Remnant/Snuffer leading entire stakes towards apostasy?

[ttribe]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

The commonly held belief among the Remnant group is that Joseph Smith did not practice plural marriage and that Brigham Young introduced the practice (and evidence was later manufactured to make it seems as if JS practiced polygamy). 

My understanding is that they are removing Section 132 from their version of the D&C as they don't accept that it was a revelation to JS. 

So... while they don't reject polygamists from their fellowship, I don't see them reintroducing polygamy.

I'm aware of their alleged rejection of polygamy...for now.  Given your last sentence, I'll assume you're taking the over.

If this group continues to grow, I'll set the over/under at 5 years.

Polygamy seems to follow self-proclaimed prophets like night follows day.

[Jude2]

So are they claim the right to the priesthood and sealing power?  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Was it the first handbook revision, or the second revision that was in response to the public backlash that was the revelation?  I don't think Nelson was clear on this.  

I don't know what you mean. I'm only aware of one handbook revision.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The claim that whole stakes are moving in the Snufferite direction is an example of the kind of wishful thinking that eminates from the minds of those who can't wait to see the Church fail. If these people can't find any evidence to support their desired narrative, they'll make things up out of whole cloth or blow-up out of all proportion an isolated statement made by some disaffected member.

I believe that Park is active LDS.  I haven't heard anything from her indicating that she "can't wait to see the church fail."  Let's try to avoid baseless character assasinations. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Jude2 said:

So are they claim the right to the priesthood and sealing power?  

Priesthood - yes.  Sealing - I'm not sure. 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Polygamy seems to follow self-proclaimed prophets like night follows day.

Interesting statement. 

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

I believe that Park is active LDS.  I haven't heard anything from her indicating that she "can't wait to see the church fail."  Let's try to avoid baseless character assasinations. 

I was referring more particularly to the mysterious individuals who forwarded to her the "leaked correspondence." As for Park herself, she's an uber-progressive member who would like to see the current Church thoroughly transformed to reflect modern liberal/progressive/feminist values. Such a transformation would amount to an overthrow and failure of the present order of the Church about which the progressive participants on this board constantly complain.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[boblloyd91]

I live in West Central Utah (Delta area) and know of one person who has left the church over this. It's been mentioned in passing as a concern in Stake Conference but other than that nothing else.

[Dexter Eli]

On 8/11/2017 at 3:52 PM, rongo said:

It's funny how critics of the Church get a pass when making colorful/off-the-cuff/hyperbolic statements in ways that, say, Elder Holland and other people get held to the fire. 

I'm sure if pinned down on it, she would have chosen her words more carefully. "Entire stakes" is much more ridiculous than any of Elder Holland's passing on of stories.

And why, oh why, would anyone give leaked emails from SPs to GAs to Lindsay Hansen Park. That kind of tells you "which way they face" right there.  

There should be a different standard. Any leader of any organization is going to be held to the fire more for making "colorful/off-the-cuff/hyperbolic statements" than a critic of that organization. Come on. Critics can (and do) say anything they want. Leaders are and should be held to a higher standard. This is true of the church and any other organization. I expect critics to say wacky things. But leaders' words are going to be scrutinized much more. That's how the world is, religion aside. Unfortunately, we have a President who seems intent on saying crazier things than even his worst critics but that's another story....  

[Dexter Eli]

On 8/11/2017 at 6:39 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

In the first instance, you used the wording 'moving toward apostasy', and I can certainly see that. I served in a ward on my mission that was making a similar move. It had been allowed over some years to become a safe haven for a progressive/feminist clique that was growing in its influence and reach. In my time, we had ceased holding 'gendered' meetings (so priesthood and Relief Society were combined each week), and a blind eye was turned when a sister in the ward helped with the blessing of her baby. These were more symptoms, though. The weekly discussion groups and photocopied newsletter and occasional seminars were where the real movement was, and I could see it spreading to other wards in the stake. A couple of them had started their own weekly discussion groups, and members of some of these other wards were contributing pieces to the newsletter.

Needless to say, missionary work in the ward was at zero.

Some months after I was transferred, I heard that one of the Twelve had paid a visit to the ward and explained that certain things needed to change immediately and that anyone who couldn't take the changes would be removed from Church membership, and that seemed to stop it -- though really it probably just forced some pockets of it underground. I suspect the whole stake could have become involved, however, if something drastic hadn't been done. I served in the same stake twice after that and saw little open evidence of the movement.

Where was this? You don't have to be specific but what state or country? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, Dexter Eli said:

Where was this? You don't have to be specific but what state or country? 

I served in the United States.

[Johnnie Cake]

On 8/11/2017 at 2:31 PM, rockpond said:

Doug Fabrizio interviewed Lindsey Hansen Park on his RadioWest show regarding Denver Snuffer and the Remnant movement.  It's a very interesting interview if you are looking to learn more about that topic.  I'm sure there are multiple ways to listen to it but the one I use is to download the podcast via iTunes.  But, to my question...

At one point in the interview, Fabrizio asks Park if she believes that the church leadership sees the Remnant movement as a threat.  Park responded that she has been forwarded "leaked" correspondence between stake presidents and area authorities revealing groups of membership in the Wasatch Front area and, in some cases, even entire stakes that are moving toward apostasy as a result of their belief in the Remnant or Snuffer movement.

That's quite a claim.  Personally, I only know a few people who have left the church for that reason but among them in a direct descendant of Bruce R. McConkie -- which was surprising to me.  Obviously Snuffer earned a spot on the infamous "bubble chart" of church threats that was leaked but so did a number of other people/issues.

I'm wondering if those of you who do live in the Mormon corridor have seen any other evidence of Park's claim.

I enjoyed this podcast when it first aired. As to the OP...no ive seen no evidence to support Parks assertion in my neck of the Wasatch Front...I'd go even further and state that an overwhelming majority would have no idea who Denver Snuffer is nor have they ever heard of him

i even asked my TBM wife and she said and I quote "who?"

[carbon dioxide]

On 8/11/2017 at 3:16 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Not I.

But then I'm constantly amazed at how immune my ward seems to be from the weird stuff I read about on this message board and elsewhere: no contentious Sunday School or priesthood meeting classes, no battles over politics, no brazen contradiction or defiance of statements from the Brethren, nobody denying Book of Mormon historicity or staking out unauthoritative claims about its geography, no unauthorized revision of the three-hour Sabbath day meeting block, no wacky folk getting up during fast-and-testimony meeting, no men coming to church dressed in women's clothes, no male couples holding hands during meetings, no women wearing pants to church as an ideological statement, no 12-year-old girls trying to hijack meetings with contra-doctrinal propaganda.

My ward is pretty boring also.  Just the normal stuff every week and no gossip going around about anything out of the ordinary.

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I served in the United States.

I think I've heard of some wards from different people where openness is a little more welcome.  Where some level of personal thought is considered a contribution.  But I haven't seen it, and I've been around a bit.  I often wonder if it's more of the perception of some rather than the reality.  But, in truth, if you could specify where you're talking about, I'd probably go out of my way to visit.  Any other helps?

 

 

[stemelbow]

On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 5:55 PM, juliann said:

I listened to a podcast of hers about Sunstone. I liked her Year of Polygamy stuff, although she cherry picked the worst stuff a fair amount, but everything else I have heard from her veers into the FLDS type stuff no matter what the topic. And I have yet to see or hear of any particular credentials other than she is interested in it and spends time visiting them. She said something about some movement being bigger than she imagined.....because she got phone calls. I've decided to put her on pause until she presents some data. 

I agree with what was said here.  I really liked her Year of Polygamy stuff too and also felt it was a little of a cherry picking, which has to happen for brevity's sake in some ways.  In some cases, as memory has it, I don't think she did a very good evaluation of the material and made hasty conclusions.  But we all do that, particularly when trying to describe complexities in history, which is definitely true with the polygamy topic.  So I give her a pass for most of that.  But I've also wondered about her credentials.  I don't mean that in a challenging or argumentative way though.  I'm really just curious.  Because in a very real sense she did a great job with the Year of Polygamy, in another I'm not sure it's fair to treat her stuff as expert, or as following the standards of scholarship.  I do hope I'm wrong on that. 

As for this topic, it doesn't sound like she's an expert, by any means.  I'm not sure the other guy is either.  Which is fine.  I mean it feels almost gossip raggy in a sense.  It'd been much better to have included with the two of them Denver or one of his followers.  As of now it's just two people talking about what they might have heard or what impressions they have of another group.  I will say, what I heard has gotten me far more intrigued then I was.   I don't know that's saying a lot though. 

[stemelbow]

On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 7:29 PM, readstoomuch said:

The Remnant or Snuffers or whatever you call them are editing section 132.  I don`t think it is being entirely deleted.  Just the parts taken out that they don`t like.  Namely any implication that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.  

Let me talk about the Snufferite in my ward.  He has always been the most obnoxious, hard to get along with person in my ward.  Testimony meeting is interesting.  He says God still want him to go to Church.  That seems to be so that he can try to recruit and indoctrinate people about his beliefs.  I had to have some interactions with him.  Long story, but he talks about us Mormons not praising God enough or keeping the commandments well enough.  We are talking about keeping the commandments to the point of perfectionism.  He doesn`t agree on my opinion about history, because Denver is thorough and understands it better than any one.  Our leaders are fallen and wandering without any insight from God.  I have heard him say that he is going to give up every thing he owns to see the Savior.  Long fasts and hours of praying daily with his wife.  Looking for the appearance of Jesus and the Holy Spirit of Promise to confirm their marriage sealing.  I wish I didn`t have to say the things I have, but they are true.  One month he gave his testimony, so the next month a member of the stake presidency was there.  His testimony was much simpler with the counselor there.  I know these people want to draw closer to God and think we don`t do enough in our Church to do that.  Interestingly, he and his wife aren`t the people out there trying to do service.  He really complained when I asked him to take the missionaries to the food bank.  It was something I was doing one morning a week.  It was a great experience.  We have taught people just from our service at the food bank.  Nothing wrong with praising God or praying for hours.  Isn`t the best way to come to Christ by looking for his face in our fellow man and serving them?

Yeah...I will add if I knew a guy as you describe, who was promoting snufferism, I'd be turned off quite quickly.  In a way, sadly, I think what you describe is exactly what many Mormons come off as to others.  I know I've seen it.  Promoting your religion is hard in that sense. 

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree with what was said here.  I really liked her Year of Polygamy stuff too and also felt it was a little of a cherry picking, which has to happen for brevity's sake in some ways.  In some cases, as memory has it, I don't think she did a very good evaluation of the material and made hasty conclusions.  But we all do that, particularly when trying to describe complexities in history, which is definitely true with the polygamy topic.  So I give her a pass for most of that.  But I've also wondered about her credentials.  I don't mean that in a challenging or argumentative way though.  I'm really just curious.  Because in a very real sense she did a great job with the Year of Polygamy, in another I'm not sure it's fair to treat her stuff as expert, or as following the standards of scholarship.  I do hope I'm wrong on that. 

As for this topic, it doesn't sound like she's an expert, by any means.  I'm not sure the other guy is either.  Which is fine.  I mean it feels almost gossip raggy in a sense.  It'd been much better to have included with the two of them Denver or one of his followers.  As of now it's just two people talking about what they might have heard or what impressions they have of another group.  I will say, what I heard has gotten me far more intrigued then I was.   I don't know that's saying a lot though. 

Given that Fabrizio generally seems to cast a wide net in searching for content experts, Park and Lebaron seem like odd choices.  Then again, maybe there aren't really any "experts" on the movement given its relative newness.  I assume Fabrizio wanted to choose people who knew about the movement without being "members" of the movement.  Park is obviously close enough to Denver Snuffer to be able to pick up the phone and get him to answer questions for her.  Lebaron was presented as a big of a covert agent... studying the movement from a closed Facebook group (which could certainly be one reason why the interview felt gossipy).

For an interview with a member of the Remnant, I would highly recommend Episode 128 of Park's Year of Polygamy podcast in which she interviews Adrian Larsen who was excommunicated as a result of his involvement in the Remnant.

I couldn't speak to Park's following the "standards of scholarship".  But, I believe her work is significant in bringing Joseph Smiths' wives out of the shadows.  And, she has really delved in to getting to know Mormon polygamist groups - I'm not sure many can compete with her in that regard.

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Given that Fabrizio generally seems to cast a wide net in searching for content experts, Park and Lebaron seem like odd choices.  Then again, maybe there aren't really any "experts" on the movement given its relative newness.  I assume Fabrizio wanted to choose people who knew about the movement without being "members" of the movement.  Park is obviously close enough to Denver Snuffer to be able to pick up the phone and get him to answer questions for her.  Lebaron was presented as a big of a covert agent... studying the movement from a closed Facebook group (which could certainly be one reason why the interview felt gossipy).

For an interview with a member of the Remnant, I would highly recommend Episode 128 of Park's Year of Polygamy podcast in which she interviews Adrian Larsen who was excommunicated as a result of his involvement in the Remnant.

I couldn't speak to Park's following the "standards of scholarship".  But, I believe her work is significant in bringing Joseph Smiths' wives out of the shadows.  And, she has really delved in to getting to know Mormon polygamist groups - I'm not sure many can compete with her in that regard.

I'm not disagreeing with any of this.  Sounds good and fair to me.  I seem to remember the name Adrian Larsen.  I'll find time to listen, hopefully.  Thanks. 

[why me]

On 13.8.2017 at 1:19 AM, rockpond said:

I don't recall anyone here assuming that the claim is true.  Rather, most seem to be approaching Park's claim with skepticism. 

I doubt she has any intent of releasing the emails.

I understand but when a person makes a claim as she did and yet provides no proof, the information becomes dubious. If the emails will not be forthcoming, she should not make such claims. And even if the emails are released, more proof would be needed or claims of fake information could be made.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, why me said:

I understand but when a person makes a claim as she did and yet provides no proof, the information becomes dubious. If the emails will not be forthcoming, she should not make such claims. And even if the emails are released, more proof would be needed or claims of fake information could be made.

Park answered a question asked of her using her personal knowledge and lived experience.  That does not obligate her to provide the public with documentation proving that she is correct just as you are not obligated to believe her.

Edited August 14, 2017 by rockpond
spelling

[e-eye]

1 hour ago, why me said:

I understand but when a person makes a claim as she did and yet provides no proof, the information becomes dubious. If the emails will not be forthcoming, she should not make such claims. And even if the emails are released, more proof would be needed or claims of fake information could be made.

Agreed.  When I heard her make these claims I paused for a moment because I wasn't buying it.

I followed Denver close for several years.  I read about 2/3rds of his first book before I gave up on it.  Didn't think much more of it until I had some family who got really caught up in the movement.  My sister and her family left the church joining the splinter group/church/whatever it is and my brother-in-law is one of the top guys in the movement.  My sister dropped the religion and now practices no religion at all.

In AZ  (where I live), you are hard pressed to even find a member who knows the name.  My bishop doesn't have a clue but one of the counselors in our stake presidency said he is very well aware of who he is.  Other than my sister's family I have only heard rumors of people leaving.  It seems that most of the people who have left it' really not a  surprise if you really know them.  My sisters family was very active but over the last few years before leaving started to lean on the fringe of the gospel and were consistently upset with the leaders in the church. 

Although there are people who have left the church I just have not seen entire wards or stakes drifting.  Anything is possible and I am sure there are more issues in Idaho and Utah with this movement but I would doubt stakes or even wards were beginning to fall away. 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, e-eye said:

Agreed.  When I heard her make these claims I paused for a moment because I wasn't buying it.

I followed Denver close for several years.  I read about 2/3rds of his first book before I gave up on it.  Didn't think much more of it until I had some family who got really caught up in the movement.  My sister and her family left the church joining the splinter group/church/whatever it is and my brother-in-law is one of the top guys in the movement.  My sister dropped the religion and now practices no religion at all.

In AZ  (where I live), you are hard pressed to even find a member who knows the name.  My bishop doesn't have a clue but one of the counselors in our stake presidency said he is very well aware of who he is.  Other than my sister's family I have only heard rumors of people leaving.  It seems that most of the people who have left it' really not a  surprise if you really know them.  My sisters family was very active but over the last few years before leaving started to lean on the fringe of the gospel and were consistently upset with the leaders in the church. 

Although there are people who have left the church I just have not seen entire wards or stakes drifting.  Anything is possible and I am sure there are more issues in Idaho and Utah with this movement but I would doubt stakes or even wards were beginning to fall away. 

Welcome to the discussion board!  Nice to see your first post here and I appreciate your input.

Like you, I was dubious to Park's claim and so I started this thread.

It will be interesting to see where the movement heads in the next few years.  I think that their upcoming "conference" will be a predictor of things.  Maybe... if there is some kind of report available after that event, we can review and discuss in another thread here.

[why me]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Park answered a question asked of her using her personal knowledge and lived experience.  That does not obligate her to provide the public with documentation proving that she is correct just as you are not obligated to believe her.

But it does. For some reason she seems to be a spokesperson and she made a claim. Such a claim needs support. None was provided. And yet, we are discussing it, thereby giving Snuffer more publicity and making Park the center of attention.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, why me said:

But it does. For some reason she seems to be a spokesperson and she made a claim. Such a claim needs support. None was provided. And yet, we are discussing it, thereby giving Snuffer more publicity and making Park the center of attention.

Alright then... I'll let you go figure out a way of forcing someone to publicly release personal correspondence.  I'm not aware of any such law.  Hey... while you are at it - I'd like to call you on your claim that she is under such an obligation.  Would you please provide us with the documented legal support and precedent showing why she is obligated to release private emails?

If you feel that this discussion gives Snuffer or Park more publicity/attention and that is against your wishes, you probably should cease your participation.

[e-eye]

58 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Welcome to the discussion board!  Nice to see your first post here and I appreciate your input.

Like you, I was dubious to Park's claim and so I started this thread.

It will be interesting to see where the movement heads in the next few years.  I think that their upcoming "conference" will be a predictor of things.  Maybe... if there is some kind of report available after that event, we can review and discuss in another thread here.

Thanks - Bumped into this website and had never seen it before but the topics seemed relevant so thought I would join.  

Okay - so I figured I would just ask Mrs. Park about it.  I found her online shot her a quick message asking her if the claims she made were validated and she came back with this:

"This information is based on several things. A man claiming to be in the SP of a stake in an area where there was known apostasy. He told me that he and other members of the presidency in his stake and elsewhere were all followers and most of the stake was. I have no idea how to confirm this. But I do indeed have leaked documents from that same area thast contain the cases of several couples excommunicated for their involvement as well as letters of concern from GAs on the subject. That's all I have. It's speculative but I do think at minimum there is at least a concern."

I didn't ask her to show proof but just wanted to confirm what she said was not an error that she said in the moment as it's easy to misspeak when being interviewed.  I don't know if it would surprise me to see at least at a time that a someone in stake presidency believed Denver Snuffer, but I would still be surprised if it was still the case or if there were many members in a stake who did believe this movement.

I will say that I specifically remember my brother in law was studying with an ex stake president for some time (before Denver was ex'd) and he believed the current line of thinking of Mr. Snuffer but I don't know if that ever changed later on.