Struggling with your faith?

[darknesstolight]

In your group are you only allowed to say positive things about what the speakers in conferences say or can you also say negative things? If you say negative things do you have to pussyfoot around it or can you boldly and openly share your sincere ideas even if they are contrary to the status quo or group think without fear of any sort of reprisal or retaliation?

...

[darknesstolight]

Your group clearly is exclusive. You have your ideas that everyone in your group needs to subscribe to or if they subscribe to certain "unacceptable beliefs" they are are "poison".

God's group is exclusive with truths that everyone needs to subscribe to or if they subscribe to certain unacceptable beliefs they are poison.

You don't want to answer my questions?

God's groups is exclusive with truths that you need to agree or if you agree with certain unacceptable views than you can't even associate.

No I understand that you believe that. That's what's ironic. Your group mocked that very same idea in other groups while ignoring it in their own group. Larsen was attempting to make it sound like that group is different than other "exclusive " groups. But it's different in substance perhaps but not in form.

Denver Snuffer church is really just a different flavor of strong man knows best church.

...

[BuriedTartaria]

Your group clearly is exclusive. You have your ideas that everyone in your group needs to subscribe to or if they subscribe to certain "unacceptable beliefs" they are are "poison".

God's group is exclusive with truths that everyone needs to subscribe to or if they subscribe to certain unacceptable beliefs they are poison.

You don't want to answer my questions?

God's groups is exclusive with truths that you need to agree or if you agree with certain unacceptable views than you can't even associate.

No I understand that you believe that. That's what's ironic. Your group mocked that very same idea in other groups while ignoring it in their own group. Larsen was attempting to make it sound like that group is different than other "exclusive " groups. But it's different in substance perhaps but not in form.

Denver Snuffer church is really just a different flavor of strong man knows best church.

...

I agree there are contradicting beliefs and ideas in "the movement". I really admire and respect Denver but I disagree with him when he says "anyone can accept this message and go back to worshiping in whatever faith they'd like". I get what he's saying but I disagree. In theory, that idea probably works reasonably well with a number of religions, churches and beliefs, but I don't think that idea works with the LDS church. I can't accept his message and go back to being an "active LDS". What if I'm called to be a bishop? What do I do with someone coming in to my office believing alternative Mormon thinking concepts, with some views that I probably inwardly share? I'd have to discipline him while keeping my views silent. That would be horrible. Forget being a bishop, let's just consider a regular LDS member who accepts the message Denver says God is offering. If I accept that message, I don't believe the LDS church has any claims to authority. So what do I do as an active LDS member when I'm asked to sustain prophets, seers and revelators that I think are liars?

How Denver frames things on that topic is not so simple. Again, I pray for his safety, I love him. But I disagree with him on this.

So I can totally relate to you and empathize with you as you recognize the contradiction in Larsen bringing up his and Denver's excommunications over differing views on LDS history and claims to authority and suggesting there is less of that in the Remnant movement (being honest, there is less, I know you see the hypocrisy and contradiction, but there is less lock-step doctrinal expectations) while still expecting people involved in the movement to have some generally established views that are shared.

[BringerOfJoy]

In your group are you only allowed to say positive things about what the speakers in conferences say or can you also say negative things? If you say negative things do you have to pussyfoot around it or can you boldly and openly share your sincere ideas even if they are contrary to the status quo or group think without fear of any sort of reprisal or retaliation?

...

You know . . .that all depends on the fellowship. As I was explaining to "Tartaria" I participate with two. One is younger and it's a bit of a free-for-all, no-holds-barred, TMI and anything goes. It reflects a millennial/GenX type of attitude, I guess. Then I participate with an older group that spent many more years as LDS, many in leadership positions where we tend to have more of that aloof politeness, that most older LDS have, and where you tend to break out in a cold sweat if someone says something controversial. I will admit that is more comfortable for me, and the younger group is often out of my comfort zone. I am trying to overcome it because it's not particularly healthy. But for my generation it is quite ingrained.

Did I answer your question?

[darknesstolight]

In your group are you only allowed to say positive things about what the speakers in conferences say or can you also say negative things? If you say negative things do you have to pussyfoot around it or can you boldly and openly share your sincere ideas even if they are contrary to the status quo or group think without fear of any sort of reprisal or retaliation?

...

You know . . .that all depends on the fellowship. As I was explaining to "Tartaria" I participate with two. One is younger and it's a bit of a free-for-all, no-holds-barred, TMI and anything goes. It reflects a millennial/GenX type of attitude, I guess. Then I participate with an older group that spent many more years as LDS, many in leadership positions where we tend to have more of that aloof politeness and somewhat passive/agressive nature that most older LDS have, and where you tend to break out in a cold sweat if someone says something controversial. I will admit that is more comfortable for me, and the younger group is often out of my comfort zone. I am trying to overcome it because it's not particularly healthy. But for my generation it is quite ingrained.

Did I answer your question?

I didn't ask that question. But nice post.

...

[BringerOfJoy]

... I really admire and respect Denver but I disagree with him when he says "anyone can accept this message and go back to worshiping in whatever faith they'd like". I get what he's saying but I disagree. In theory, that idea probably works reasonably well with a number of religions, churches and beliefs, but I don't think that idea works with the LDS church. ...

Lol, I would have to agree on that. It didn't work for me, but my nature is all in (and I was all in for 40 years) or all out. A few folks seem able to straddle that fence for awhile, but I'm not one of them. If you could sit quietly on the back row and not say a word for years, you could probably pull it off. In a church that doesn't have the big truth claims, which then are tied to a great drain on your time, talents and resources, it would be easier to pull it off. (By they way, for the youngsters in our midst, that drain is FAR LESS in 2022 than it was in 1974. Two hours of church? Shoot, that's for sissies. No ward budget fund, no temple fund, no building fund? Pfffft! ).

[BringerOfJoy]

In your group are you only allowed to say positive things about what the speakers in conferences say or can you also say negative things? If you say negative things do you have to pussyfoot around it or can you boldly and openly share your sincere ideas even if they are contrary to the status quo or group think without fear of any sort of reprisal or retaliation?

...

You know . . .that all depends on the fellowship. As I was explaining to "Tartaria" I participate with two. One is younger and it's a bit of a free-for-all, no-holds-barred, TMI and anything goes. It reflects a millennial/GenX type of attitude, I guess. Then I participate with an older group that spent many more years as LDS, many in leadership positions where we tend to have more of that aloof politeness and somewhat passive/agressive nature that most older LDS have, and where you tend to break out in a cold sweat if someone says something controversial. I will admit that is more comfortable for me, and the younger group is often out of my comfort zone. I am trying to overcome it because it's not particularly healthy. But for my generation it is quite ingrained.

Did I answer your question?

I didn't ask that question. But nice post.

...

Thanks. I tried . . .

[cab]

Honestly agree with pretty much everything they say at these conferences, by these people... unfortunately the polygamy thing just kills it (that is, they virulently oppose it). If they kept their mouths shut on the subject and were neutral, I would be more open to believing their claims and messages...

That was the hardest sell for me of the things that Denver teaches. I mean how could polygamy NOT be a thing. There were all those affidavits in the late 1800's, and there was that lady (her name escapes me at the moment) whose mother told her on her death bed that she was Joseph's daughter. Who would lie on their death bed? But that was before the DNA tests on that particular line came back, and no, she was not Joseph's daughter. But given the numerous sealings that were taking place, I can only assume she meant her daughter was sealed to Joseph, and perhaps the lady in question wasn't all that fond of her husband/the daughter's real father.

And then those affidavits: I came to understand the political climate that created those signed affidavits--some of whom were from folks that signed previous affidavits saying Joseph was NOT practicing polygamy. Either they were lying then, or they were lying later. And Joseph's whole family (who knew him best?) said early and often. Nope. Not Joseph's thing. SEALING IS NOT SEX.

Look at the legacy of polygamy in Brigham's spiritual descendants. Look at the damage it has caused. Look at Warren Jeffs. I sat down and cried when I heard the stories of those young men and women. The Lord also vouched for Joseph to me when I was an 18 year old investigator to the LDS church. He didn't vouch for any pedophile. Droves of folks will leave the church IF FOR NO OTHER REASON than they do not want to be associated with a church founded by a pedophile. And if folks with your views were correct, they would be right to march right out the door and keep on marching. You can't get good fruit from a bad/lousy/horrible tree.

Here we go again with the paedophilia.
Joseph was sealed to Helen Mar Kimball when she was 14 years old. She has always maintained, even when it wasn't fashionable to do so, that he never touched her and that the sealing was for the eternities.

Well I’m just waiting for the church to come around and say there is zero proof Joseph wedded and bedded teenagers.

[SeekWisdom]

Joseph Smith said:
“The Savior said when these tribulations [of the last days] should take place, it should be committed to a man who should be a witness over the whole world: the keys of knowledge, power and revelations should be revealed to a witness who should hold the testimony to the world. It has always been my province to dig up hidden mysteries—new things—for my hearers. Just at the time when some men think that I have no right to the keys of the Priesthood—just at that time I have the greatest right… All the testimony is that the Lord in the last days would commit the keys of the Priesthood to a witness over all people. Has the Gospel of the kingdom commenced in the last days? And will God take it from the man until He takes him Himself? I have read it precisely as the words flowed from the lips of Jesus Christ. John the Revelator saw an angel flying through the midst of heaven, having the everlasting Gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth.
The scripture is ready to be fulfilled when great wars, famines, pestilence, great distress, judgments, &c., are ready to be poured out on the inhabitants of the earth. John saw the angel having the holy Priesthood, who should preach the everlasting Gospel to all nations. God had an angel—a special messenger—ordained and prepared for that purpose in the last days. Woe, woe be to that man or set of men who lift up their hands against God and His witness in these last days: for they shall deceive almost the very chosen ones!”
(TPJS, p. 364-365)

Only God and/or time will tell whether Joseph was prophesying of himself, Denver, or John the Revelator, etc.

At this point, my faith is centered and growing in Christ, but I’m watching for His promised witness. I believe Denver is going to fulfill this prophecy. But if I feel that later in the journey there’s false teachings or prophecies, etc coming from him, my faith isn’t centered in him. I’ll analyze and accept light and truth wherever I discern light coming from that aligns with scripture. I know D&C 101 says that there will be “one of [Christ’s] servants” called and then that servant gathers other remaining servants. Guess we’ll see, as we know anything hidden will be revealed in due time.

[SeekWisdom]

We know not all leaders are a “strong man” in the negative sense, but instead can be more of a King Mosiah, or Melchizedek, or Enoch type who are not looking to be served, but to serve. Types who bring light and truth and helps establish actual righteousness (and not the form that lacks the power thereof). If Denver turns out not to be one of these types, I’ll turn away. But I’ll still be grateful as Denver has helped me increase my faith in Christ to the point where I’m personally seeking both Comforters now. I thought I was before, but definitely doing it the Martha (LDS church) way.

Anything that persuades you to believe in Christ is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ.
There are many LDS leaders and others who preached Christ and talked of Him that gave me a little spark and desire to follow Christ, but none have “persuaded or enticed” me to believe in Christ to this degree before. At this point, from my experience with Denver, I am grateful.

[SJR3t2]

Wow. I'm a Snuffer believer (I'm probably going to get baptized into the covenant he says God is offering some time this year, I'm slow to commit even though I do believe God has given Denver a message to preach) and was not planning on seeing stuff from restorationarchives.com posted here, lol. I literally did a double-take ("wait, which website am I on?")

I had no idea there was a remnant movement related conference this weekend. I'm familiar with the one coming up in Kentucky in March. I'd love to go, but I can't make it.

Title of Denver's talk: True Blue Mormon; Independent Faithfulness. That sounds exactly where I find myself. I'm not attending church anymore and I don't think the LDS church is where God is progressing the work He was doing with Joseph, but I believe in the Book of Mormon more than ever and I believe Joseph translated it by the power of God more than ever.


Thank you for bringing this to my attention!

Please take a look at some things I have put here first https://seekingyhwh.org/resources/denver-snuffer/

[SJR3t2]

Honestly agree with pretty much everything they say at these conferences, by these people... unfortunately the polygamy thing just kills it (that is, they virulently oppose it). If they kept their mouths shut on the subject and were neutral, I would be more open to believing their claims and messages...

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but it sounds like you have an idol in the form of polygamy

Like this is what I read:

It all sounds good and true and I believe it. But I'd believe even more if you didn't hate on polygamy. I might even be interested in joining but that polygamy thing.

I mean if you love it all and sounds great don't let an idea you don't even believe in (not really) stop you. I mean gosh. It's just people who have a different idea. How does it hurt your passion for polygamy?

...

We're anti-polygamy in the Remnant movement. We would view pro-polygamists as poisoning the vineyard. Someone practicing it with no desire to repent would not be welcomed. It's like water and oil, they repel one another, they don't mix. What would a pro-polygamist want to be there for? We aren't showing up to polygamist colonies and asking them to take us in and let us teach our monogamist views and message among their established communities.

God has all the power in existence to provide the world with a prophet providing prophetic fruit that reiterates the truth of polygamy, clearing up the confusion on it, prophetically teaching how the LDS lost their way abandoning it and leading the Restoration anew as a messenger on God's errand. This simply isn't happening. Or at the very least it hasn't happened yet and I don't believe it will but if a messenger had actual fruit to examine, I'd examine it.


Fruit is what led me to Denver's message. I saw I had ran through any and all fruit in the LDS church and the biggest fruit (the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith) does not belong to them and those things condemn their corporation. Denver had a message for me to study, ponder and evaluate. Alleged scripture, alleged fulfillment of prophecy. Most people would call that scripture fiction (and the fulfilled prophecy interpretations incorrect). And that's totally fine. But there's people that call the Old Testament fiction, the Book of Mormon fiction, etc. It's at least something for me to consider and evaluate. I believe it's true

I believe if polygamy were God's law, a prophet would be sent to mightily, and with authority, teach it to the world or at the very least, the Mormon groups. That hasn't happened. Why would God deprive us, the Gentiles who have the Book of Mormon, (who will likely be among the repentant gentiles among the Lamanite remnant), from receiving a prophetic messenger who could teach us with authority the beauty of the families and connections that come from polygamy? It isn't happening. It hasn't happened.


I've said before, that to me, Snuffer's message is just about the only thing that feels alive in the world of Mormonism (there is a movement of people keeping the Book of Mormon and tossing out the PSR message that is alive and growing, and completely unrelated to Snuffer, I acknowledge that and love to see it). And what is his message? Why is it happening now? Why isn't their a successful polygamist-Snuffer alternative out there? Why won't God rescue us from our deception with such a revelatory voice? Such a literal servant?

I work a part-time job on the side that has me around people getting home from missions and one of the girls I know in such a situation tells me that on her mission she would stress to people that the church is so much more than Joseph Smith. I would agree with her that the LDS church has indeed reached such a point, but I don't see it as a good thing. This is the narrative they are growing in the LDS church. This is what teenagers and people in their early 20s are being molded to support; the church is far bigger than Joseph, today's leaders are more important.


Joseph literally seered. These other people lie about prophesying, seering and revelating. It is evil. It is apostasy.


The LDS environment feels like it is dying to me. It is a mega-corporate, lukewarm, sugary message of nothing that feels like salt that has lost its savor. They have all the money in the world and are able to and will continue to build their fancy temples. And that's all they've got. Pumping up missions with more missionaries didn't lead to considerable church growth. Conduct from 15 alleged prophets, seers and revelators in a fake pandemic was no different than conduct and instruction you'd get watching CNN. There's nothing spiritual, or prophetic in the moves they make or how they operate. There's no prophetic fruit.

FYI Snuffer went back and forth in the beginning. My take is he was seeing what the majority of his group would believe, like a survey as in Alma 35.

[BuriedTartaria]

FYI Snuffer went back and forth in the beginning. My take is he was seeing what the majority of his group would believe, like a survey as in Alma 35.

I am aware his view on polygamy, particularly Joseph and polygamy, evolved over time. From a skeptic perspective, I understand your point of view and conclusion on that. What he is evolved over time. If he's a liar or deceived he evolved from a commentator fueling reformation attitudes into someone deceiving others, building up a specific ideology. If he's honest, then I think you see someone transitioning from being a sincere critic trying to help and understand something into someone becoming more of a literal servant of the Lord, beginning to do greater things and understanding things more completely. I think that's monumental.

I'm a believer but I empathize and understand peoples feelings on contradictions and other things relating to all of it

[SJR3t2]

FYI Snuffer went back and forth in the beginning. My take is he was seeing what the majority of his group would believe, like a survey as in Alma 35.

I am aware his view on polygamy, particularly Joseph and polygamy, evolved over time. From a skeptic perspective, I understand your point of view and conclusion on that. What he is evolved over time. If he's a liar or deceived he evolved from a commentator fueling reformation attitudes into someone deceiving others, building up a specific ideology. If he's honest, then I think you see someone transitioning from being a sincere critic trying to help and understand something into someone becoming more of a literal servant of the Lord, beginning to do greater things and understanding things more completely. I think that's monumental.

I'm a believer but I empathize and understand peoples feelings on contradictions and other things relating to all of it

He went back and forth on this issue while claiming he was being taught by angels.

[BuriedTartaria]

FYI Snuffer went back and forth in the beginning. My take is he was seeing what the majority of his group would believe, like a survey as in Alma 35.

I am aware his view on polygamy, particularly Joseph and polygamy, evolved over time. From a skeptic perspective, I understand your point of view and conclusion on that. What he is evolved over time. If he's a liar or deceived he evolved from a commentator fueling reformation attitudes into someone deceiving others, building up a specific ideology. If he's honest, then I think you see someone transitioning from being a sincere critic trying to help and understand something into someone becoming more of a literal servant of the Lord, beginning to do greater things and understanding things more completely. I think that's monumental.

I'm a believer but I empathize and understand peoples feelings on contradictions and other things relating to all of it

He went back and forth on this issue while claiming he was being taught by angels.

Sounds like Joseph Smith (Godhead, the after life, polygamy, if you believe the LDS narrative)

I’m sorry that such a clear fraud with such an insignificant message and insignificant following gets LDS-PSR-enablers and other Book of Mormon believers so irate.

The situation looks like a biblical pattern to me

[BringerOfJoy]

FYI Snuffer went back and forth in the beginning. My take is he was seeing what the majority of his group would believe, like a survey as in Alma 35.

I will just do a quick "drive-by shooting" type of answer here since I really have to get some stuff done today, but Denver has openly stated that it was a subject he put on the shelf for many years.

I was there in 2014 in St. George when he unequivocally stated his opposition. I believe you were also paying attention back then, no? (Since I recognize your initials and avatar from a facebook group or two). And he had hinted at it previously in a couple of talks he gave on Brigham Young. In 2011 he didn't come down on one side or the other in Passing the Heavenly Gift, but that wasn't the point he was trying to make. The Church's shifting stance on any number of subjects WAS. If you are going to "Follow the Prophet," which one do you follow? Shifting Sands, indeed.

We lost quite a few folks that day in St. George. (Shoot, Cody Brown of "Sister Wives" was even there for the previous talk in Las Vegas--he sat by us).

And we lost some of the loudest anti-polygamy voices that day also, because he said we had to be willing to allow polygamists into the fellowships as intact units if they agreed to end it with their generation and not teach it. (And we definitely have some in the fellowships.) One of my friends walked away that day because polygamist families would be allowed in the groups. Personally I think we gained a few good folks because of that. You can't really win on this subject, can you?

And the fledgling group would lose a whole lot more the next talk in Arizona with the subject of rebaptism, priesthood, etc. It's a "winnowing" process to be sure. I would say Denver hardly caters to the masses.

[SJR3t2]

FYI Snuffer went back and forth in the beginning. My take is he was seeing what the majority of his group would believe, like a survey as in Alma 35.

I am aware his view on polygamy, particularly Joseph and polygamy, evolved over time. From a skeptic perspective, I understand your point of view and conclusion on that. What he is evolved over time. If he's a liar or deceived he evolved from a commentator fueling reformation attitudes into someone deceiving others, building up a specific ideology. If he's honest, then I think you see someone transitioning from being a sincere critic trying to help and understand something into someone becoming more of a literal servant of the Lord, beginning to do greater things and understanding things more completely. I think that's monumental.

I'm a believer but I empathize and understand peoples feelings on contradictions and other things relating to all of it

He went back and forth on this issue while claiming he was being taught by angels.

Sounds like Joseph Smith (Godhead, the after life, polygamy, if you believe the LDS narrative)

I’m sorry that such a clear fraud with such an insignificant message and insignificant following gets LDS-PSR-enablers and other Book of Mormon believers so irate.

The situation looks like a biblical pattern to me

Not sure what you are trying to say as JS was consistent with the Godhead, but LDS / Brighamite church changed it.

[1828 Webster’s Dictionary, PERSONAGE: 1) EXTERIOR APPEARANCE 2) CHARACTER ASSUMED 3) CHARACTER REPRESENTED]

Lectures on Faith 5:2 There are two personages [exterior appearance] who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things … They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit … The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle … possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things … and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one: The Father and the Son possessing the same mind … the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit … being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all …

https://seekingyhwh.org/lectures-on-faith/5th/

JS only fought against polygamy
1835 D&C section 101, last edition while Joseph Smith was alive. The only major church that removed it was the LDS church. It states one man and one wife, to marry in public where everyone can see it, and that polygamy is a crime.
https://seekingyhwh.org/resources/marriage/

[SJR3t2]

FYI Snuffer went back and forth in the beginning. My take is he was seeing what the majority of his group would believe, like a survey as in Alma 35.

I will just do a quick "drive-by shooting" type of answer here since I really have to get some stuff done today, but Denver has openly stated that it was a subject he put on the shelf for many years.

I was there in 2014 in St. George when he unequivocally stated his opposition. I believe you were also paying attention back then, no? (Since I recognize your initials and avatar from a facebook group or two). And he had hinted at it previously in a couple of talks he gave on Brigham Young. In 2011 he didn't come down on one side or the other in Passing the Heavenly Gift, but that wasn't the point he was trying to make. The Church's shifting stance on any number of subjects WAS. If you are going to "Follow the Prophet," which one do you follow? Shifting Sands, indeed.

We lost quite a few folks that day in St. George. (Shoot, Cody Brown of "Sister Wives" was even there for the previous talk in Las Vegas--he sat by us).

And we lost some of the loudest anti-polygamy voices that day also, because he said we had to be willing to allow polygamists into the fellowships as intact units if they agreed to end it with their generation and not teach it. (And we definitely have some in the fellowships.) One of my friends walked away that day because polygamist families would be allowed in the groups. Personally I think we gained a few good folks because of that. You can't really win on this subject, can you?

And the fledgling group would lose a whole lot more the next talk in Arizona with the subject of rebaptism, priesthood, etc. It's a "winnowing" process to be sure. I would say Denver hardly caters to the masses.

I hung out with Snufferites when I first woke up, never became one, thought about it for a little while, but saw problems with his teachings early on.