1. Protecting the interests of the church (not the member or the truth) is most important 2. The truth and the member will be sacrficed to protect the church 3. Threatening the member is the main tactic
That address is actually the SP's house. If you Google Map it you'll see that the church is down the road a bit (outside the gated community of Pepperwood, one of the nicest in SL County).
Truman Hunt is the CEO of NuSkin, I know this because he's the father of one of my classmates at BYU.
Yup. Not a cult. Not at all. How could anybody get that idea.
I hope he tells them he'll be there, lets them all show up in their Sunday go-to-lovecourt-best and then just blows them off and doesn't show up. That's what I did, but it was only a Bishop's court so only 3 people had to trek to the church on a Saturday. Wish it had been 17 (HC, stake presidency and scribe). That would have been much more fun.
I love how they get so much more attention for these people by trying to hold these courts. His books will get more sales, people will be googling him, and people like me who never heard of him, now will know all about it. Love the stupidity. They are obviously giving the guy exactly what he wanted.
I have read one other of his and was surprised to learn he was still a member, either by his choice or otherwise. Well, it appears the decision is about to be made. Oh, and the book I read was clearly a stretch of doctrine, at best.
When faced with a church court one must always follow the actions of LDS church leaders. You should LIE just like they do.
I did not write those books, I do not know who wrote those books. I do not know why they used my name. Everyone assumes it was me. I have never said anything against the church. I did not say those things in your office. Why are you SP lying about me? As god lives I have told the truth. Your facts are lies and rumors.
The church has to have you admit to your guilt. They never have facts. Just rumors or you being truthful.
Wow. I thought LDS inc learned its lesson last year when it got unwanted publicity for trying to ex me, Mormonthink blogger. I guess they feel stupid again.
Jesus Smith Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow. I thought LDS inc learned its lesson last > year when it got unwanted publicity for trying to > ex me, Mormonthink blogger. I guess they feel > stupid again. > > Go get them Denver!
well, if Mr. Snuffer actually Likes and Wants to be an active member of TSCC, I would say it could be psychologically damaging to him. So excommuncation would be a bad idea for him. If LDS, Inc... wanted to be nice and understanding (and actually loyal meaning Caring about their own kind) then they should make excuses for him. But that's not the way it is.
burnned Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well, if Mr. Snuffer actually Likes and Wants to > be an active member of TSCC, I would say it could > be psychologically damaging to him. So > excommuncation would be a bad idea for him. If > LDS, Inc... wanted to be nice and understanding > (and actually loyal meaning Caring about their own > kind) then they should make excuses for him. But > that's not the way it is.
The thought just struck me (most thoughts come that way, to me anyway): this question of wanting to stay in the church seems to exactly parallel the slogan of "America- love it or leave it" that was popular during the 1960's. To a large part of the American citizenry, it made a lot of sense. America worked, at least for them, and they simply could not understand why anybody would want to criticize the American way- just as most believeing Mormons cannot understand why anybody would be unsatisfied with Mormonism and its promises/benefits.
But what they were missing is that there were people for whom the American system simply did not work. These people felt cheated, excluded, and betrayed, and all they wanted was for their grievances to be legitimately addressed. They wanted to be part of the American life that the Love It or Leave It crowd automatically accepted. They wanted fair representationin the legal system. They wanted full access to employment, entertainment venues, and so on. But they weren't allowed. So they wanted the American establishment to simply admit their patterns of exclusion.
It is the same with Mormonism. The "critics" are merely poeple who want a piece of the pie. They (we) want our voices to be heard. We want accountability from the leaders. We want to be included in the decision making process. We want the camaraderie and inclusiveness shared by the winners in the church lottery.
As for why we stay: in many instances, it is because we really care about religion. We want to understand the concept of God. We want spirituality. We want there to be an actual orgainzation dedicated to promoting moral causes. And we want to not feel that our membership in the instituion to be denied at the slightest indication of dissent.
> > As for why we stay: in many instances, it is > because we really care about religion. We want to > understand the concept of God. We want > spirituality. We want there to be an actual > orgainzation dedicated to promoting moral causes. > And we want to not feel that our membership in the > instituion to be denied at the slightest > indication of dissent. > > Thank you.
Wanting something doesn't make it true. The false religion DOESN'T help understand the concept of god. The false religion doesn't create spirituality. It's moral causes are based on false morals. Memberships will come with strict rules that result in expulsion if not strictly followed.
From the synopsis of his book, it appears questionable and possibly apostacy. The church, any church, has every right to excommunicate heretics. Why act indignant about it.
More curiously, why do heretics get all upset when the organization they belong to disciplines them. What else did they expect?
If I wrote a book claiming the company I work for were a bunch of liars, I'd be rightly fired.
True. I think he and anyone else, myself included, would have to make the decision that being exed must be faced as a likelihood if you produce writings they don't like. Personally I'd formally resign so that they would be legally barred from excommunicating or disciplining me.
Isn't the tscc kind of double dipping her in regards to his constitutional rights? He has the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Tscc is telling him he has one or the other. The US constitution says he has both.
The mormon church is a private club. While Mr. Snuffer is free to believe whatever he wishes, the church is free to admit him in good standing, or kick him out. The only exception to that is his right to resign from the church prior to them kicking him out. This has nothing to do with his constitutional rights. He can't be discriminated with regards to a job on the basis of his beliefs.
First, JasonK is absolutely right. Any private, privately funded, organization, religious or not, has the right to set their own membership rules and to enforce them. Anyone who doesn't want to follow them should recognize that if they choose not to follow the rules, they may be removed from the group. No matter how crazy the group is, that's the way it works.
Slskipper, I was with your analogy up until this part, "It is the same with Mormonism. The "critics" are merely poeple who want a piece of the pie. They (we) want our voices to be heard. We want accountability from the leaders. We want to be included in the decision making process. We want the camaraderie and inclusiveness shared by the winners in the church lottery."
Personally, I could not disagree more. That may be true of you and perhaps some others who choose to stay, but I do not want a piece of the LDS pie, that had nothing to do with my leaving the LDS Church. I don't want anything to do with this damaging, money-grubbing organization that lies constantly and consistently and teaches and believes that all are not created equally. I do not want to be a part of the "camaraderie" that requires living within their little box. Been there, done that, no thanks. All it did was make me miserable.
The Church is incredibly slippery when it comes to expounding "doctrine." When someone writes something speculative they claim it goes against "doctrine" which they will not officially expound.
Interesting is the following two things in the letter:
(1) "The issue for consideration at the disciplinary council is whether the continued publication of PASSING THE HEAVENLY GIFT constitutes an act of apostasy . . ."
So that's what will be considered at the disciplinary council . . . except . . .
(2) "The books thesis is in direct conflict with Church doctrine. In your effort to defend the restoration you have mischaracterized doctrine, denigrated virtually every prophet since Joseph Smith, and placed the Church in a negative light. . . . Your work pits you against the institution of the Church and will lead to the spiritual demise of you and your family."
So, in other words, you are already guilty and we won't really be considering whether it's an act of apostasy or not since I've already decided that it is.
1. I am amazed he was given so much time before the council meeting. I was only given seven days the first time and three in the repeat! Anyway, it is apostasy only if he claims he is teaching correct LDS doctrine and it is not. Denver has two possible defenses: that he did not present it as LDS doctrine, or it is, in fact, correct LDS doctrine. If he goes the latter route, he has a sure right of appeal as to the correctness of what he is teaching. 2. Denver has the additional options of resigning or of explaining to the council that TSCC is wrong and going out with a proverbial bang.
I've read his last two books. One of them nearly drove me insane as a TBM trying to get the 2nd comforter by following all his steps. The latest one called Passing the Heavenly Gift talks about how he believes the church lost the priesthood during Joseph Smith's time, a chapter against Brigham Young, a chapter against polygamy, and another chapter against the current leaders who aren't running the church like Joseph Smith would like. Then in the last chapter he tries to save face by telling people the best place for them is in the church. But his teachings mainly promote New Age & Fundamentalist, minus the polygamy part.
Don't know if it's been mentioned here yet, but he claims to have met with Jesus and many other prophets. Many of his followers actually call him a prophet. Most of them can't get revelations or visions like he can, so they just hang on his every word instead. The "Snufferites" who are mostly from the church, mixed with Dream Miners & Fundamentalists, believe more than the mainstream church that the 7 years of desolation has either just started or is about to start, some are bugging out in the wilderness, others are preparing for martial law. The main feeling among them is paranoia & excitement for the world to start burning & the wicked dying so that they can have the planet for themselves and rule from Independence, MO. They are basically trying to revive most of Joseph Smith's craziest teachings that the church wisely got rid of, plus mixing that with New Age stuff.