Remnant/Snuffer leading entire stakes towards apostasy?

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, e-eye said:

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.  

Well, he did get his own bubble in the power point presentation that was leaked (he was on the far right side of "Issues and ideas leading people away from the gospel").  So it does appear he is somewhat of a concern or at least has the attention of the church leaders.  This was a surprise to many and it was to me as well, because I haven't heard of anyone mentioning him in my ward or stake.  

(And, welcome to the forum e-eye!!)

[rockpond]

44 minutes ago, e-eye said:

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.  

Interesting.  Way to go to the source!  Thank you.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, e-eye said:

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."

Get some more posts so I can give you points for going to the source for sources.  Well done.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Get some more posts so I can give you points for going to the source for sources.  Well done.

Agreed... my first response after reading e-eye's post was to move my mouse over to the little up arrow -- but no up arrow yet.  Bummer.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, e-eye said:

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.  

Sadly, that's a far cry from what she claimed.  But oh well, we all exaggerate.  Just ask Elder Holland

[e-eye]

Though the Snuffer movement is gaining a little steam, I don't see it doing much in way of leading wards or stakes in that direction.  We know a sifting will take place, and I would even say it has started but I wouldn't give too much credit to Denver Snuffer.

 

[why me]

16 hours ago, e-eye said:

"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."

 

She should have said this when she posted her information. No proof but heresay and leaked documents.

Edited August 15, 2017 by why me

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, why me said:

She should have said this when she posted her information. No proof but heresay.

Aside from that last sentence, it is pretty much what she said in the podcast.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Aside from that last sentence, it is pretty much what she said in the podcast.

She mentioned areas.  This last claim is one area.  She mentioned whole stakes, this mentions many people in one stake.  I don't think it is all that close to what she initially claimed. 

I agree there are concerns on the part of the Church for this movement.  But in my mind she greatly exaggerated what she had or what she's been told when she said there are whole stakes and referenced many areas in Utah and Idaho, based on leaked documents from GAs to SPs and area authorities and vice versa. 

But it's ok.  We all exaggerate. 

[e-eye]

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

She mentioned areas.  This last claim is one area.  She mentioned whole stakes, this mentions many people in one stake.  I don't think it is all that close to what she initially claimed. 

I agree there are concerns on the part of the Church for this movement.  But in my mind she greatly exaggerated what she had or what she's been told when she said there are whole stakes and referenced many areas in Utah and Idaho, based on leaked documents from GAs to SPs and area authorities and vice versa. 

But it's ok.  We all exaggerate. 

If she is telling the truth then we at least know that there are some current members of at least one stake presidency that believe in his teachings and either believe the stake is falling in sync to these teaching or are delusional in thinking so.  We already knew the church was at least concerned about the situation which they should be with any movement.

From what I recently read on another website is that the movement is having issues of their own with leadership and new/changing scriptures.  I think you will see this movement stall out.  The lifeblood of this movement are LDS members who for the most part either are fed up with leadership, feel enlightened, want a reason to excuse sin, or are disenchanted, which is not a great group of people you want to start a movement - people will hold on due to pride but like all false religions it will eventually fall apart.  

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, e-eye said:

If she is telling the truth then we at least know that there are some current members of at least one stake presidency that believe in his teachings and either believe the stake is falling in sync to these teaching or are delusional in thinking so.  We already knew the church was at least concerned about the situation which they should be with any movement.

From what I recently read on another website is that the movement is having issues of their own with leadership and new/changing scriptures.  I think you will see this movement stall out.  The lifeblood of this movement are LDS members who for the most part either are fed up with leadership, feel enlightened, want a reason to excuse sin, or are disenchanted, which is not a great group of people you want to start a movement - people will hold on due to pride but like all false religions it will eventually fall apart.  

Uhhh, you might want to think about who was joining the Church in its earliest days before reaching this conclusion.

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, e-eye said:

If she is telling the truth then we at least know that there are some current members of at least one stake presidency that believe in his teachings and either believe the stake is falling in sync to these teaching or are delusional in thinking so.  We already knew the church was at least concerned about the situation which they should be with any movement.

I think the brethren will be concerned by any major movement whether it be Snuffer, some new polygamous group (such as in Manti in the 90's), of more liberal movements such as the ordain women movement. I'm not sure it has to be huge numbers to be of concern. It'd be interesting to know what area she's referring to. But from her comments it sounds like just a few people -- perhaps less than a dozen. I'm not sure one should extrapolate from that.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the brethren will be concerned by any major movement whether it be Snuffer, some new polygamous group (such as in Manti in the 90's), of more liberal movements such as the ordain women movement. I'm not sure it has to be huge numbers to be of concern. It'd be interesting to know what area she's referring to. But from her comments it sounds like just a few people -- perhaps less than a dozen. I'm not sure one should extrapolate from that.

Yeah...i'd say the original point as raised in the OP was Sister Park playing a bit fast and loose with ambiguity.  her clarification helps because it really transforms her initial claim it seems to me.  I don't know that anyone ever doubted there was concern, though. 

The enormous taker of our members is plain lack of interest and faithfulness.  People just up and walk off looking for something more interesting it seems to me. 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yeah...i'd say the original point as raised in the OP was Sister Park playing a bit fast and loose with ambiguity.  her clarification helps because it really transforms her initial claim it seems to me.  I don't know that anyone ever doubted there was concern, though. 

I agree.  And the comments that e-eye shared make it sound like she may have actually been referring to the "Boise Rescue" stake.  But who knows.

 

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The enormous taker of our members is plain lack of interest and faithfulness.  People just up and walk off looking for something more interesting it seems to me. 

Do we have any data to support that claim?  I think there are a lot who leave for that reason.  But there are also a lot who leave for reasons having to do with doctrinal, historical, and faith concerns.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree.  And the comments that e-eye shared make it sound like she may have actually been referring to the "Boise Rescue" stake.  But who knows.

 

Do we have any data to support that claim?  I think there are a lot who leave for that reason.  But there are also a lot who leave for reasons having to do with doctrinal, historical, and faith concerns.

No doubt.  

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree.  And the comments that e-eye shared make it sound like she may have actually been referring to the "Boise Rescue" stake.  But who knows.

Yeah Boise or one of the stakes in the area around Twin Falls. Lots of weird beliefs in that area for some strange reason. 

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, e-eye said:

From what I recently read on another website is that the movement is having issues of their own with leadership and new/changing scriptures.

Apparently some of them claim no leadership at all:

Quote

The movement is notable for a de-empahasis on hierarchy and organization, with some fellowships (for example, the movement's Minnesota fellowship) claiming to have no leadership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_C._Snuffer_Jr.#cite_note-16

[e-eye]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Uhhh, you might want to think about who was joining the Church in its earliest days before reaching this conclusion.

I think there is a big difference in who is joined and who is leaving if you believe the church is true.  

[e-eye]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Apparently some of them claim no leadership at all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_C._Snuffer_Jr.#cite_note-16

That's the interesting part.

 I am no expert and I know Denver deflect any leadership at all but this is what I do know.  My brother-in-law was at one time or still is "I don't know" one of the big 5.  These are men that meet and discuss how things should be run and Denver Snuffer has participated in these meetings - this was about 9 months ago that I had heard of this so I don't know if they still have it.  

They also claim no leadership but are in the process of re-writing some scripture in the D&C - this is where things get muddled because one of the contributors to the new revelation or correction in scripture has gone through a disciplinary council of women where they want to revoke his priesthood certificate  for "sexual misconduct".  Denver, on the other hand, thinks it should not be revoked and there is a dilemma because you have a member working on this project of new scripture where he was also entrenched in this sin which questions his ability to receive revelation.   

So you have leaders, who say they are not leaders but eventually someone is going to have to lead.  I think Denver will eventually claim his position as leader but it will take some time as I think the ground work is being laid forth first - otherwise they continue to float around doing whatever they want.  

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, e-eye said:

I think there is a big difference in who is joined and who is leaving if you believe the church is true.  

Many movements (not just religious ones) are started because of disaffection.  One might argue that the Declaration of Independence was born from disaffection.  My point is that the issues you cited for a movement's failure to thrive are not the right ones.

For the record, I think Snuffer is nuts.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, e-eye said:

That's the interesting part.

 I am no expert and I know Denver deflect any leadership at all but this is what I do know.  My brother-in-law was at one time or still is "I don't know" one of the big 5.  These are men that meet and discuss how things should be run and Denver Snuffer has participated in these meetings - this was about 9 months ago that I had heard of this so I don't know if they still have it.  

They also claim no leadership but are in the process of re-writing some scripture in the D&C - this is where things get muddled because one of the contributors to the new revelation or correction in scripture has gone through a disciplinary council of women where they want to revoke his priesthood certificate  for "sexual misconduct".  Denver, on the other hand, thinks it should not be revoked and there is a dilemma because you have a member working on this project of new scripture where he was also entrenched in this sin which questions his ability to receive revelation.   

So you have leaders, who say they are not leaders but eventually someone is going to have to lead.  I think Denver will eventually claim his position as leader but it will take some time as I think the ground work is being laid forth first - otherwise they continue to float around doing whatever they want.  

Never heard that f their big 5.  Interesting.  A bro-in-law huh?  Puts you pretty close to be able to know what's going on

[e-eye]

34 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Many movements (not just religious ones) are started because of disaffection.  One might argue that the Declaration of Independence was born from disaffection.  My point is that the issues you cited for a movement's failure to thrive are not the right ones.

For the record, I think Snuffer is nuts.

I don't disagree that disaffection can be a good thing - it is true many good things can come about from it.  What I believe is that when you pull disaffected people from something that they see is less than perfect you are setting yourself up for similar results when you fail to deliver - especially when what they left was true and better.  Case in point - read this blog from a follower of the Denver movement and then read the comment below. 

https://bringingtolighthiddenthings.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/first-blog-post/

 

Sorry this is kind of a thread drift, but I think what you see here and what you will see with this movement are members becoming upset that what they signed up for isn't exactly what they thought.  Those who left the church will be left searching again.  

On a side note if what Anonymous says is true the Denver Snuffer does think he is David then they indeed will have an official leader in the movement. 

[ttribe]

36 minutes ago, e-eye said:

I don't disagree that disaffection can be a good thing - it is true many good things can come about from it.  What I believe is that when you pull disaffected people from something that they see is less than perfect you are setting yourself up for similar results when you fail to deliver - especially when what they left was true and better.  Case in point - read this blog from a follower of the Denver movement and then read the comment below. 

https://bringingtolighthiddenthings.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/first-blog-post/

 

Sorry this is kind of a thread drift, but I think what you see here and what you will see with this movement are members becoming upset that what they signed up for isn't exactly what they thought.  Those who left the church will be left searching again.  

On a side note if what Anonymous says is true the Denver Snuffer does think he is David then they indeed will have an official leader in the movement. 

If you're saying the movement may stall/die because the disaffected are now disaffected with their new movement, that I can understand.

[ksfisher]

44 minutes ago, e-eye said:

I don't disagree that disaffection can be a good thing - it is true many good things can come about from it.  What I believe is that when you pull disaffected people from something that they see is less than perfect you are setting yourself up for similar results when you fail to deliver - especially when what they left was true and better.  Case in point - read this blog from a follower of the Denver movement and then read the comment below. 

https://bringingtolighthiddenthings.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/first-blog-post/

 

Sorry this is kind of a thread drift, but I think what you see here and what you will see with this movement are members becoming upset that what they signed up for isn't exactly what they thought.  Those who left the church will be left searching again.  

On a side note if what Anonymous says is true the Denver Snuffer does think he is David then they indeed will have an official leader in the movement. 

An interesting read.  A bit different than how things are done in the LDS Church.

[why me]

3 hours ago, e-eye said:

If she is telling the truth then we at least know that there are some current members of at least one stake presidency that believe in his teachings and either believe the stake is falling in sync to these teaching or are delusional in thinking so.  We already knew the church was at least concerned about the situation which they should be with any movement.

 

Delusion is rather common it seems. It has been claimed over and over again that the church is losing members by the thousands. I am not sure that we need active members spreading rumors or heresay about it too. Of course, if one wants attention, such claims do get some attention especially if one attaches the claim that it was a SP or Bishopic. .

Edited August 15, 2017 by why me