five people — three family members and two friends -- were permitted to speak on his behalf before the council consisting of 15 regional LDS church leaders. Most commonly this includes the Stake Presidency and the 12-member Stake High Council. Dehlin opined that evidence presented by church leaders seemed to paint him in the worst possible light, making it hard for him to imagine an outcome other than excommunication.

Nevertheless, President King decided to pray and wait a day or two before making a decision regarding John Dehlin to ensure that he was not merely reacting to the heat of the moment. But the council concluded that although they acknowledge Dehlin's right to criticize the Church and to share his opinions, they cannot allow him to continue as a member in good standing. BYU Professor Daniel Peterson served on disciplinary councils as a bishop and notes that they are always sad occasions; he believes excommunication should always be a last resort.

After being notified of his excommunication, Dehlin gave a short statement to the Salt Lake Tribune:

"My wife, Margi, and I are proud to stand in support of both free expression and gender/marriage equality within Mormonism...While we are saddened that the LDS Church has chosen to excommunicate me for publicly supporting these values, we support the church's right to make this decision."

Another statement attributed to Dehlin was published by KSL Channel 5:

“Margi and I would like to express our appreciation to President Bryan King and others who assisted in this very difficult process. Our observation is that President King worked very hard to comply with church policies and direction, during what we know was a very difficult time personally for him and his family. We respectfully request that President King be shown respect for his professionalism and commitment to LDS Church leadership and policies, and we express our preference that any frustrations be constructively directed at examining LDS Church disciplinary policies, and not at President King personally."

The LDS Church does not customarily comment on the outcome of disciplinary councils. But because John Dehlin has commented publicly and because the case has stirred up such a media frenzy across the country, the Church chose to release the following official statement (here's the most applicable portion):

Such councils are always far better when all involved respect the principle of confidentiality. At the very least, this principle helps those members who wish to return to full fellowship at a later date. When the member has chosen to air their grievances in public, the Church reserves the right to correct the public record. In this case, attempts have been made to create the impression that the disciplinary council convened on Sunday, February 8, 2015, and which has resulted in a loss of Church membership or excommunication of Mr. Dehlin arose largely because of his views on same-sex marriage and priesthood ordination for women. Although his stated positions on those subjects are not consistent with the Church’s teachings, they were not cited in the local leader’s letter delivered to Mr. Dehlin on February 9, which spelled out the reasons for the local council’s unanimous decision, as follows:

-- Disputing the nature of our Heavenly Father and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
-- Statements that the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are fraudulent and works of fiction.
-- Statements and teachings that reject The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being the true Church with power and authority from God.

The Church also points out that excommunication is not necessarily the end, but can be the beginning of a new journey back to full fellowship. Dehlin is welcome to attend weekly worship services and is always welcome to return to Church membership through the grace and Atonement of Jesus Christ. He has 30 days to appeal the decision to the First Presidency.

Reaction: Despite the dignified way in which John Dehlin reacted to his excommunication, his refusal to consider repentance ensures that most LDS members approve to the council's decision. Some maintain that Dehlin left the Church spiritually quite a while ago. Even some who are supportive of Dehlin concede that he might be better off outside the Church. One KSL commenter, FlaCougar, wrote "He's lucky it's the LDS with excommunication and NOT ISIS with execution by beheading".

-- LDS Freedom Forum: Surprisingly, Dehlin gets more support in this venue even though it is billed as pro-LDS. This thread is about three weeks old and provides some perspective on the evolution of opinion by rank-and-file LDS membership.

-- Mormon Voices: Endorses the excommunication of John Dehlin; points out that this drama has been going on since 2007. Thus the Church bent over backwards to avoid going this far. Mormon Voices explains succinctly why Dehlin's conduct constituted apostasy:

As used in this context, apostasy consists of “repeatedly act[ing] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.”

John Dehlin’s behavior clearly meets this standard. For example, he provided audio files regarding LDS temple ceremonies—which are regarded as both private and sacred—to an audience of hundreds, encouraging them to share them further. He later made such files public. He also applauded and encouraged the distribution of deceptive “pass-along cards” that used the Church’s logo and typeface, apparently intended to give the impression that the Church supported same-sex marriages. He refers readers to overtly anti-Mormon works, and declares that vintage anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner “were right. About pretty much everything.”

The LDS Church really didn't have much choice left, since John Dehlin refused to meet them part way.

Dissident LDS Blogger Rock Waterman's "Pure Mormonism" Too "Impure" For LDS Authorities According To New York Times Article

The rumors that dissident LDS blogger Rock Waterman, who edits the Pure Mormonism blog, is in trouble with his local Priesthood chain of command have been confirmed in a New York Times article entitled "Mormons Say Critical Online Comments Draw Threats From Church", published on June 18th, 2014. The New York Times has taken an interest in the latest round of prospective disciplinary actions against dissident Mormons like Kate Kelly and John Dehlin, and have now extended their scrutiny to Rock Waterman. Waterman defines "Pure Mormonism", under Joseph Smith's tutelage, as nothing less than pure Christianity, which is defined as love of God and love of neighbor; anything that does not endorse or amplify that love is considered mere religious baggage.

The money shot:

Rock Waterman, a retired innkeeper in California, writes a blog called Pure Mormonism, which attracts Mormons so orthodox that they believe their church is not sufficiently adhering to its own doctrines.

Last month [May 2014], Mr. Waterman posted a combative challenge addressed to one of the Mormon Church’s top leaders: "Stop making up your own rules and try preaching the Gospel of Christ for a change." [Ed. Note: This phrase appears in the post entitled "Vengeance And The Latter-Day Saint", under the paragraph heading "Mea Culpa"

Two days later, he said, he was summoned to a meeting with his bishop and told to either stop blogging or resign his church membership. If he did not resign he would face excommunication, he said the bishop told him, on orders from another official higher up — one of the church’s leaders known as an Area Seventy.

At the end of the article, the Times says Brother Waterman refuses to resign and is willing to face discipline, quoting him as saying "I’m not trying to get the church to change...I’m trying to get the church to abide by its doctrine".

In response to accusations that the LDS Church is trying to suppress free speech online, the Times recorded these statements by Michael Otterson, managing director of the church’s public affairs office, who appears to be concerned when LDS bloggers use discussion to recruit others for campaigns to change church doctrine or structure.

“There is no coordinated effort to tell local leaders to keep their members from blogging or discussing their questions online. On the contrary, church leaders have encouraged civil online dialogue and recognize that today it’s just part of how the world works.”

“When it goes so far as creating organized groups, staging public events to further a cause and creating literature for members to share in their local congregations, the church has to protect the integrity of its doctrine as well as other members from being misled.”

According to the Times, Rock Waterman is trying to get the church to abide by its doctrine. But is this always so? Perhaps in some cases, although he seems overly fond of hitting the Reset button back to Joseph Smith. But current LDS doctrine holds that consumption of beer is contrary to the Word of Wisdom. Nevertheless, in this post, Waterman suggests that D&C Section 89 verse 17 endorses beer because barely is O.K. for mild drinks.

LDS Church To Hold Disciplinary Council For Ordain Women Founder Kate Kelly, Excommunication A Possibility

On June 11th, 2014, the New York Times reported that two dissident activist members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Kate Kelly and John Dehlin, face upcoming disciplinary councils and may be excommunicated from the Church. This post is about the Kate Kelly story.

Sister Kelly received an email on June 8th from the bishop of her previous ward in Virginia (she currently lives in Provo) informing her that she faces disfellowshipment or excommunication on the grounds of apostasy, and calling her to a disciplinary council hearing at the Oakton Virginia Stake Center on June 22nd. Disfellowshipment means limiting the participation of a church member, while excommunication is removing someone from membership. Kelly’s stake president had previously warned her in a letter in May that if she did not shut down the Ordain Women website, dissociate herself from it and repent, she faced excommunication for openly, repeatedly and deliberately acting in public opposition to the church and its leaders after having been counseled not to do so. The letter said "you are not required to change your thinking or the questions you may have in your own mind", but that she must keep her questions private and resolve them by talking to her bishop. According to this comment posted on Millennial Star, Kelly was placed on informal probation at that time, the conditions of which she could not identify herself as a member in good standing, participate in temple or sacrament ordinances, pray or speak in church. Another source reveals that when Kelly attempted to appeal the informal probation up the chain of command, Elder Donald L. Hallstrom of the Quorum of the Seventy said he could do nothing for her.

Kelly has posted a copy of this letter HERE, although I've not been able to get it to load successfully.

Kate Kelly describes this development in her own words on the Ordain Women website:

I was informed on June 8 that there will be a disciplinary council held in absentia by my former bishopric on June 22 to try me for "apostasy". I have moved away from the Washington, DC area, and after I left my former Stake President sent me a letter outlining what he called “informal probation” after meeting with me one time, while I was packing to move. The trial will be held in my former ward and I am not able to return.

I was open and honest with my bishop from the day we launched ordainwomen.org on March 17, 2013. I communicated with him each and every time Ordain Women did an action and asked that he come to me if he had any questions. While I was living in his ward, he never once personally called me in to meet with him. Nor did he email or call me with any questions regarding Ordain Women. Three weeks after I had moved out of his ward, and he sent me this letter. Convening a council in my absence, after I have moved, is both cowardly and unchristlike.

During two successive General Conferences, in October 2013 and April 2014, Kelly and Ordain Women announced their intention to line up outside the Conference Center and ask for admission tickets to the all-male General Priesthood Session. On both occasions, LDS authorities told them in advance they would not be admitted. Nevertheless, they showed up and lined up anyway. The latter implies that Kate Kelly and the Ordain Women activists went beyond merely advocating for women's Priesthood ordination, coming out in open rebellion against LDS Church authorities. Sister Kelly seems absolutely blind to the effects of this action and the futility of influencing Church policy through civil disobedience. Nevertheless, the LDS Church was willing to blow it off and turn the other cheek after the first incident in October 2013, although they rebutted five formal requests by Ordain Women to meet the Church authorities.

But Ordain Women chose to do it a second time in April 2013. This means they slapped the LDS Church's other cheek. Consequently, the LDS Church had no viable alternative but to initiate a disciplinary council and try Kate Kelly for her membership. But while this is just, it is no cause for joy. Those of us who believe she deserves ecclesiastical discipline ought not to be celebrating this occasion. It is a bit troubling that Kelly reports she will not be able to attend her own council, but perhaps that's a misunderstanding on her part, since it is a requirement that the subject of a disciplinary council be allowed to attend and speak in his/her own defense.

Since this post was published, the LDS Church has issued an updated statement on Church discipline which makes no specific reference to either Kate Kelly or John Dehlin:

"The Church is a family made up of millions of individuals with diverse backgrounds and opinions. There is room for questions and we welcome sincere conversations. We hope those seeking answers will find them and happiness through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

"Sometimes members’ actions contradict Church doctrine and lead others astray. While uncommon, some members in effect choose to take themselves out of the Church by actively teaching and publicly attempting to change doctrine to comply with their personal beliefs. This saddens leaders and fellow members. In these rare cases, local leaders have the responsibility to clarify false teachings and prevent other members from being misled. Decisions are made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.

"Actions to address a person’s membership and standing in their congregation are convened after lengthy periods of counseling and encouragement to reconsider behavior. Ultimately, the door is always open for people to return to the Church."

Ordain Women Responds: KSTU Channel 13 reports that Kimberly Baptista, public relations director of Ordain Women, stated in an email that they have two actions in response. The first is that they are asking supporters to submit a letter describing how the group has improved their relationships with the Church or strengthened their testimonies. Representatives from Ordain Women will deliver these letters to the Church Office Building and will also send them to those who make up Kelly's disciplinary council. The letters are being collected HERE. The group is also planning to hold a candlelight vigil on June 22 at 5 p.m. MDT, the same time as the hearing. The vigil will be held outside the LDS Church Office Building in Salt Lake City, and those who gather will do so to show their support of Kelly.

Other Reaction: Predominantly LDS reaction from a number of sources (after the jump):

Excommunication From The LDS Church May Not Necessarily Remove Priesthood Power, But It Does Remove Formal Priesthood Authority

Imagine my surprise when I visited Tim Malone's interesting and informative Latter-Day Commentary website on May 26th and found that he was suggesting that excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not remove Priesthood. He cites a post from Denver Snuffer as his reference, and Snuffer wrote the following:

In every case of excommunication, the one on trial is not regarded by the church as losing their priesthood. They are instead requested to temporarily stop using it. Inside the church itself, they are not permitted to use it. But it is up to the individual to decide whether or not to use it in other circumstances. Before annotations were made to church membership records, the way excommunication was apparent was by comparing the date of baptism to the date of ordination. If a member had been ordained before their baptism, then it was apparent they had been excommunicated.

O.K. As the famous jock sniffer Chris Berman would say, let's go to the record book. And in this case, the record book is a September 1990 article entitled "A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings", authored by Elder M. Russell Ballard, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. You can't get much more authoritative than the Quorum of the Twelve. Elder Ballard had visited a man in hospital who had been excommunicated, but who had fully repented and was re-baptized. But the man sought restoration of his Priesthood blessings. Here's the pertinent part of Elder Ballard's account:

Some time ago I was asked by the First Presidency to stop and visit a man on my way to a stake conference. This man had been excommunicated, had fully repented, and had been found worthy to be baptized. But baptism did not restore his priesthood and temple blessings. That was my assignment, acting on behalf of the Lord at the direction of the President of the Church.

{snip}

I placed my hands on his head and, using terminology associated with this ordinance, restored to him the Melchizedek Priesthood.

He sobbed -- perhaps the first sounds he had made in some time. I restored his office in the priesthood. Then I restored to him, by the power of the priesthood, the holy endowment that he had received when he went through the temple for the first time. Last, I restored what was perhaps most valuable to him -- his sealings to his wife and children.

Wait a minute! If excommunication doesn't remove Priesthood, then why did Elder Ballard specifically have to restore the man's Priesthood to him? This would strongly imply that Priesthood is removed upon excommunication. Reading Elder Ballard's article further, we find this to be the case:

The third decision the council may take is to disfellowship the member. Disfellowshipment is usually temporary, though not necessarily brief. Disfellowshipped persons retain membership in the Church. They are encouraged to attend public Church meetings, but are not entitled to offer public prayers or to give talks. They may not hold a Church position, take the sacrament, vote in the sustaining of Church officers, hold a temple recommend, or exercise the priesthood. They may, however, pay tithes and offerings and continue to wear temple garments if endowed.

Excommunication is the most severe judgment a Church disciplinary council can take. Excommunicated persons are no longer members of the Church. Therefore, they are denied the privileges of Church membership, including the wearing of temple garments and the payment of tithes and offerings. They may attend public Church meetings, but, like disfellowshipped persons, their participation in such meetings is limited. Excommunicated persons are encouraged to repent and so live as to qualify for eventual baptism.

Tim Malone attempts to address the dichotomy here. He distinguishes between Priesthood power and Priesthood authority. Citing President Boyd K. Packer’s April 2010 General Conference talk on the subject of the Power of the Priesthood, he asserts the Priesthood power and Priesthood authority are not necessarily one and the same, noting that Priesthood authority has tended to outrace Priesthood power. This makes sense, since when one has Priesthood authority conferred upon them and is ordained to a specific office, one can then officially exercise Priesthood power thereafter.

Nevertheless, it is clear from Elder Ballard's counsel that when one is excommunicated from the LDS Church, one loses his Priesthood authority. Whether an excommunicant can exercise Priesthood power on his own behalf will depend upon his own behavior subsequent to excommunication. In Matthew 7:21-23, the Savior makes it clear that Priesthood authority is necessary in order for Priesthood power to have any efficacy or force, writing "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity".

The phrase "I never knew you" would seem to imply that they never had His legal authority to act in His name.

Do NOT confuse Priesthood power with Priesthood authority. Righteous pastors and priests from other faiths who perform miracles may be using Priesthood power, but they do not have Priesthood authority, and though the Lord may choose to recognize and act upon their works, He is not bound to do so. Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve also drives home the need for legal Priesthood authority in a February 2002 Ensign article entitled "Gifts Of The Spirit", in which he writes "one cannot invoke the blessings of heaven without having received the gifts and the right or authority to act in His name". Priesthood authority requires a covenant with the Lord, and when you covenant with the Lord and do as He says, He is bound to live up to His end of the deal.

Utah LDS Member Excommunicated By Eagle Mountain Stake President For Apostasy For Allegedly "Supporting" Denver Snuffer

A member of the LDS Church reports he was excommunicated for apostasy on February 2nd, 2013. Allegedly, he expressed too much "support" for Denver Snuffer, although by his own account, he would refuse to follow Snuffer if Snuffer had said that the LDS Church had gone totally astray. The individual, who identifies himself as Brent D. Larsen of the Eagle Mountain Utah Stake, discusses the situation on an LDS Freedom Forum thread entitled "I was excommunicated this morning". He says his stake president charged him with apostasy because he publicly stated that Denver Snuffer has seen Christ and was asked to write The Second Comforter and that he had received his own witness of the validity of Snuffer's account. Brother Larsen also states that two posts he made on one of the private subforums of LDSFF were cited as evidence against him, which has triggered renewed speculation that the LDS Church is monitoring LDSFF.

Since this information was originally spread out over two lengthy LDSFF threads, my purpose was to extract and present the most significant posts, with corresponding links.

Like Denver Snuffer, Brent D. Larsen retains a positive attitude towards the Church and even towards the disciplinary council who sat in judgment of him, writing "...I hold no ill will against those who held the court and the church and those who do or have an axe to grind please take your comments to another thread. I love the men who sat in judgment on me. There was some things I intently disagree with, but I have many friends that we don't see eye to eye on everything". However, Brother Larsen is appealing his excommunication, and posted a copy of his appeal letter on LDSFF:

4 Feb 14

FROM: Brent D. Larsen

TO: The First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

INFO: Keith M. Burnham, Stake President, Eagle Mountain Utah Stake.

SUBJ: Appeal of Disciplinary Council Decision

Dear Presidents Monson, Eyring, and Uchtdorf:

On February 2, 2014, I was excommunicated for apostasy. I was given fair chance to defend myself and my position but was excommunicated for reasons outside the Church Handbook of Instructions' definition of apostasy.

I was told that I had a chance to “humble” myself and “submit” to “priesthood authority”

I am unaware of anywhere where I covenanted to submit my agency to the good will and pleasure of those whom I fully sustain and honor as church officers. I would rather make the gravest of mistakes than surrender my own judgment and agency to another yet this is exactly what I was asked to do, as I was directly told my reasoning was unsound. It was worse than asking for blind obedience, it was being asked to act in direct opposition to the promptings of the Holy Ghost. I feel that this is antithesis to the gospel and the purpose of the Atonement and plan of Salvation. I was also unaware that “submission to priesthood authority” was a requirement to retain membership. I believe that what happened on February 2 was in direct opposition to Presidents Uchtdorf's talk, "Come, Join With Us", as I was told, there is no room for YOU, unless you do as we say and believe as we say.

I was asked a theoretical question: If President Monson was here right now and he asked you to do “a thing” would you do it. My answer was no, I do not follow any man, I follow Christ, and I would have to ask Christ if I should do it.

I honestly don’t even understand why such a question would be asked. Or why my membership would hang on the balance of saying, yes, or how this relates to the charge of apostasy.

I was charged with apostasy because I stated that Denver Snuffer has seen Christ and was asked to write The Second Comforter and that I have received my own witness of that. I believe that makes him a prophet. I do not believe that gives him ANY authority in the church.

I was asked the theoretical question: “if Denver said the church was totally astray and you had to follow him now, what would you say to that?” My reply was: I would say he was full of crap!

I was told that I was excommunicated because Denver has not seen Christ and I cannot say that he has, or that he meets MY definition of prophet. I was unaware that this has become Church Doctrine. I do not affiliate with Denver Snuffer so it cannot be that definition of apostasy that is being used to excommunicate me.

My position is that the doctrine of the church is that people can see Christ and testify of it. I concur and agree that we may not always agree on who has done that but that it is very scriptural that it can happen.

To support this position I quoted Mark 16:14, where the undisputed leader of the Church, Peter, was chastised for not accepting the testimony of Mary and Cleopas and some other random chap on the road to Emmaus. Those who had received a witness of the risen lord outside of the priesthood chain of authority and before them. In fact the greatest news ever given “He is risen!” came outside the established leadership.

I also testified that there are prophets outside of the current church leadership that are known that meet MY definition of prophet. John the Beloved still walks the earth, and the Three Nephites, and holy men we know not of, yet I don’t believe they have any keys for the church. . I believe that Luke was a prophet and yet he was never one of the Twelve.

So my understating is that we would agree on the points of Doctrine, that people can see Christ. And that they have and do testify that “He Lives”. Unless it has become a point of Doctrine that Denver has not seen Christ, then I am left to wonder why I was excommunicated.

We have three definitions of apostasy:
1. Open, public and repeated opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Teaching as doctrine something that is not Church doctrine after one has been advised by appropriate authority that that’s false doctrine. In other words, just teaching false doctrine is not apostasy, but [it is] teaching persistently after you’ve been warned.

3. To affiliate and belong to apostate sects.

Thank you for your consideration of this appeal.

Brent D. Larsen.

Additional perspective on the disciplinary council hearing was posted by Brother Larsen's wife, who was present at the hearing (after the jump):

Kate Kelly Won't Face Church Discipline For Her Ordain Women Activities; Too Bad Denver Snuffer Didn't Have The Same Stake President

I fully expected Ordain Women's founder Kate Kelly to face a disciplinary council over her effort to seek admission to the General Conference Priesthood Session on October 5th, 2013. Because she chose to seek admission even after she was told by Church authorities that she and her group would not be admitted, I interpreted that as an act of open rebellion against duly constituted Church authority.

However, Sister Kelly's local priesthood chain of command in Washington DC does not share that perspective. Kelly states that while she was called in by her bishop and stake president to explain her actions, she was told she was not facing any disciplinary action. Furthermore, she states that her priesthood chain of command told her they were not ordered to call her in by senior Church authorities, and that the senior leadership is not contemplating a crackdown on Ordain Women activists.

The money shot from Sister Kelly's post on Feminist Mormon Housewives:

The most important, immediate takeaways from my encounter with leadership were:

1) They explicitly and emphatically assured me that I was not facing any type of disciplinary action for my founding of, and participation in, Ordain Women.

2) They told me there was no directive from any area authority or higher-level Church leader instructing them to meet with me, interview me or punish me in any way. Hence, they assured me when I asked, there is no concerted effort on the part of the Church to “crack down” on members of Ordain Women or target us specifically for our unequivocal calls for female ordination.

Clearly the power dynamic was not balanced, but I came away from the meeting feeling proud and satisfied. While they do not agree with me, I felt I spoke clearly and the discussion was a productive one. My friend Suzette, and my dad also recently met with their leaders. They both discussed their Ordain Women participation with candor and had their temple recommends renewed.

Other commenters to the post indicate they also haven't faced any excommunication threats. So if Kate Kelly's activism passes muster with her local leadership, that would seem to settle the issue. The Church has set a newer and more flexible standard as to what constitutes acceptable public disagreement with Church policy by members.

Too bad Denver Snuffer didn't have the same stake president. Unlike Kate Kelly, Snuffer never led any public protests; his book, Passing The Heavenly Gift, was deemed by Church authorities to denigrate all LDS presidents since Joseph Smith. I can offer two reasons as to why Denver Snuffer was treated more harshly than Kate Kelly:

(1). Stake presidents enjoy considerable autonomy to run their fiefdoms with minimal interference. The Church chooses not to micromanage their stake presidents, reflecting Joseph Smith's old mantra "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves". The First Presidency upheld the excommunication of Denver Snuffer on appeal.

(2). Unlike Kate Kelly, Denver Snuffer also held the priesthood. Because the priesthood confers additional authority and responsibility, a bearer of the priesthood incurs additional accountability. Thus Snuffer's stake president must have concluded that Snuffer, as a priesthood holder, should be judged by a higher and harsher standard than an ordinary member. This is implied by Doctrine & Covenants 121:36 which states, in part, "...the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness".

Excommunication And Disfellowshipment Enable The LDS Church To Remain A "Hospital For Sinners" Without Becoming A "Country Club For Sinners"

On September 14th, 2013, Wheat & Tares published an interesting poll asking readers to choose which actions should result in excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So far, there is a clear-cut consensus that the "biggies", to include pedophilia, selling temple secrets, and committing fraud with Church funds, should result in excommunication. Many also chose publishing anti-Mormon materials and domestic violence as excommunicable offenses; I did not because those can be too subjective. The "anti-Mormon" dividing line can be ambiguous, and domestic violence often can be a "he said-she said" type dispute.

However, there were two comments appended which attracted my attention and which warrant further discussion. Screenshot below:

Click to enlarge or go HERE for original

Molly's comment reflects extreme libertarianism. Since no human being is infallible, no human being can be entrusted with absolute sovereignty over his or her own life, since most everything one does can affect someone else. Organizations have the right to set conditions of affiliation or membership. Diversity isn't merely the right to associate; it's also the right not to associate. Libertarianism requires an advanced level of political, emotional, and spiritual maturity not normally available in any human society and, with the possible exception of the Nephites during the 200 years after the appearance of Jesus Christ on the American continent (see 4 Nephi), generally beyond the capability of human beings to achieve. Libertarianism mostly likely will work best only after the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, when the only people who will survive that experience will be those who possess the requisite maturity.

But the second comment by Dba.brotherp is of greater interest. Dba.brotherp correctly states that a church should be a "hospital for sinners". But even as a medical hospital imposes conditions of admission and treatment to ensure a safe and sanitary environment, so a church must also impose conditions of membership to prevent the "hospital for sinners" from becoming a "country club for sinners". Jesus Christ wasn't a pot-smoking hippie who spent 33 years nodding and smiling and passing out loaves, fishes, and doobies to the masses. He was a Savior who condemned sin and told us to "be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48), and "I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance" (D&C 1:31). The latter statement was not meant to imply that we must become perfect while we abide in the flesh, but to tell us what we would have to do in order to be admitted to the Father's presence once again in the future.

While excommunication means severance of membership, it does NOT necessarily mean severance of fellowship. Excommunicants can still attend services, and local ward leaders will continue to fellowship those who actively strive to work their way back to membership. In fact, as I pointed out in my October 2010 post entitled "LDS Prison Ministry: LDS Outreach At The Utah State Prison Proclaims Liberty To The Captives And Offers Salvation To The Fallen", the LDS Church will reach out to those who are in prison. And not just to Church members, but also to excommunicants and "nevermos" (slang for those who have never been Church members). The details are put forth in a paper entitled "Providing Support for Those in Correctional Facilities".

We must strike the sensible middle ground on this issue. While a church is supposed to be a "hospital for sinners", having membership standards and enforcing them through Church discipline prevents it from becoming a "country club for sinners".

Denver Snuffer Reports He Has Been Excommunicated; While Unjust, It Will Not Change My Attitude Towards The LDS Church

Update December 10th: Denver Snuffer reports that the First Presidency turned down his appeal and upheld his excommunication.

I really thought that Denver Snuffer's activity in the LDS Church and his repeated expressions of loyalty towards the Church and the Gospel would prevent his excommunication. But apparently I was wrong. Denver Snuffer reports that on Tuesday September 10th, 2013, while preparing to give a talk in Boise Idaho, his stake president, Truman Hunt, called to tell him he'd been excommunicated. He will receive the official paperwork later. Ironically, this occurs on precisely the 40th anniversary of his baptism into the Church.

Brother Snuffer continues to respond with class. This excerpt from the written response he sent to Truman Hunt, declining any further face-to-face meetings, stands out:

"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".

Excommunicants can continue to attend LDS religious services, but may not partake of the Sacrament, pay tithing, hold any callings, or officiate in any way. An excommunication remains in force for a minimum of one year, although an excommunicant can begin working back towards full membership at any time. Local ward leadership will work with someone who sincerely wants to return to membership.

While I consider Brother Snuffer's excommunication unjust, I do not intent to allow it to affect my attitude towards the Church. Since Jesus Christ is willing to work with imperfect human beings to establish His kingdom on earth, it is appropriate for us to continue to sustain imperfect leaders in positions of power, so long as there is no priestcraft or moral turpitude. Here's what hasn't changed:

(1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remains the truest church on earth, and the only church with legal priesthood authority. It remains the only church where one can be legally married for eternity as well as for time, and where one can legally perform proxy redemptive ordinances for one's kindred dead.

(2). The Book of Mormon remains the authoritative Word of God, equal in status to the Bible. As Joseph Smith once said, it is the most correct book on the face of the earth.

(3). Joseph Smith was still a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, as are each one of his successors.

Those who are distressed over the excommunication of Denver Snuffer would be best advised to pray for the spiritual welfare of both Snuffer and his stake president, Truman Hunt. I am confident that Hunt was not overjoyed at making this decision; it must have been a thorn in his flesh.

Reaction: Tim Malone has published an extended analysis on Latter-Day Commentary. He shares the contents of an email from someone who was highly critical of Snuffer and labeled him an apostate. But while Malone says he's not a follower of Snuffer, he writes "...I feel impressed of the spirit to continue in my quest to understand what Denver Snuffer has shared. I need to finish some of his books and intend to re-read parts of PtHG and especially The Second Comforter. I learn something new each time I invest the time to read and ponder what I can apply that will bring me closer to my goal of opening the heavens and be taught what the Lord wants me to know".

LDS Anarchy has published a detailed and superb analysis of the Church's perspective on apostasy and a discussion of the disciplinary council process. Citing evidence from D & C Section 102, LDS Anarchist suggests that disciplinary councils today have strayed from their original intended purpose. There used to be three separate types of Church courts -- the Bishop's Court, the Elder's Court, and the High Priest's Court. These have been replaced by the disciplinary council; the Stake judges all Melchizedek Priesthood holders, while the Ward Bishop can judge all other members. LDS Anarchist believes a presumption of guilt has replaced the presumption of innocence. In response to this post, Denver Smuffer published the following comment:

My wife brought this to my attention this morning and recommended I read it. I rarely fail to follow her counsel. I’m grateful to both her and you for the above analysis.

We all have an obligation to both one another and to the Lord. Balancing between those two on matters of conscience and devotion can become so difficult a challenge that time, patience, meekness, gentleness, love and pure knowledge ought to inform anything we do or say.

I have more compassion for those who are put into the awful role of being “judge” than the role of being judged. We often presume that Christ delegates and then is bound by men’s judgments. His explanation in 3 Ne. 27: 27 makes it clear that even His chosen 12 cannot substitute their judgement for His. There truly is only one “keeper of the gate” and “no servant” is employed there. 2 Ne. 9: 41. We all ought to take some comfort that, in the end, no matter how we jar and abuse one another, the Lord will sort it out and wipe away every tear in that last judgment which does matter. Rev. 7: 17; Rev. 21: 4.

We weep here. He will comfort us. Hence His other title: The Second Comforter.

LDS Author Denver Snuffer Gets Publicity In The Salt Lake Tribune; Snuffer Reaffirms His Loyalty To The Gospel And The Church

Update September 9th: Denver Snuffer's disciplinary council hearing ends inconclusively; updated post HERE. Subsequently, Snuffer reported he was excommunicated.

The mainstream media has finally picked up on the Denver Snuffer controversy. Peggy Fletcher Stack, who on her best day could never be confused with LDS spokeswoman Ruth Todd, has published a short article in the Salt Lake Tribune that really adds little to existing reports circulating on the Web except to opine that unlike most earlier high-profile cases of church discipline against Mormon intellectuals such as the September Six, Snuffer is no liberal.

The Tribune recorded reaction from both sides. While Snuffer intends to defend himself at the disciplinary council to be chaired by his stake president, Truman Hunt, on Sunday September 8th, he says he fully expects to be excommunicated. "I think [my stake president] has received instructions to do so from downtown [LDS Church headquarters]," Snuffer says. "I believe the decision has already been made to excommunicate me." Snuffer says the outcome will not change his religious behavior. In fact, he continues to rejoice over the fact that he joined the Church in 1973, and he simply wants to alert Latter-day Saints about Joseph Smith’s prophecies on the end times that they are unwittingly fulfilling.

But LDS officials say that church discipline is left to local leaders, and the Tribune cited content from a letter Truman Hunt wrote to Snuffer, stating "I am not anxious to chase people out of the church...My goal is the opposite — to enable all to enjoy the blessings of the gospel." The story has triggered 720 comments so far, most of which are drivel.

Denver Snuffer continues to update us on his blog. In a post entitled "Compliance (So Far As Possible)", he says he can't cease publication of Passing The Heavenly Gift because would involve violation of agreements between him and others, even though the Church offered him money as compensation for potential liability. He also states he never intended to speak or promote Passing the Heavenly Gift during his upcoming tour; he says it has to do with the scriptures and promoting them.

In another post entitled "Contentment", Brother Snuffer vigorously proclaims his continued loyalty to the Gospel and the Church:

Tomorrow [Sept. 8] will not end my love of this restored faith, though it may cost me some "things" that the organized entity claiming to own the faith thinks it can remove. I'm reconciled to that potential loss. But I'm also reconciled to these few truths underlying my faith:

-- God spoke to me BEFORE I joined the LDS church. If He hadn't, I wouldn't have joined.
-- God has continued to speak to me since.
-- Administrative allocation of membership numbers, status and privileges inside an organization don't matter much to God. I know that because I've been the least of the Latter-day Saints and He has taken note of me.
-- God will continue to have fellowship with me.
-- The religion I believe has existed from eternity and will continue into eternity. Therefore, a temporary, corporate organization that is owned by a sole individual, which IS The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints won't survive beyond the veil. There you leave behind your money. You can't buy or sell in that better place. Since I've been there already, the turbulence here is of little moment to me.
-- Souls matter. Yours, mine the living and the dead. God is more compassionate that we are. No matter how serious we take our organizations, our things, the souls of mankind are infinitely more valuable than commerce between ourselves.
-- I have an assignment given to me I intend to discharge. It is because I love God and therefore love His children. It will cost me a great deal to accomplish that. Not only ire of the organization, but the money I will spend to accomplish the task.
-- I am converted. Not to things, but to God. Whatever stuff is taken away, that will remain.

Being that this is an imperfect Church with imperfect human beings, not all excommunications in the past proved to be valid. German LDS member Helmuth Hübener was excommunicated after his arrest by the Gestapo in 1942 for publicly opposing the National Socialist regime which ruled Germany. However, the official who excommunicated him, Arthur Zander, was a fervent member of the NSDAP, even to the extent of affixing notices to the church door stating "Jews not welcome" beginning in 1938. After the end of World War II, when the excesses of the National Socialist regime became fully manifested, the Church posthumously reinstated Hübener in 1946. So it is not impossible for an LDS member to be wrongfully disciplined.

Initially, LDS members primarily took two sides on this issue, with people like Tim Malone vigorously supporting Snuffer, while others, some suspected of being COB (Church Office Building) flaks, portraying Snuffer as an "apostate" (read some of the comments HERE). However, a third position has emerged, as expressed on LDS Alive In Christ. Jared suggests that Denver Snuffer started out well, but may have been deceived with the passage of time. Jared writes:

After reading his first book in 2007 I was excited. I talked with him a couple of times and prayed about his message, I was surprised when I began to feel uneasy, so I decided not to read any of his other books. I took a wait and see attitude. That’s the reason I haven’t read PTHG except for the first chapter. Over the years, I’ve kept up with him by reading others bloggers and reading his blog.

Even though I haven’t read all of his books I know enough about his message to offer a few thoughts on his work. Denver is a gifted researcher and writer. After reading his first book it was evident that he was going to become well known in Mormon circles.

His first book was written in April 2006. Today, Sept 6, 2013, he is on the verge of losing his church membership. Denver changed course from writing faith-supporting books, where now, in his latest book he undermines the credibility of the church and its leaders. To use the words of his Stake President Denver denigrates LDS prophets from Joseph Smith to President Monson.

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of a stake president asking Denver Snuffer to break commitments. This whole sequence may prove to be justified, but the execution is ham-handed.

Denver Snuffer Called To An LDS Disciplinary Council Over His Book "Passing The Heavenly Gift", Faces Disfellowshipment Or Excommunication

Update September 9th: Denver Snuffer's disciplinary council hearing ends inconclusively; updated post HERE. Subsequently, Snuffer reported he was excommunicated.

Back in March 2013, I reported that Tim Malone, the editor of Latter-Day Commentary, had speculated that Denver Snuffer, who has written eight books, was being investigated for possible Church discipline, and that the investigation was coming to a head. Malone did not give a specific reason at the time, though.

Now it's come to a head. Denver Snuffer has posted a letter from his stake president on his blog without any personal commentary. He is invited to appear before a disciplinary council to be held at the Sandy Utah Crescent Stake Center on September 8th, 2013. Presiding will be the stake president, Truman Hunt; also in attendance will be the stake high council and Snuffer's bishop. In a second post, Snuffer explained why he posted the letter, saying that he did not want anyone to attend any of his upcoming talks, including the first in Boise, without making them aware they were listening to someone who has church discipline pending. Snuffer also says there's no need for anyone to write letters to the Church defending him; he would just as soon let this run its course.

Update August 26th: In a new post entitled "Current Events", Snuffer provides more background. He says his previous stake president defended him against allegations of "apostasy" put forth by the Strengthening the Members Committee, which is apparently behind this kerfluffle. He warned Snuffer that the new stake president (Truman Hunt) would be the "Pharaoh that knew not Joseph". Snuffer says President Hunt has investigated, delayed, discussed this with him, pushed back against LDS headquarters, has been called in for "training", and received input from the top leadership in the church. He told Snuffer a great deal at the start about what was going on behind the scenes, which matched what the former stake president had been telling him during his tenure. Snuffer says he will continue to try to help the Church regardless of its opinion of him, and he simply has no axe to grind no matter the outcome on September 8th. What a Christ-like attitude!

The question to be considered by the stake disciplinary council is whether or not Snuffer's book, "Passing The Heavenly Gift", is considered apostasy. If the council concludes that the book is an act of apostasy, the only alternatives are disfellowshipment or excommunication. President Hunt does not seem enthusiastic about convening this council, which makes me wonder if he is being pressured by Church headquarters. Nevertheless, President Hunt suggests the "Passing The Heavenly Gift" is not constructive to the work of salvation or the promotion of faith in the Gospel. He considers the book's thesis to be in direct conflict with Church doctrine, and he accuses Snuffer of mischaracterizing Church doctrine, denigrating every prophet since Joseph Smith, and placing the Church in a negative light, although he does concede that the book tries to bridge the gap between the Church and its dissidents.

President Hunt imposes three conditions for Snuffer to avert the disciplinary council:

(1). Remove "Passing The Heavenly Gift" from circulation.

(2). Acknowledge to readers of his blog that "Passing The Heavenly Gift" contains content that needs to be withdrawn.

(3). Cancel his planned speaking tour which begins in September.

I have not read "Passing The Heavenly Gift", so I cannot personally rule out the possibility that there may be some foundation for concern. Here's a description of the book from Amazon:

Mormonism has undergone four distinct phases. The first began in 1820 and ended with Joseph Smith’s death in 1844. The second began upon Joseph Smith’s death and ended with abandonment of plural marriage, publicly in 1890 and privately in 1904. In the third phase Mormonism denounced as apostasy its practice of plural wives, marking the first time an orthodox practice became grounds for excommunication. The fourth phase began with David O. McKay and is still underway. In it Mormonism has adopted corporate management techniques to consolidate and direct central church decision-making. The first phase was innovative and expansive, continually adding doctrine, scripture, teachings and ordinances. Subsequent phases have curtailed, abandoned, even denounced earlier teaching and doctrine. Phases two through four have all abandoned doctrine. Growth in these subsequent phases has been defined in terms of political influence, financial gains, cultural inroads, and population growth; while the underlying religion has been curtailed. Today, marketing the institution has become more important to Mormon success than preserving the original religious content. The changes from phase to phase have completely transformed Mormonism, sharing a vocabulary but redefining the terms. Modern Mormonism has now institutionalized change. For the first time in this book Mormonism is candidly described in terms which track the changes by examining doctrine, teachings and practices. Interestingly, the passing of the heavenly gift was anticipated by Joseph Smith’s prophecies and the Book of Mormon.

While it may be harsh to say that the Church "abandoned doctrine" in phases two through four, I find nothing in the description alone that would hint of apostasy. As a matter of fact, Denver Snuffer has gone out of his way to assure readers that he is neither trying to supersede the General Authorities nor promoting apostasy. Snuffer himself made this abundantly clear in this post:

1. I sustain today’s church leaders as prophets, seers and revelators. The scriptures give them the right to use those titles (D&C 107: 92). They preside, and it is their right to do so. They have our common consent and ought to be upheld by our “confidence, faith and prayers” (D&C 107: 22). I uphold them in this way. They carry heavy burdens and have my sympathy, not my judgment, for any human frailties they display.

2. It is utterly untrue that I have said the church is apostate. I reject the accusation. If the narrative I suggest in PTHG is true, then the Lord’s post-Nauvoo ire is evidence the Lord is still watching over and intends to further His work with the members of this church. Those whom He loves, He chastens. (Heb. 12: 5-11; Helaman 12: 3; D&C 95: 1.) Mine is not a faithless, but a faith filled history. I’ve reiterated this before and reiterate it again. (See my post: The Traditions of Men, Part 1, April 21, 2010.)

Tim Malone has posted another defense of Denver Snuffer on Latter-day Commentary. He notes that if Snuffer is excommunicated, he would have to answer the temple recommend question “Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” for himself with a little bit more thought". Since Denver Snuffer wishes no harm upon the Church, my answer would still be No. Other reaction has been posted on LDS Anarchy and Wheat and Tares, and some comments on Pure Mormonism.

If the LDS Church can excommunicate Denver Snuffer, then Samuel the Lamanite must be thankful he came forth when he did. Could you imagine what would happen if Samuel the Lamanite started crying repentance in downtown Salt Lake today?

LDS Author Denver Snuffer Vigorously Denies Superseding The General Authorities Or Promoting Apostasy

Update September 9th: Denver Snuffer's disciplinary council hearing ends inconclusively; updated post HERE. Subsequently, Snuffer reported he was excommunicated.

Update August 25th: Denver Snuffer has been called to attend a disciplinary council on September 8th over his book Passing The heavenly Gift. Updated post HERE.

The name Denver Snuffer provokes strong reaction within the ranks of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some believe he truly has the "heavenly gift", while others suggest he's positioning himself as a "One Mighty And Strong" character. Even the senior leadership of the Church is mindful; on Latter-day Commentary, Tim Malone suggests that Snuffer is being investigated for possible disciplinary action, and that the investigation may be coming to a head.

Denver Snuffer is the author of eight books. These include The Second Comforter: Conversing With the Lord Through the Veil, Nephi's Isaiah, Eighteen Verses, Ten Parables, Beloved Enos, Come, Let Us Adore Him, Removing the Condemnation, and Passing the Heavenly Gift. The first and last books on the list generate the most interest and discussion within the LDS community, since not everyone gets the First Comforter, and it is almost unheard of to get the Second Comforter. The First Comforter is the Holy Ghost, but when we are baptized and confirmed as members of the Church, we do not automatically get the Holy Ghost, but are commanded to receive the Holy Ghost. Thus confirmation opens up a channel for us to access the Holy Ghost -- if we choose to use it. The Second Comforter is none other than Jesus Christ Himself.

Since Passing The Heavenly Gift is the most-discussed book, here's the description of it from Amazon:

Mormonism has undergone four distinct phases. The first began in 1820 and ended with Joseph Smith’s death in 1844. The second began upon Joseph Smith’s death and ended with abandonment of plural marriage, publicly in 1890 and privately in 1904. In the third phase Mormonism denounced as apostasy its practice of plural wives, marking the first time an orthodox practice became grounds for excommunication. The fourth phase began with David O. McKay and is still underway. In it Mormonism has adopted corporate management techniques to consolidate and direct central church decision-making. The first phase was innovative and expansive, continually adding doctrine, scripture, teachings and ordinances. Subsequent phases have curtailed, abandoned, even denounced earlier teaching and doctrine. Phases two through four have all abandoned doctrine. Growth in these subsequent phases has been defined in terms of political influence, financial gains, cultural inroads, and population growth; while the underlying religion has been curtailed. Today, marketing the institution has become more important to Mormon success than preserving the original religious content. The changes from phase to phase have completely transformed Mormonism, sharing a vocabulary but redefining the terms. Modern Mormonism has now institutionalized change. For the first time in this book Mormonism is candidly described in terms which track the changes by examining doctrine, teachings and practices. Interestingly, the passing of the heavenly gift was anticipated by Joseph Smith’s prophecies and the Book of Mormon.

The description of the phases is factual, although a bit heavy-handed. I consider it more precise to say that the LDS Church, with the passage of time, has actually clarified its doctrine and better delineated between hardcore doctrine, evolved tradition, and unsubstantiated folklore. Because of the principle of continuing revelation, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are subject to inspiration or revelation at any time the Lord deems it appropriate for His servants to make course corrections.

However, the fact that I might consider Snuffer's assessment a bit heavy-handed in no way impinges upon his worthiness as a member. While I've not read any of his books, I've read enough of his blog, as well as this review of Passing The Heavenly Gift published by Tim Malone, to conclude that Denver Snuffer is neither trying to supersede the General Authorities nor promoting apostasy. Snuffer himself makes this abundantly clear in this post:

1. I sustain today’s church leaders as prophets, seers and revelators. The scriptures give them the right to use those titles (D&C 107: 92). They preside, and it is their right to do so. They have our common consent and ought to be upheld by our “confidence, faith and prayers” (D&C 107: 22). I uphold them in this way. They carry heavy burdens and have my sympathy, not my judgment, for any human frailties they display.

2. It is utterly untrue that I have said the church is apostate. I reject the accusation. If the narrative I suggest in PTHG is true, then the Lord’s post-Nauvoo ire is evidence the Lord is still watching over and intends to further His work with the members of this church. Those whom He loves, He chastens. (Heb. 12: 5-11; Helaman 12: 3; D&C 95: 1.) Mine is not a faithless, but a faith filled history. I’ve reiterated this before and reiterate it again. (See my post: The Traditions of Men, Part 1, April 21, 2010.)

There you have it. Denver Snuffer remains an absolutely faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The fact that the Church may be investigating him for a possible disciplinary council is no guarantor that he will be disfellowshipped or excommunicated, or that such a council will actually take place. By the way, Snuffer says that any royalties he receives from the sale of his books are donated to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Excommunicated Mormon Warns Against The Loss Of The Holy Ghost, Says It's An Intense Physical Feeling Of Loss And Emptiness

Each year, a number of people sever membership with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for a variety of reasons and under different circumstances. Many decide they cannot reconcile themselves with alternative Church history or with unique practices such as temple ceremonies, and so they resign. But some are excommunicated, almost always for legitimate cause (although some devout Mormons have question the excommunication of Dr. Melvin Fish, who deflected one attempt but was nailed on the second attempt).

One such excommunicant has shared his testimony on the LDS Freedom Forum. Towards the end of the thread, he reveals he was excommunicated for adultery:

A Voice of Warning

Postby skmo » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:45 pm
This is part of my testimony to you all, I hope none of you have to learn this same lesson I did.

As some of you may know, I was excommunicated in the Summer of 2012. My wife had left me at that time (we have since reconciled) and I had a High Council Court at which I was excommunicated. As I left the building I had the most intense feeling of loss. I had never known such a feeling of emptiness. I know first hand what the loss of the Gift of the Holy Ghost feels like, there is a physical feeling associated with it. a most terrible feeling. I pray none of you need to find this out firsthand, it is thoroughly horrible.

We know that the idea of a lake of fire and brimstone where people are eternally burning and yet never consumed is just a figurative device, but say with all candor that the idea that you all alone and without the companionship of the Holy Ghost is real. It is my most fervent prayer that you take heed from one who has walked the path of sin that you live in accordance with the principles we know to be true so that you may keep this wonderful gift.

I cannot tell any of you the way to choose right for yourselves, we all seem to have differing views on many points. I can, however, offer you my testimony that the Gift of the Holy Ghost should never be taken for granted. Do NOT make choices in your life that would cause you to lose this blessed gift.

In the LDS Church, adultery is considered the second most serious sin, next to capital or first-degree murder. Consequently, the penalty levied for adultery will almost always be excommunication rather than mere disfellowshipment or probation. Note that the man didn't just confess his sin to his wife and the Lord; he also confessed it to his bishop. In October 1955, Elder Marion G. Romney, then an Assistant to the Twelve, gave counsel as to what sins needed to be confessed to a priesthood leader, saying “Finally, where one’s transgressions are of such a nature as would, unrepented of, put in jeopardy his right to membership or fellowship in the Church of Jesus Christ, full and effective confession would, in my judgment, require confession by the repentant sinner to his bishop or other proper presiding Church officer”. This is backed up scripturally by Mosiah 26:29 and D&C 58:43. The bishop will then convene a disciplinary court for an offender who either holds the Aaronic Priesthood or no priesthood, or else forwards a recommendation for a disciplinary council to the stake president for a Melchizedek Priesthood holder.

The Disciplinary Council was once called a Church Court, then they went to the other extreme and gave it the Orwellian title of Court Of Love. Disciplinary councils do not approach their task joyously; they enter into it with a heavy heart. Tim Malone, the editor of Latter-day Commentary, has participated in a few dozen disciplinary councils and provides some insight into their workings (after the jump):

MormonThink Editor David Twede Faces Disciplinary Council, But Excommunication Not Necessarily Guaranteed

Update October 22nd: David Twede announces his resignation from the LDS Church.

Update September 27th: David Twede's disciplinary council hearing postponed indefinitely.

An upcoming disciplinary council for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is generating considerable buzz. David Twede, editor of the anti-Mormon website MormonThink, has been summoned by his stake president to a disciplinary council to be held at 7:30 A.M. on September 30th, 2012 at the Orlando Florida Hunters Creek Stake Center. Twede displays a copy of the summons on his personal blog; the letter states that "The Stake Presidency is considering formal disciplinary action in your behalf, including the possibility of disfellowshipment or excommunication, because you are reported to have been in apostasy”. This means that excommunication is NOT a foregone conclusion at this point, and that Twede will be able to exercise considerable control over the final outcome based upon how he explains his actions and future intentions. Other possible outcomes include probation and exoneration.

Twede not only will face the Stake Presidency, but also the entire 12-man Stake High Council. He is entitled to have another Church member there to advocate on his behalf. Twede claims his supporters will be holding a vigil or rally outside the Orlando Temple on Windy Ridge Rd at 7:00 P.M. EDT on Saturday September 29th.

CNN posts a good summary of the story, including a number of pertinent links from other media sources. The Daily Beast originally broke the story publicly on September 21st, reporting that Twede had been handed the summons at a September 16th meeting with his stake president, bishop, and two church executives. At the time it was believed that a series of articles critical of Mitt Romney that he published on MormonThink may have provoked the local priesthood's ire.

However, according to a new Washington Post article, Twede now says his church leaders never brought up Romney, a Mormon, in their exchange with him. Twede apologized to Romney, saying, “I didn’t mean for (the story) to go this way.” Twede explained that local church leaders were more upset about the fact that he revealed things about the temple, and secrecy, and other things that they just don’t want anyone to talk about. Mormonthink did have an entire section discussing LDS temple ceremonies and their connection to Masonic rites, with links to photos and text of LDS temple rituals, which is why it's considered an anti-Mormon site. Opponents of the LDS Church have spent nearly 200 years trying to discredit it by playing the "Masonic" card, which also defames and smears Freemasonry as well.

Scott Gordon, president of FAIR, a nonprofit group that defends Mormonism, suggests that church leaders took exception to Twede's other writings, including an unflattering blog post detailing his attendance at a September 9th church service at Hunter's Creek in south Orange County. Gordon said some MormonThink contributors will do anything they can to embarrass the church in order to justify their own departure from its ranks.

In response, the LDS Church has made two statements about disciplinary councils:

"It is patently false for someone to suggest they face Church discipline for having questions or for expressing a political view. The Church is an advocate of individual choice. It is a core tenet of our faith. Church discipline becomes necessary only in those rare occasions when an individual’s actions cannot be ignored while they claim to be in good standing with the Church. Every organization, whether religious or secular, must be able to define where its boundaries begin and end."

“While some may want to make their version of an issue public, the Church will not discuss the private lives of individuals. These matters are handled by local Church leaders and are done in an attitude of love and caring. There are a number of possible outcomes to a Church disciplinary proceeding, only one of which is excommunication, which would be the most severe and least common result.”

You can review both MormonThink and Twede's own blog, and make up your mind as to whether or not they are anti-Mormon resources. The degree to which David Twede calls into question church doctrine, and the egregiously disrespectful syntax used, leads me to conclude that it is anti-Mormon, and that to preserve his Church membership, he should be required to at least take MormonThink down.

Alexander Tsiaras' Video Visualization Of The Progression Of An Unborn Human Baby Validates LDS Church's Official Position On Abortion

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially deplores abortion, although they do distinguish between therapeutic abortion, normally defined as abortion to save the mother's life, preserve her fundamental health, and to deal with the product of rape and incest, vs. elective abortion, which generally has no medical necessity. While elective abortion can expose an LDS woman to church discipline, therapeutic abortion results in no sanctions.

A video produced by Alexander Tsiaras, author of the book “From Conception to Birth: A Life Unfolds", underscores why the Church takes abortion so seriously. This video, discovered on The Blaze, graphically and progressively depicts the development of a human baby, beginning by showing an egg being fertilized and ending by illustrating a baby’s actual birth. Throughout the clip, viewers see the full fetal development with explanations as to what is occurring at each phase. The actual sequence of fetal development begins at 2:05:



This video should illustrate to the pro-choice viewer why we pro-lifers consider unborn human life to be so sacred. Allowing therapeutic abortion represented a major political compromise on our part; it should be matched by a commitment to respect parental consent and parental notification initiatives from the pro-choice side.

Here's the full official LDS Church statement on abortion, first published a while back:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

* Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
* A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
* A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.