Aimee K
I heard much criticism yesterday directed toward Stephanie Snuffer; questioning her impartiality in fulfilling her duty required by the Lord.
Have your wife, Stephanie Snuffer conduct the conference deliberations and let any who want to speak present their concerns.
Stephanie responded to an email I sent her which expressed concerns over the perceived lack of order in the first Zoom meeting. She responded with the following:
The issue is that I am not in charge of the conference or the Zoom meetings. A woman or women who organize a conference have complete autonomy. They prayerfully decide how they think best to run the conference and any ancillary meetings, etc.
email from Stephanie Snuffer, 24 March 2024
The conference organizers emailed everyone who registered an agenda for the Zoom meetings; outlined explicitly. Participants are expected to respect the framework set up and stay within those bounds and not hijack the meeting with their own agenda. Stephanie is only helping the organizers to stay within the framework and does not have an agenda.
I hadn’t planned on attending last night’s Zoom until several women texted me that it was a hot mess and the recording likely wouldn’t be posted.
I got on just in time to hear a royal butt chewing. Stephanie may be tough as nails, but she is not immortal. We must figure out a way to sort this out without creating an “Office of Stephanie Snuffer” should disputes continue beyond her lifetime.
Stephanie said, [paraphrased] “I can see your faces. I know you’re shooting daggers at me.”
Not me, no ma’am. This is my “I’m-going-to-cry” face.
I sat there, mending my husband’s favorite wool socks, listening as the meeting proceeded with a bit more decorum and order.
I raised my hand at one point, but I am not on the council, whose comments were rightly prioritized.
There has been talk of declaring that all previous women’s councils ought to be treated as legitimate. However, according to the 14unanimous website:
SEPTEMBER 2014
The Man in Question received a priesthood certificate in September 2014. It was signed by The Woman Who Has a Dispute and at least one of our council members.
SEPTEMBER 2020
The Woman Who Has a Dispute “removed” the Man In Question’s 2014 certificate for reasons she will not disclose, and she did so without holding a women’s council.
There is one way designated in revelation by which a man may have his priesthood certificate removed.
I have told you that to remove authority to use priesthood outside a man’s family requires a unanimous decision by twelve women.
She did not call upon 11 other women. Despite her unilateral decision to withdraw his certificate, he conceded.
Is this a matter of letter of the law versus spirit of the law? Perhaps she felt like, in spirit, she met the requirement on her own. Yes, it was a unanimous decision with me, myself and I, and she may have felt herself equal to that of twelve regular women.
Perhaps if a letter of the law is created, it ought to be that the council must collectively weigh 1200 pounds; figuring about 100 pounds per woman each. However, four women who all weigh 300 pounds could meet that burden to form a “letter of the law” council.
Now, I say that facetiously. It’s a logical fallacy. Specifically Straw Man, where the argument is distorted into something more outrageous.
For my part, I’d love to hear how she justified the action without 11 other women, because from my vantage point she violated both the letter and the spirit of the law with her “12 in spirit” one woman council.
As for defining a letter of the law in “daily walk” we can certainly require that every woman must personally observe at least 50 steps from the man’s doorstep every day for a year, like the Pharisees did in limiting steps out of your door for proper sabbath day observance. [insert eye roll] Don’t be silly!
You can mandate enough hedges around the letter of the law that no woman is qualified to know his daily walk. Therefore no woman is qualified to sit on a council against him.
SORRY, you only watched him take 42 steps last Tuesday and didn’t even see his daily walk on April 1st. NO SOUP FOR YOU!
I’ll let Chat GPT explain if you don’t get the reference:
The phrase “No soup for you!” became famous from a 1995 episode of Seinfeld, a hit American sitcom. In the episode titled “The Soup Nazi”, a temperamental soup stand owner has very strict ordering rules. If customers don’t follow them exactly, he refuses to serve them, often snapping:
“No soup for you!”
Cultural Meaning:
Over time, the phrase became a popular catchphrase in pop culture. It’s now often used jokingly or sarcastically to mean:
“You’re not getting what you want.”
“You’ve broken the rules, so you’re out.”
“You’re being denied, usually in a funny or exaggerated way.”
Example Use:
Someone might jokingly say it if their friend is acting up:
“You forgot my birthday again? No cake for you!”
In the first Zoom meeting Stephanie said that The Woman Who Has a Dispute has an important role to play. Organizer #2 has an important role to play. The council also have an important role to play. I believe her!
THIS IS HARD WORK. But it must be done.
Much like the labor a woman does in bringing a child into the world, husbands can only watch helplessly on and pray to God that He brings both mother and child through safely.
There has been an open house organized in the room next door for the men to gather, and pray for their wives, mothers, sisters, daughters and friends. We are indeed in labor. And though you cannot carry the burden for us, we will need your strength and prayers.
Invitation to All Men
We do not know the impetus for removing the certificate in 2020, however IF The Woman Who Has a Dispute removed the Man’s certificate without the benefit of a council of 12 women, as the Lord has instructed, for a SERIOUS sin, and then the decision of the second council of 14 women in 2024, who did consider that he was not legally married to his wife, it may be a final AMEN to using his priesthood for public ordinances.
You did not ask me, but I say that your question arises from the instructions I gave you: I have told you that to remove authority to use priesthood outside a man’s family requires a unanimous decision by twelve women. A council of twelve women must be convened, either in the man’s home fellowship among those who are acquainted with his daily walk, or in private at a general conference, also including among the twelve women from the conference those who are acquainted with his daily walk, so that no injustice results. Reinstatement of the man’s authority must be considered by the same council of twelve women when the man petitions for the decision to be rescinded, and requires seven of the twelve to agree upon his reinstatement, which can occur at any time. During the period of suspension, nothing affects the man’s duties and responsibility in his own family. I say to you, if a man has been suspended for adultery, and then been reinstated, and return again to adultery, he shall not be reinstated again, for to do so places my community at peril.
The Woman Who Has a Dispute needs to declare that her own women’s council was illegitimate and the man is freed to repent and eventually petition the council of 14 for reinstatement. Instead she is disputing over the legitimacy of the 2024 council and a definition of “daily walk”.
