Boanerges Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Who is this rock weatherman guy?The Spirit still testifies that the first presidency and twelve hold the keys. Sniffer still preaches incorrect doctrine. He needs to repent. Waterman writes this blog: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/ The fact that he is less well known than the others mentioned here might also be an indicator of why he hasn't been disciplined. On the other hand,before I started frequenting boards like this I didn't know who Snuffer and Dehlin were, either. 1
DragonLancer Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Actually, I think they kinda think of themselves as the restored Church. They are a decentralized bunch, that meet in ad hoc worship groups. They can belong to any other organization they want. They can originate from polygamous cults or any other breakoff group. Or they can just convert to the snufferite group. They don't believe that they have to leave the LDS Church. They do have a have a centralized "recorder" that keeps track of those who have been "rebaptized" into the snuffer movement:http://denversnuffer.com/2015/03/recorder/http://denversnuffer.com/2015/04/recorder-voting-2/ As you can see, they keep these records confidential and secret so that LDS authorities can't find out who these people are to take action against them. As Snuffer says: "Disciplinary actions have taken place or are threatened because of re-baptisms of active LDS Church members. Therefore, the names should be kept confidential to prevent this." And so, I imagine that most who are a part of this that still remain in the LDS Church will try to keep their identity secret, making it a now sort of a subversive "secret combination" in our Church. I guess this kind of thing is not new, because of the stories of other fundamentalist-type groups that have some of their members also join the LDS Church to get access to the temples, etc.
The Nehor Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 If your child wants to put his hand on a hot stove, you let him (because you wouldn't want someone imposing their will on you, and the child will learn from his mistake.)And if the child wants to put their hand in the boat propeller, go into the the zoo cage to pet the crocodile, or drink bleach you should let them because you would not want someone imposing their will on you.This is stupid. 2
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 They are a decentralized bunch, that meet in ad hoc worship groups. They can belong to any other organization they want. They can originate from polygamous cults or any other breakoff group. Or they can just convert to the snufferite group. They don't believe that they have to leave the LDS Church. They do have a have a centralized "recorder" that keeps track of those who have been "rebaptized" into the snuffer movement:http://denversnuffer.com/2015/03/recorder/http://denversnuffer.com/2015/04/recorder-voting-2/ As you can see, they keep these records confidential and secret so that LDS authorities can't find out who these people are to take action against them. As Snuffer says: "Disciplinary actions have taken place or are threatened because of re-baptisms of active LDS Church members. Therefore, the names should be kept confidential to prevent this." And so, I imagine that most who are a part of this that still remain in the LDS Church will try to keep their identity secret, making it a now sort of a subversive "secret combination" in our Church. I guess this kind of thing is not new, because of the stories of other fundamentalist-type groups that have some of their members also join the LDS Church to get access to the temples, etc.Not equating Denver to Alma, but didn't his (Alma) group keep their activities secret from Noah and the church leaders in the city of Nephi?So, to me, calling it a "secret combination" falls flat.
rockpond Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Maybe Snuffer can succeed where James J Strang failed? He and his followers could set up the new kingdom on Beaver Island, Michigan and call themselves the Snufferites rather than the Strangites. Like they say, "with a name like Snuffer, it has to be good!" Strang failed? Aren't they still going?
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) Maybe Snuffer can succeed where James J Strang failed? He and his followers could set up the new kingdom on Beaver Island, Michigan and call themselves the Snufferites rather than the Strangites. Like they say, "with a name like Snuffer, it has to be good!"You do realize that Denver is not starting a new church and has no desire to be the alternative to Thomas S. Monson, right?Comparing him to James Jesse Strang, who declared himself a prophet and started an organization, is faulty- and show a lack of understanding of what Snuffer has actually been doing. Edited May 8, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Strang failed? Aren't they still going?Yes, there are a few Strangite organizations left.
bluebell Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Strang failed? Aren't they still going? The last information i could find about them said they had 300 members in 1998. I don't know how big they are today. I went to their website though and they claim that Emma, Lucy Smith, and all the other members of the LDS church who stayed in the midwest were members of the Strangite group (they seem to be using this as way to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the reader). Is that true? I thought that Emma was a member of the RLDS?
rockpond Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 The last information i could find about them said they had 300 members in 1998. I don't know how big they are today. I went to their website though and they claim that Emma, Lucy Smith, and all the other members of the LDS church who stayed in the midwest were members of the Strangite group (they seem to be using this as way to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the reader). Is that true? I thought that Emma was a member of the RLDS? I suppose it's possible that Strang thought that anyone who stayed was "on his side" of the succession crisis but I don't think the historical record supports that conclusion. Or maybe Emma & family were briefly part of the Strangites before uniting with the RLDS Church. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 I suppose it's possible that Strang thought that anyone who stayed was "on his side" of the succession crisis but I don't think the historical record supports that conclusion. Or maybe Emma & family were briefly part of the Strangites before uniting with the RLDS Church. Yes. One of the reasons for Strang's early success is that the Smith's thought the appointment letter was legit. 1
rockpond Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Yes. One of the reasons for Strang's early success is that the Smith's thought the appointment letter was legit. I didn't know that. Thanks.
ALarson Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) I suppose it's possible that Strang thought that anyone who stayed was "on his side" of the succession crisis but I don't think the historical record supports that conclusion. Or maybe Emma & family were briefly part of the Strangites before uniting with the RLDS Church. I have this quote in my files, (but I didn't source it which I should have, so I'd have to do more research to verify the accuracy of it):Estimates are from 16,000 to 18,000 Members of the Church followed James J.Strang, including: *William Smith (brother to Joseph and Hyrum Smith and Apostle)*John E. Page (apostle)*John C. Bennett (former Associate President of the Church)*William McLellin (former senior Apostle of the Church)*Martin Harris (one of the Three Witnesses and financier of The Book of Mormon)*Emma Hale Smith (widow of Joseph Smith Jr.)*Lucy Mack Smith (mother of Joseph Smith Jr.)*Jacob Whitmer (one of the Eight Witnesses)*John Whitmer (One of the Eight Witnesses)*William Marks (President of the Nauvoo Stake)*David Whitmer (one of the Three Witnesses)*James Whitehead (private secretary of Joseph Smith Jr.)" It would be interesting to do more research into this. Maybe someone has more on it? Edited May 8, 2015 by ALarson 1
rodheadlee Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own aglory: but he that seeketh his bglory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. 1
bluebell Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Yes. One of the reasons for Strang's early success is that the Smith's thought the appointment letter was legit. When did they discover it wasn't?
bluebell Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 I have this quote in my files, (but I didn't source it which I should have, so I'd have to do more research to verify the accuracy of it):It would be interesting to do more research into this. Maybe someone has more on it? That's pretty crazy if they had 16,000 members at one time and were down to 300 in 1998!
ALarson Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 That's pretty crazy if they had 16,000 members at one time and were down to 300 in 1998!I agree. But, we don't know how long any of these were members even in the beginning. It might have been that they just briefly followed Strang during the succession crisis. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 When did they discover it wasn't?Probably when he started on the advocating polygamy.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 I agree. But, we don't know how long any of these were members even in the beginning. It might have been that they just briefly followed Strang during the succession crisis.When Strang was murdered it lost numbers quickly.
rodheadlee Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) Actually, I think they kinda think of themselves as the restored Church.1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the asheep. 3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his avoice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and bleadeth them out. 4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they aknow his bvoice. 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of astrangers. Who is Denver Snuffer that I should follow him? Who is Rick Waterman that I should listen to what he has to say? Edited May 8, 2015 by rodheadlee
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the asheep. 3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his avoice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and bleadeth them out. 4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they aknow his bvoice. 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of astrangers. Who is Denver Snuffer that I should follow him? Who is Rick Waterman that I should listen to what he has to say? Like Samuel the Lamanite who climbed up on the wall?"Who is this Lamanite to tell us to repent?"I am no "Snufferite"- but ya'll gonna have to do better. What does he teach that is wrong, for example?
rodheadlee Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Like Samuel the Lamanite who climbed up on the wall?"Who is this Lamanite to tell us to repent?"I am no "Snufferite"- but ya'll gonna have to do better. What does he teach that is wrong, for example?That will have to be answered later tonight, I have to go to work.
smac97 Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) I know some who say that the modern LDS Church is wrong to excommunicate people for their beliefs, and that Joseph Smith Jr. would only have approved of excommunicating people for sins (like adultery, stealing, etc.--and please let's not get into any questions about polygamy here.) What I'd like to know is if that's true? Would Joseph have been against excommunicating anyone for believing some false doctrine? A sizable number of dissenters were excommunicated during the Kirtland Era (see here, starting on page 10). The dissension appears to have originated in "temporal" matters (predominantly the failing of the Kirtland Safety Society). However, "temporal" and "spiritual" dissent appear to bleed into each other, not unlike the "political"- and/or "social justice"-flavored dissent that seems to be coming from folks like John Dehlin and Kate Kelly. From the above link: Thomas B. Marsh wrote to fellow apostle Wilford Woodruff: It seems that [Warren] Parrish, J[ohn]. F. Boynton, Luke Johnson, Joseph Coe, and some others, united together for the overthrow of the church. President [Joseph] Smith, and his company, returned [to Kirtland], on, or about the 10th of December [1837]; soon after which this dissenting band, openly, and publicly, renounced the church of Christ, of Latter Day Saints, and claimed themselves to be the old standard; called themselves the church of Christ, excluded that of Saints, and set at naught Br[other]. Joseph [smith], and the whole church, denounced them as heretics. During the week of 24-30 December 1837, twenty-eight members, including Martin Harris, were cut off from the church or excluded (excommunicated) by the High Council of Kirtland. It is not known if any of these church members were present at this meeting. According to John Smith, in a letter to his son, George A. Smith: The spiritual condition at this time is gloomy also. I called the High Council together last week and laid before them the case of dissenters; 28 persons were, upon mature discussion, cut off from the Church; the leaders were Cyrus Smalling, Joseph Coe, Martin Harris, Luke S. Johnson[,] John R Boynton and W[arren]. W. Parrish. We have cut off between 40 and 50 from the Church since you left. On 7 January 1838, Joseph Smith received a revelation for Edward Partridge instructing: "[L]et my people be aware of [dissenters] among them, lest the enemy have power over them; Awake my shepherds and warn my people! for behold the wolf cometh to destroy them,—receive him not."So back to your question: "Would Joseph have been against excommunicating anyone for believing some false doctrine?" Well, Joseph Smith publicly denounced as "heretics" and excommunicated a large number of dissenters who had "openly, and publicly, renounced the church of Christ, of Latter Day Saints, and claimed themselves to be the old standard." Is it true that during the Nauvoo era people were only excommunicated for what they did, not for what they thought? You are starting with a false premise. Denver Snuffer was not excommunicated "for what (he) thought." He was excommunicated because of what he did. The people I'm thinking of would say that the recent excommunications of Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, and others for holding heterodox views is a departure from the restored Gospel (as it was practised during Joseph Smith's lifetime.) Do the facts support that point of view? Again, I think you are starting with a false premise. Namely, that "Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, and others (were excommunicated) for holding heterodox views." This is simply an incorrect statement of the facts. (Also, has Rock Waterman been excommunicated?)Thanks,-Smac Edited May 8, 2015 by smac97 2
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 Rock, as of now, has not been ex'd- his latest blog might help that effort though.
Investigating Posted May 8, 2015 Author Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) And if the child wants to put their hand in the boat propeller, go into the the zoo cage to pet the crocodile, or drink bleach you should let them because you would not want someone imposing their will on you.This is stupid. That was my initial reaction, but is there any clear example of Joseph Smith, a biblical or book of Mormon apostle or prophet, Jesus, or Heavenly Father being "paternalistic"? Edited May 8, 2015 by Investigating
BookofMormonLuvr Posted May 8, 2015 Posted May 8, 2015 That was my initial reaction, but is there any clear example of Joseph Smith, a biblical or book of Mormon apostle or prophet, Jesus, or Heavenly Father being "paternalistic"?35 And it came to pass, that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying, How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains? And Enoch said unto the Lord, How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?44 Wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer? But, behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and, behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them, and he whom I have chosen hath pleaded before my face;(1)>
Recommended Posts