A question about the Mormon remnant movement

[AI2.0]

Marc, with your explanation you are justifying the Snuffer dissidents. As I read it, you are comparing the LDS church with the corrupt jews, scribes and pharisees and comparing John the Baptist to Denver Snuffer, suggesting that the righteous, if they are in tune with the spirit, would follow him--out of the church. Can you not see that with this implication you are taking sides--it will always be an us vs them as long as people choose to leave the church and join Snuffer's movement, because they cannot have one foot in each organization--it is not possible since Snuffer encourages baptism under his authority and claims he now holds the keys the LDS prophets held. He's set himself against the LDS church. Maybe you don't see it, but it's obviously there.

[marc]

Only God can truly justify, if one really understands sanctification and justification. The rest of us just think we can justify ourselves or others. What we tend to do is rationalize. I suppose one can say that I am the one comparing said scenarios, but really, the comparisons make themselves. But if you are doing what God has required of you and does require of you, then it is He who will justify you. But if you know what you are supposed to do because, after all, you have access to the fullness of the gospel, and if you do not do it, then it is not likely that He will justify you. You see it as taking sides. I do not and I already explained why.

[AI2.0]

I'm not using the word 'justify' in the context of justification and sanctification, I'm using it to mean that you are supporting the Snuffer perception. You seem to want to present yourself as neutral, that you don't align with either group, well, I don't see that. From your post in question, I perceive that you are equating the LDS church with the scribes and pharisees--those Jesus called to repentance and you view Denver Snuffer akin to John the Baptist, standing up to the corrupt jewish church and hierarchy. If that isn't how you feel, then maybe you need to reconsider your words and what examples you use to make your points

[marc]

Again, per the 11th article of faith, I allow all to believe and do as they wish. I support free agency and I love everyone. Because I do not view them as you do, you associate me with them, which is natural for an "us" and "them" paradigm. I simply shed light on some parallels. Whether or not they are true depends on how you plug yourself into the equation and how events will unfold.

[Mark]

Marc, with your explanation you are justifying the Snuffer dissidents. As I read it, you are comparing the LDS church with the corrupt jews, scribes and pharisees and comparing John the Baptist to Denver Snuffer, suggesting that the righteous, if they are in tune with the spirit, would follow him--out of the church. Can you not see that with this implication you are taking sides--it will always be an us vs them as long as people choose to leave the church and join Snuffer's movement, because they cannot have one foot in each organization--it is not possible since Snuffer encourages baptism under his authority and claims he now holds the keys the LDS prophets held. He's set himself against the LDS church. Maybe you don't see it, but it's obviously there.

I am reminded of a couple experiences Wilford Woodruff reported on concerning some Saints in his day who began to rebel against Joseph's prophetic calling. Is there any difference between the events of that time and those Saints today who reject the prophetic callings of The First Presidency and the 12 in favor of some pretender or another who comes along claiming great spiritual prowess and heavenly authority be their name Snuffer or Harmston or ? (pick your favorite apostate?) I don't really see any. Maybe Marc doesn't see the connection.

“I attended [a] meeting at the [Kirtland] Temple [on February 19, 1837]. President Joseph Smith had been absent on business for the Church, but not half as long as Moses was in the mount away from Israel [see Exodus 32:1–8]; yet many of the people in Kirtland, if they did not make a calf to worship as did the Israelites, turned their hearts away from the Lord and from his servant Joseph, and had engaged in speculation and given way to false spirits, until they were darkened in their minds; and many were opposed to Joseph Smith, and some wished to appoint David Whitmer to lead the Church in his stead. In the midst of this cloud of dark spirits, Joseph returned to Kirtland, and this morning arose in the stand. He appeared much depressed; but soon the Spirit of God rested upon him, and he addressed the assembly in great plainness for about three hours, and put his enemies to silence.

“When he arose he said, ‘I am still the President, Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Leader of the Church of Jesus Christ. God, and not man, has appointed and placed me in this position, and no man or set of men have power to remove me or appoint another in my stead, and those who undertake this, if they do not speedily repent, will burn their fingers and go to hell.’ He reproved the people sharply for their sins, darkness and unbelief; the power of God rested upon him, and bore testimony that his sayings were true.”13

“President Smith spoke in the afternoon [on April 9, 1837], and said in the name of the Lord that the judgments of God would rest upon those men who had professed to be his friends, and friends of humanity, and in building up Kirtland, a stake of Zion, but had turned traitors to him, and the interests of the kingdom of God, and had given power into the hands of our enemies against us; they had oppressed the poor Saints, and had brought distress upon them, and had become covenant breakers, for which they will feel the wrath of God.”14

[marc]

Those are some great quotes. Thank you, Mark. I certainly see the parallels.

[Jonesy]

Those are some great quotes. Thank you, Mark. I certainly see the parallels.

Two questions relating to the remnant movement:

Who broke away from their covenants?

Does Denver Snuffer have authority to enact new covenants?

[marc]

Those are some great quotes. Thank you, Mark. I certainly see the parallels.

Two questions relating to the remnant movement:

Who broke away from their covenants?

Does Denver Snuffer have authority to enact new covenants?

Are you asking me? Because I don't have any information about who who broke away from their covenants. I understand Denver is pretty good about answering email questions if you can't find the answers on his blog. Email him and ask him.

[Jonesy]

Those are some great quotes. Thank you, Mark. I certainly see the parallels.

Two questions relating to the remnant movement:

Who broke away from their covenants?

Does Denver Snuffer have authority to enact new covenants?

Are you asking me? Because I don't have any information about who who broke away from their covenants. I understand Denver is pretty good about answering email questions if you can't find the answers on his blog. Email him and ask him.

I'll answer my own questions.

Those who resigned their membership or apostatized from the church.

No, he does not.

[Mark]

Those are some great quotes. Thank you, Mark. I certainly see the parallels.

Two questions relating to the remnant movement:

Who broke away from their covenants?

Does Denver Snuffer have authority to enact new covenants?

According to those who follow and are committed to the Remnant movement Denver has kicked off a new dispensation. It is referred to as " the Dispensation of the last times for the Gentiles". This little explanation below from one of those advocates in a blog headlined under the title "Is This A New Dispensation?" I think I know now why Marc made the reference he did.


"Yes. It is connected to, and built upon, the dispensation begun by Joseph Smith, but it is nonetheless new. We honor those in the LDS Church who have preserved what they have of Joseph Smith’s teachings, and Christ’s words through him. John the Baptist’s priesthood reckoned from the Jews he wrested the keys from. His priesthood continued, as did Christ’s and the apostles, despite the demise of the Jewish council, synagogues, and temple.

Denver Snuffer has ushered in the dispensation of the last times for the Gentiles, as John the Baptist ushered in the dispensation of the last times for the Jews (D&C 27:13). Joseph Smith’s inauguration of a dispensation of last times was abortive, and thankfully so. The Gentiles were given more time before their kingdoms were destroyed, as the use of those keys were started by Joseph Smith for the purpose of building the latter-day Zion. Zion was not built. Joseph Smith ushered in the dispensation of the fulness of times (D&C 128:18), which is a restoration that gathers all things in one, just as Moses did to start his dispensation. This dispensation of Joseph’s was incomplete. We have not received the vision of the revelation of all things given to the brother of Jared, nor the return of the priesthood that the Lord promised to Adam would return in the last days (Moses 6:7). The dispensation of the last times, which is the last time the Lord will prune His vineyard (Jacob 5:62), builds upon and completes the dispensation of the fulness of times, which gathers in one all things; or it could be said the last times completes the prior dispensation so the fulness of all things can be ushered in. The unfinished parts of the Restoration will be picked up and completed and built upon. Joseph’s success was marvelous but not exhaustive. It remains to be completed in another “last times” and “fulness of times” attempt, and the choice is ours to rise up. These are keys that can be implemented whenever God commands, and not conforming to Western definition notions. The dispensation attempt is finalized as the “last times” when it accomplishes what was begun with the turning of the keys to begin it: It becomes the “last times” for the kingdoms that the dispensation is opposed to. When the kingdoms fall of their own accord as they dash to pieces against the rock that is established, then the dispensation will be a success, and earn the title indefinitely in history (see D&C 39:17, where the Lord implores the Saints to be faithful that they may prune the vineyard for the last time). Otherwise, the last times will begin anew with a future generation. Likewise, for the fulness of times, if all things are not gathered in one, then it remains to be completed by another generation who can gather all knowledge, dispensations, glory, and keys into Zion."

[Mark]

This kind of reminds me of the beginnings of Harmstons True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the LAST DAYS. Just a new twist to another break off movement.

"Prior to the Fall of 1992, some members of the LDS Church in Manti and surrounding areas occasionally met together in study groups and informal gatherings to discuss their interpretations of the gospel. Some of these individuals already had Mormon Fundamentalist leanings .... Harmston, as well as other men and women, began to teach what they knew of the 'original, pure' doctrines of Joseph Smith in their study groups as well as to interested individuals. This teaching began as informal discussions, evolving into a two-day, organized seminar referred to as the Models.

"Frustrated with the 'dilution' of the 'pure' doctrines taught by Joseph Smith, Harmston and his wife, Elaine, say they sought a closer relationship with God and answers to their questions about the modern-day practices of the LDS Church. They decided to seek those answers at home, in a prayer circle, using the 'true order of prayer,' as taught in LDS temples" (Johns, p. 32).

[Jonesy]

Those are some great quotes. Thank you, Mark. I certainly see the parallels.

Two questions relating to the remnant movement:

Who broke away from their covenants?

Does Denver Snuffer have authority to enact new covenants?

According to those who follow and are committed to the Remnant movement Denver has kicked off a new dispensation. It is referred to as " the Dispensation of the last times for the Gentiles". This little explanation below from one of those advocates in a blog headlined under the title "Is This A New Dispensation?" I think I know now why Marc made the reference he did.


"Yes. It is connected to, and built upon, the dispensation begun by Joseph Smith, but it is nonetheless new. We honor those in the LDS Church who have preserved what they have of Joseph Smith’s teachings, and Christ’s words through him. John the Baptist’s priesthood reckoned from the Jews he wrested the keys from. His priesthood continued, as did Christ’s and the apostles, despite the demise of the Jewish council, synagogues, and temple.

Denver Snuffer has ushered in the dispensation of the last times for the Gentiles, as John the Baptist ushered in the dispensation of the last times for the Jews (D&C 27:13). Joseph Smith’s inauguration of a dispensation of last times was abortive, and thankfully so. The Gentiles were given more time before their kingdoms were destroyed, as the use of those keys were started by Joseph Smith for the purpose of building the latter-day Zion. Zion was not built. Joseph Smith ushered in the dispensation of the fulness of times (D&C 128:18), which is a restoration that gathers all things in one, just as Moses did to start his dispensation. This dispensation of Joseph’s was incomplete. We have not received the vision of the revelation of all things given to the brother of Jared, nor the return of the priesthood that the Lord promised to Adam would return in the last days (Moses 6:7). The dispensation of the last times, which is the last time the Lord will prune His vineyard (Jacob 5:62), builds upon and completes the dispensation of the fulness of times, which gathers in one all things; or it could be said the last times completes the prior dispensation so the fulness of all things can be ushered in. The unfinished parts of the Restoration will be picked up and completed and built upon. Joseph’s success was marvelous but not exhaustive. It remains to be completed in another “last times” and “fulness of times” attempt, and the choice is ours to rise up. These are keys that can be implemented whenever God commands, and not conforming to Western definition notions. The dispensation attempt is finalized as the “last times” when it accomplishes what was begun with the turning of the keys to begin it: It becomes the “last times” for the kingdoms that the dispensation is opposed to. When the kingdoms fall of their own accord as they dash to pieces against the rock that is established, then the dispensation will be a success, and earn the title indefinitely in history (see D&C 39:17, where the Lord implores the Saints to be faithful that they may prune the vineyard for the last time). Otherwise, the last times will begin anew with a future generation. Likewise, for the fulness of times, if all things are not gathered in one, then it remains to be completed by another generation who can gather all knowledge, dispensations, glory, and keys into Zion."

Denver Snuffer's supposed wresting of the keys looks nothing like John's. His attempt mirrors more like Sydney Rigdon's apostasy. Nor does he meet any of the requirements as John did.

[Mark]

Those are some great quotes. Thank you, Mark. I certainly see the parallels.

Can you expound upon those parallels you are seeing Marc? Would love to hear how you are seeing it.

[marc]

Those are some great quotes. Thank you, Mark. I certainly see the parallels.

Can you expound upon those parallels you are seeing Marc? Would love to hear how you are seeing it.

On my way to work, but the short answer to your quoted examples is Harmston, Snuffer, etc, broke away, claiming authority. Excommunications happened (enemies of the church). Believers followed, etc. Dallin H. Oaks and Richard Turley undertake what was referred to as the Boise Rescue, traveling to Boise, Idaho to speak to several stakes about the dangers of apostasy and following false prophets, somewhat similar to Joseph returning to Kirtland when he was away to denounce the "golden calf worship." If I recall, other talks were given over the pulpit to encourage the members to stay on the Good Ship Zion, also asking if members leave, "where will you go?" etc. Gotta run.

[shadow]

I'm not using the word 'justify' in the context of justification and sanctification, I'm using it to mean that you are supporting the Snuffer perception. You seem to want to present yourself as neutral, that you don't align with either group, well, I don't see that. From your post in question, I perceive that you are equating the LDS church with the scribes and pharisees--those Jesus called to repentance and you view Denver Snuffer akin to John the Baptist, standing up to the corrupt jewish church and hierarchy. If that isn't how you feel, then maybe you need to reconsider your words and what examples you use to make your points

Neutral he's not. In fact, for context, he was rebaptized outside of the church.

[Mark]

I'm not using the word 'justify' in the context of justification and sanctification, I'm using it to mean that you are supporting the Snuffer perception. You seem to want to present yourself as neutral, that you don't align with either group, well, I don't see that. From your post in question, I perceive that you are equating the LDS church with the scribes and pharisees--those Jesus called to repentance and you view Denver Snuffer akin to John the Baptist, standing up to the corrupt jewish church and hierarchy. If that isn't how you feel, then maybe you need to reconsider your words and what examples you use to make your points

Neutral he's not. In fact, for context, he was rebaptized outside of the church.

Well that explains a lot.

[marc]

I did what the Lord required of me. Not because of Denver Snuffer or Mark Harmston or anyone else. I do what the Lord requires of me regardless of surrounding coincidences.

[Mark]

I did what the Lord required of me. Not because of Denver Snuffer or Mark Harmston or anyone else. I do what the Lord requires of me regardless of surrounding coincidences.

Marc I met a number of LDS people who joined the TLC movement years ago who said the same thing. However they would NEVER have done the things they did in regards to additional "spiritual marriages" etc etc had not that idea been planted in their minds and nourished by pursuasive or "spiritually enlightened" folks like Jim Harmston and his disciples testifying that the time was right. I would venture to bet my food storage that had you not gotten involved with the remnant factions who followed Snuffer from place to place you would not have considered rebaptism either. That idea didn't just pop into your head one day without some coaxing and proselytizing being done before hand by those in that movement. Be honest am I right or am I right?

[Jonesy]

Here's an interesting scenario. What if Denver's excommunication was annulled and his membership reinstated? Not only this, but he becomes the President of the church?

[Mark]

Here's an interesting scenario. What if Denver's excommunication was annulled and his membership reinstated? Not only this, but he becomes the President of the church?

Is that a trick question? :))

[Jonesy]

Here's an interesting scenario. What if Denver's excommunication was annulled and his membership reinstated? Not only this, but he becomes the President of the church?

Is that a trick question? :))

Just something crazy I thought of. Now, that would never happen. But hypothetically, I would accept him as the President. To actually consider it is a false hope, though...

[gardener4life]

beware of false prophets, you can recognize them by their rebellion against authority.

[marc]

I would venture to bet my food storage that had you not gotten involved with the remnant factions who followed Snuffer from place to place you would not have considered rebaptism either. That idea didn't just pop into your head one day without some coaxing and proselytizing being done before hand by those in that movement. Be honest am I right or am I right?

Just got home from work. Mark, that is a bold wager. I will be honest, though, as I have always endeavored to be honest because I genuinely believe the Lord and angels are silent notes taking. The Lord had taught me things before Denver came onto the scene. Denver does not have a monopoly on the Second Comforter, C&E and other principles of the gospel. But you are absolutely right (I wonder if you really would have turned over your food storage had you been wrong). I wrestled with the notion of "rebaptism" for a year or so, and I was genuinely deathly afraid that I was being deceived when I realized that the Lord required it of me. I went so far as to search for precedents because as much as I am willing to obey God, to serve Him at all hazards and to lay down my character and reputation, etc (LoF 6:5), it is a scary thing to do something, which is completely contrary to your beliefs, traditions, character, etc. I understand Nephi's hesitation to slay Laban. How's that for a test of faith!?

It turns out that multiple baptisms is something that ancient Israelites did and was not new to the people in the Book of Mormon. Before Jesus appeared at Bountiful, Nephi was out baptizing all who believed (3 Nephi 1:23) in Zarahemla after his father, Nephi departed out of the land. Being the prophet, there is no doubt that he had the authority to baptize, but he was also a baptized member of the church in Zarahemla. And yet when Jesus came and taught them at Bountiful, He required they be baptized again, authorizing Nephi to baptize them (though he was already an authorized baptizer).

3 Nephi 19:10 And when they had thus prayed they went down unto the water’s edge, and the multitude followed them.

11 And it came to pass that Nephi went down into the water and was baptized.

12 And he came up out of the water and began to baptize. And he baptized all those whom Jesus had chosen.

Moroni teaches that this is the way it was done among the Nephites.

Moroni 6:1 And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it.

2 Neither did they receive any unto baptism save they came forth with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented of all their sins.

Baptized men in the church were required to be baptized again when called to serve as elders, priests, and teachers. But they were not baptized into office unless they showed that they were worthy of it. Neither was anyone baptized into the church unless they witnessed to the members that they had truly repented. Then I discovered that Joseph Smith and Ema were also baptized more than once as were many saints including Brigham Young. From Brigham Young's journal of discourses, I found this:

"About this time came a revelation concerning baptism for the dead. I know that in my traveling and preaching, many a time, I have stopped by beautiful streams of clear, pure water, and have said to myself, “How delightful it would be to me to go into this, to be baptized for the remission of my sins.” When I got home Joseph told me it was my privilege. At this time came a revelation, that the Saints could be baptized and rebaptized when they chose, and then that we could be baptized for our dear friends, but at first it was not revealed that a record should be kept of those who were baptized; but when he received an additional revelation to that effect, then a record was kept. Hundreds and thousands, I suppose, were baptized before any record was kept at all, and they were baptized over, and a record kept of the baptisms and the names of the administrator, those who acted for the dead, and of the dead, and of the witnesses."--Brigham Young, JOD 18:241

Not only did they baptize each other often, but also for their dead. Baptism was not a one time ordinance for membership into the church but an ordinance performed often as tokens of faith, repentance, healing, etc. When the pioneers arrived in the Salt Lake Valley, they were all baptized again, though they were already members of the church. Eventually it became church policy no longer to be rebaptized. The Lord spoke to my mind, giving me the name of the person who should baptize me. I concluded that when the Lord requires you to do something, He authorizes it. I'm just going to copy from my journal the relevant portion:

I found him and sent him a private message online telling him that I had been praying fervently for a long time and that the Lord had given me his name. I then asked him to share his testimony with me because I had never before met him and was making his acquaintance for the first time. After he replied and shared his testimony, I told him that the Lord gave me his name and I asked him if he would baptize me in living waters. He replied and consented to baptize me. He told me that he had just baptized others and had been praying to the Lord to confirm to him that he was doing the Lord's will. When I contacted him, he received it as a witness that he was doing the Lord's will. This was probably as surreal to him as it was to me.

I never saw him again and to my knowledge, he is NOT part of any "Remnant Movement." Mark, it would never have occurred to me to do this had I not heard about it. But I inquired and I persisted until I was certain it was the Lord's will and not my own fanciful imagination and not to go off and join some movement. But that is the way it is with revelation. Lehi would never have considered inquiring of God concerning the destruction of Jerusalem had he not first heard about it from someone else. Likewise, Nephi would never have considered inquiring of the Lord concerning his father's vision of the tree of life had he not first heard about it, nor would Enos have prayed all day and all night. The list goes on. This brings me back to my first post in this discussion:

1 Nephi 15:8 And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?

9 And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.

10 Behold, I said unto them: How is it that ye do not keep the commandments of the Lord? How is it that ye will perish, because of the hardness of your hearts?

11 Do ye not remember the things which the Lord hath said?—If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you.

What was the difference between Nephi and his two brothers? Nephi obeyed the Lord and did not rely on the testimonies of others, including his own father's. He went and got his own witness from God. Yes, his father's words were true, but they were only efficacious in his life because he went and got his own answer. Nephi's words in this chapter were not efficacious in his brother's lives because, while he spoke the truth to answer their questions, they did not get their own answer from God by the power of the Holy Ghost like Nephi did. There's the difference. If you don't have the Holy Ghost, then what good does it do to understand the truth from the leaders of the church or from some remnant group or some forum? Awaken your soul and go and study it out in your mind and with all your heart ask of God and then do what HE requires of you. If you have the Holy Ghost, you should have no problem. If you don't have the Holy Ghost, then you're in trouble.

Does this mean I have joined the "Remnant Movement"? No. And I do not identify myself with any part of any remnant movement. But I do love them and many are dear friends to me. I respect their beliefs and they respect mine. My journey is my own.

[AI2.0]

Marc, thanks for being honest.

I have to say that I don't understand what would possess you to ask a stranger to rebaptize you? Why would you feel comfortable with that? How do you know WHAT he baptized you into? I realize that rebaptism was common at varying times in the history of the church, but you know perfectly well it's not now and that to do this without permission by priesthood leaders, it is very likely an excommunicable action. Did you realize this at the time you did it?

Also, since you had some stranger on the internet do it, and he did it in 'living waters', then I'd say it's a proper 'Remnant' Snuffer approved baptism--whether you acknowledge it or not. If you really want to know if you are part of the remnant, that's easy. Check their baptism records. There is a person who keeps records of who is rebaptised and if your name is on the list, then you are a member.

[marc]

AI2.0, it appears you did not read my post carefully and thus have labeled and pigeonholed me. It's just something I'll have to live with, but I'm ok with it. I only need Jesus Christ's approval.