Jump to content
rockpond

MormonLeaks: Snuffer/Remnant believers

Recommended Posts

The latest MormonLeak... An [alleged] email sent from a member of the Seventy to Craig Christensen seeking advice on how to handle a complaint that a member of a particular Stake had sent to the First Presidency that was redirected to the member of the Seventy via the local Stake President. Included is the letter that the member of the Seventy is referring to in the email.

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=File:Letter_about_apostasy_concern.pdf

You might want to start with the letter on page 2 (from a member of an unidentified stake) to get things in chronological order.  Basically the original letter (p. 2) is a plea to the Brethren to speak to the Snuffer/Remnant issue. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The latest MormonLeak... An [alleged] email sent from a member of the Seventy to Craig Christensen seeking advice on how to handle a complaint that a member of a particular Stake had sent to the First Presidency that was redirected to the member of the Seventy via the local Stake President. Included is the letter that the member of the Seventy is referring to in the email.

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=File:Letter_about_apostasy_concern.pdf

You might want to start with the letter on page 2 (from a member of an unidentified stake) to get things in chronological order.  Basically the original letter (p. 2) is a plea to the Brethren to speak to the Snuffer/Remnant issue. 

So are Remnant members trying to recruit members while lying to keep recommends?  I didn't realize that was what they were up to. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The latest MormonLeak... An [alleged] email sent from a member of the Seventy to Craig Christensen seeking advice on how to handle a complaint that a member of a particular Stake had sent to the First Presidency that was redirected to the member of the Seventy via the local Stake President. Included is the letter that the member of the Seventy is referring to in the email.

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=File:Letter_about_apostasy_concern.pdf

You might want to start with the letter on page 2 (from a member of an unidentified stake) to get things in chronological order.  Basically the original letter (p. 2) is a plea to the Brethren to speak to the Snuffer/Remnant issue. 

Did you see anything where these letters/emails are dated.  One thing I keep wondering is if this is a growing movement or has already hit its peak?  I'm not sure, but that would be interesting to know.  

I think the church is trying to address these issues without also bringing too much publicity to it.  Its a matter of trying to gauge the potential impact of more public pronouncements and whether or not that will have a net negative or positive impact.  How interesting the dynamics at play here with the more these more apocalyptic and fundamental Mormons.  You have to admire their tenacity and commitment to these beliefs on some level.  Thanks for sharing! 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So are Remnant members trying to recruit members while lying to keep recommends?  I didn't realize that was what they were up to. 

That's the claim.  I don't know how universally true it may be.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Did you see anything where these letters/emails are dated.  One thing I keep wondering is if this is a growing movement or has already hit its peak?  I'm not sure, but that would be interesting to know.  

If there were dates on the correspondence, they have been redacted.  And the MormonLeaks site doesn't seem to indicate the dates either.  

 

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the church is trying to address these issues without also bringing too much publicity to it.  Its a matter of trying to gauge the potential impact of more public pronouncements and whether or not that will have a net negative or positive impact.

I agree.  The author of the original letter (pg 2) seems to want the Brethren to speak out specifically and boldly regarding Snuffer.  I can't imagine them doing that because it could potentially cause many others, who may never have heard of Snuffer, to go start researching him and reading his works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

What a sad, pathetic response.

The situation described in the letter requires public and clear action.  And yet the response focuses on bureaucracy ("coordinating councils") and secrecy (being"discreet").  The original letter points out that the Snuffer movement is successful specifically because members are unclear on the Church's position (and even interpreting the discretion of Church leaders to be implicit support).  

I don't know if the original letter is accurately describing what is going on, but if it is, then between the author of the response and me, one of us totally missed the point.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, cinepro said:

What a sad, pathetic response.

The situation described in the letter requires public and clear action.  And yet the response focuses on bureaucracy ("coordinating councils") and secrecy (being"discreet").  The original letter points out that the Snuffer movement is successful specifically because members are unclear on the Church's position (and even interpreting the discretion of Church leaders to be implicit support).  

I don't know if the original letter is accurately describing what is going on, but if it is, then between the author of the response and me, one of us totally missed the point.

 

 

I'm not sure how members of the church who are active in their wards and seeking to keep the commandments at home can be "unclear on the Church's position."  What could be unclear?  If we pay attention to general conference the position of the church seems very clear.

And I'm not sure why you're down on coordinating councils and discretion.  Coordinating councils are an opportunity for stake presidents to gather, receive instruction, talk about shared concerns, and learn from each other.  The letter asked for bishops to be discreet so as to not create problems where none exists.  Both sound like smart things to do.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

What a sad, pathetic response.

The situation described in the letter requires public and clear action.  And yet the response focuses on bureaucracy ("coordinating councils") and secrecy (being"discreet").  The original letter points out that the Snuffer movement is successful specifically because members are unclear on the Church's position (and even interpreting the discretion of Church leaders to be implicit support).  

I don't know if the original letter is accurately describing what is going on, but if it is, then between the author of the response and me, one of us totally missed the point.

I don't disagree with you.  And, it is very interesting that the author of the letter feels that the silence from church leaders is being taken as implicit support.  With the way certain things are handled in the church, I can see why some would feel that way.

I think that the problem is that when the Brethren bring some of these issues to the light of day, it causes more to leave than might otherwise go.  I see the Race and Priesthood essay as one example:  They tried to address a troubling issue but doing so in a manner that was largely honest and upfront caused many to lose faith.  If the Brethren were to publicly and specifically comment on Denver Snuffer, don't you think it would make many members rush out and research the movement and/or read Snuffer's books?

But even as I write that, I think:  Our prophet and apostles ought to be able to speak to such an issue fearlessly.  If we can't... than what is that saying about Snuffer and his claims/teachings?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That's the claim.  I don't know how universally true it may be.

I don't think it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

What a sad, pathetic response.

The situation described in the letter requires public and clear action.  And yet the response focuses on bureaucracy ("coordinating councils") and secrecy (being"discreet").  The original letter points out that the Snuffer movement is successful specifically because members are unclear on the Church's position (and even interpreting the discretion of Church leaders to be implicit support).  

I don't know if the original letter is accurately describing what is going on, but if it is, then between the author of the response and me, one of us totally missed the point.

 

 

What response are we talking about here?  The non response that resulted from these two notes being passed to Elder Christensen?  Or the letter sent to Christensen with the attachment from the random member? 

I have to say if I got the letter from the random member and I was some GA leader in charge of this stuff, I might not put too much credibility to it.  People tend to exaggerate things they don't like.  Members are no different.  I think one of the worst things the Church could do is over-react to remnant folks trying to recruit members. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure how members of the church who are active in their wards and seeking to keep the commandments at home can be "unclear on the Church's position."  What could be unclear?  If we pay attention to general conference the position of the church seems very clear.

And I'm not sure why you're down on coordinating councils and discretion.  Coordinating councils are an opportunity for stake presidents to gather, receive instruction, talk about shared concerns, and learn from each other.  The letter asked for bishops to be discreet so as to not create problems where none exists.  Both sound like smart things to do.

 

I'd agree.  But it does make me wonder--how does a remnant movement get footing in an area.  I'd love to sit by and watch it grow.  I just can't imagine it getting any footing in my area. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But even as I write that, I think:  Our prophet and apostles ought to be able to speak to such an issue fearlessly.  If we can't... than what is that saying about Snuffer and his claims/teachings?

I'm not sure how the brethren are not clear on this.  Take this, for example, from the April 2017 General Conference

My dear brothers and sisters, President Monson has asked that I now present to you the General Authorities, Area Seventies, and General Auxiliary Presidencies of the Church for your sustaining vote.

It is proposed that we sustain Thomas Spencer Monson as prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Henry Bennion Eyring as First Counselor in the First Presidency; and Dieter Friedrich Uchtdorf as Second Counselor in the First Presidency.

Those in favor may manifest it.

Those opposed, if any, may manifest it.

It is proposed that we sustain Russell M. Nelson as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the following as members of that quorum: Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, M. Russell Ballard, Robert D. Hales, Jeffrey R. Holland, David A. Bednar, Quentin L. Cook, D. Todd Christofferson, Neil L. Andersen, Ronald A. Rasband, Gary E. Stevenson, and Dale G. Renlund.

Those in favor, please manifest it.

Any opposed may so indicate.

It is proposed that we sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

All in favor, please manifest it.

Contrary, if there be any, by the same sign.

 

If we sustain these men as "prophets, seers, and revelators" then why would we look to Snuffer?  If we acknowledge that these men have been called of God to lead His church then who could we imagine that Snuffer has been called by?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure how the brethren are not clear on this.  Take this, for example, from the April 2017 General Conference

My dear brothers and sisters, President Monson has asked that I now present to you the General Authorities, Area Seventies, and General Auxiliary Presidencies of the Church for your sustaining vote.

It is proposed that we sustain Thomas Spencer Monson as prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Henry Bennion Eyring as First Counselor in the First Presidency; and Dieter Friedrich Uchtdorf as Second Counselor in the First Presidency.

Those in favor may manifest it.

Those opposed, if any, may manifest it.

It is proposed that we sustain Russell M. Nelson as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the following as members of that quorum: Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, M. Russell Ballard, Robert D. Hales, Jeffrey R. Holland, David A. Bednar, Quentin L. Cook, D. Todd Christofferson, Neil L. Andersen, Ronald A. Rasband, Gary E. Stevenson, and Dale G. Renlund.

Those in favor, please manifest it.

Any opposed may so indicate.

It is proposed that we sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

All in favor, please manifest it.

Contrary, if there be any, by the same sign.

 

If we sustain these men as "prophets, seers, and revelators" then why would we look to Snuffer?  If we acknowledge that these men have been called of God to lead His church then who could we imagine that Snuffer has been called by?

I don't see that as speaking to the issue fearlessly.

Why would some members look to Snuffer?  I am assuming that it is because he claims to have seen and spoken with Christ.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't see that as speaking to the issue fearlessly.

Why would some members look to Snuffer?  I am assuming that it is because he claims to have seen and spoken with Christ.

 

Members of the church are asked to sustain the First Presidency as prophets, seers, and revelators.  We are asked to raise our arms to the square.  We do this as both a sign to God and men as to where we stand.  I'm not sure how much bolder the church could be. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure how the brethren are not clear on this.  Take this, for example, from the April 2017 General Conference

My dear brothers and sisters, President Monson has asked that I now present to you the General Authorities, Area Seventies, and General Auxiliary Presidencies of the Church for your sustaining vote.

It is proposed that we sustain Thomas Spencer Monson as prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Henry Bennion Eyring as First Counselor in the First Presidency; and Dieter Friedrich Uchtdorf as Second Counselor in the First Presidency.

Those in favor may manifest it.

Those opposed, if any, may manifest it.

It is proposed that we sustain Russell M. Nelson as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the following as members of that quorum: Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, M. Russell Ballard, Robert D. Hales, Jeffrey R. Holland, David A. Bednar, Quentin L. Cook, D. Todd Christofferson, Neil L. Andersen, Ronald A. Rasband, Gary E. Stevenson, and Dale G. Renlund.

Those in favor, please manifest it.

Any opposed may so indicate.

It is proposed that we sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

All in favor, please manifest it.

Contrary, if there be any, by the same sign.

 

If we sustain these men as "prophets, seers, and revelators" then why would we look to Snuffer?  If we acknowledge that these men have been called of God to lead His church then who could we imagine that Snuffer has been called by?

We can't consider other people's ideas if we sustain these men as prophets, seers, and revelators"?  I tend to look in all sorts of directions, to many people, for a better understanding of things. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't see that as speaking to the issue fearlessly.

Why would some members look to Snuffer?  I am assuming that it is because he claims to have seen and spoken with Christ.

 

They look to him also, because they are missing something from Mormonism as interpreted by the Church.  I get all anxious with the Church because I have a feeling that there is more to it all.  I can certainly relate to Snuffer and his followers in that sense. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

We can't consider other people's ideas if we sustain these men as prophets, seers, and revelators"?  I tend to look in all sorts of directions, to many people, for a better understanding of things. 

What do you mean by "consider other people's ideas"?  Snuffer's ideas seem to be along the line of the general authorities having being apostate.  

Share this post


Link to post

You can kind of get a date by looking at when they started rebaptisms, which would have been a little over a year ago, if I recall correctly --- maybe a year ago in the spring?    And it was likely August 2016 (the letters refer to august when it arrived).

 

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Members of the church are asked to sustain the First Presidency as prophets, seers, and revelators.  We are asked to raise our arms to the square.  We do this as both a sign to God and men as to where we stand.  I'm not sure how much bolder the church could be. 

You already made that point.  And then you asked...Why would some members look to Snuffer?

My answer:   I am assuming that it is because he claims to have seen and spoken with Christ.

I'm not a believer in Snuffer or a member of "The Remnant" so I'm not really invested in this.  But I think the author of the letter (see OP) was hoping that the Brethren would speak specifically to Snuffer's claims.  Stating that we sustain the Brethren isn't really speaking to those claims.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Rpn, you may have meant only those in the letter doing rebaptisms...ignore my comment if so.

-----

He was teaching rebaptisms at least by May 2015:

http://denversnuffer.com/2015/05/rebaptism/

In 2014, however, Snuffer began to claim that "the Lord terminated the priesthood authority" of all church leadership who were involved in his excommunication,[11]including the First Presidency.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_C._Snuffer_Jr.

He was excommunicated at the end of 2013 and my memory says he shortly thereafter started teaching that all baptisms after his excommunication date were null and void and re baptisms for those that happened prior to that date were appropriate to show conviction, etc.  But my memory isn't that great at times, so if I have time I will look for more details.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You already made that point.  And then you asked...Why would some members look to Snuffer?

My answer:   I am assuming that it is because he claims to have seen and spoken with Christ.

I'm not a believer in Snuffer or a member of "The Remnant" so I'm not really invested in this.  But I think the author of the letter (see OP) was hoping that the Brethren would speak specifically to Snuffer's claims.  Stating that we sustain the Brethren isn't really speaking to those claims.

I think they look to him because he pushes the idea they too can see Christ if they follow his instructions.  Or at least that is where I saw the excitement being when he first appeared and was being discussed.  It then shifted to more of his version of "Priesthood of all believers", but I don't know if that ever overtook the first appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 Stating that we sustain the Brethren isn't really speaking to those claims.

I can understand why you (and others) would say this, but I don't agree.  It seems as if the church's teaching on who holds priesthood keys and whom we sustain to lead the church is very, very clear. 

Share this post


Link to post

Here some from Denver, adding to what Calm posted (Calm's quote from Wikipedia):

Quote

On the evening of May 1, 2014, the Lord gave me further light and knowledge about His work in His vineyard. The Lord is in control over the church, men, and all things. When He undertakes to accomplish something, "there is nothing that the Lord God shall take in His heart to do, but what He will do it". [Abr 5] Often the means used by the Lord to accomplish His "strange act," and to perform His "strange work" [D&C 37], are very small indeed. "Now ye may suppose that this is foolishness in me; but behold I say unto you, that by small and simple things are great things brought to pass; and small means in many instances doth confound the wise. And the Lord God doth work by means to bring about his great and eternal purposes; and by very small means the Lord doth confound the wise and bringeth about the salvation of many souls." [Alma 14]. The [LDS] Church has Doctrine and Covenants 121, verses 36 to 40 [D&C 47], to warn it about abusing His authority. There is an "amen" or end to authority when control, compulsion, and dominion are exercised in any degree of unrighteousness. Therefore, when using authority, great care must be taken. In any case, the Church was careless. Therefore, those involved, are now left to kick against the pricks, to persecute the Saints and to fight against God.

[LDS] D&C Section 121 is a warning to church leaders. It is addressing the powerful, not the powerless. It is addressing those who occupy the seats of authority over others. Only those who claim the right to control, compel, and exercise dominion, are warned against persecuting the saints, who believe the religion and practice it as I did from the time of my conversion. My excommunication was an abuse of authority. Therefore, as soon as the decision was made, the Lord terminated the priesthood authority of the Stake Presidency and every member of the High Council who sustained this decision, which was unanimous. Thereafter, I appealed to the First Presidency, outlining the involvement of the Twelve and the Seventy. The appeal gave notice to them all. The appeal was summarily denied.

Last general conference [April 5, 2014], the entire First Presidency, the Twelve, the Seventy, and all other general authorities and auxiliaries, voted to sustain those who abused their authority in casting me out of the Church. At that moment, the Lord ended all claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to claim it is led by the priesthood. They have not practiced what He requires. The Lord has brought about His purposes. This has been in His heart all along. He has chosen to use small means to accomplish it, but He always uses the smallest of means to fulfill His purposes.

None of this was my doing. The Lord's strange act was not, could not, be planned by me; was not, could not, have been controlled by me. It was not anticipated by me, or even understood by me, until after the Lord had accomplished His will, and made it apparent to me on the evening of May 1, 2014. He alone has done this. He is the author of all of this.

Interesting stuff.  It's weird he declares the priesthood taken as soon as he is ex'd but not when others were before him. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

It's weird he declares the priesthood taken as soon as he is ex'd but not when others were before him. 

That is the biggest red flag, Imo, especially given the claims he makes of how far gone Brigham Young and other leaders were early on. Would not polygamy have been a huge abuse of authority and would not excommunicating those who refused to accept it as a teaching of Joseph's had qualified to end authority way back then?  Why is he so much more powerful or spiritual or whatever, that rejection of him terminates the authority?  Huge ego.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mean to mock.

But reading some of these prophecies/scripture from Denver has me intrigued:

Quote

CONTINUING REVELATION

THE NEW NAME DAVID

Revelation given to Denver Snuffer, Jr, 10 September, 2011.

On the 10 th day of September, 2011 the word of the Lord said to me, You shall no longer be called Denver, but your name shall be called David. I was startled to hear this, and it troubled me. I regarded David as an adulterer and a murderer, who killed Uriah to hide his adultery. In response to Nathan's parable of the rich man who took the poor man's lamb in 2 Samuel, Chapter 12, David condemned himself to die for his sin. If David considered himself worthy to die, then should I not also condemn David? The more I reflected on this, the more troubled I became. I asked God to give to me another name, not the unwanted David.

For a day and a half my distress grew, and I prayed repeatedly to have the name changed. I feared it memorialized and perhaps also foreshadowed failure and rebellion. I did not want to have the Lord view me as either rebellious or a failure. I thought the name was detestable, the name of a bloody man who was unfit to build the Lord's house, whose family was torn apart by infighting. After a day and a half of prayer asking to change the name, the Lord answered in a perfectly mild voice saying, I thought it no great insult to be called the Son of David.

His gentle response cut my heart and made me ashamed. I learned David means: Beloved of God. This made me all the more embarrassed at how meanly I had reacted and spoken to the Lord about His gift to me. Instead of thinking it an unworthy name, I concluded I was unworthy of His gift. I asked Him to forgive me and He frankly did so. I am an ignorant and prideful man.

I expected to keep this private, and after doing so for six years, I have been commanded to make this known.

 

http://scriptures.info/Scriptures/pgp/david/

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×