Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
jwbohrer
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 9

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by jwbohrer »

Arenera wrote: August 18th, 2017, 11:29 am
inquirringmind wrote: August 18th, 2017, 10:12 am
Arenera wrote: August 18th, 2017, 10:07 am
inquirringmind wrote: August 17th, 2017, 11:20 pm I don't know if this is true, but someone just posted this in the comments of bringing hidden things to light.

https://bringingtolighthiddenthings.wor ... comment-49
John Doe has been involved in serious sin for years. The timing of him being called to accountability had unfortunate timing for Denver's designs, who has been designing for years. Hopefully this might help a few see the reality of Denver's deviance and departure from Christ's real church, but i suspect that those who have followed him will continue to do so.
How do you know "John Doe has been involved in serious sin for years"?

Do you know who this "John Doe" is?

And if Denver's been designing for years, do you have any idea of what he hopes to get out of his designs?

I still don't see his motive.

That's why I started another thread here.
AI2.0 post shows John Doe's transgressions going over years. viewtopic.php?f=14&t=46279&start=60#p800670

DS started with getting the second comforter, then other books, then a book saying the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was in apostasy. Then he did 10 talks, which later became the Bible for the remnants. Did you notice that the Council of women were using directions from Denver's bible?

It's like fishing, you put something to catch a fish's attention (The Second Comforter) and then you reel in the fish.

What is his motive? To take the elect away from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and deliver them to the adversary.

Next up is getting his flock to make a covenant on the scriptures they put together. Like the Lectures on Faith, written by Sidney Rigdon, another enticing lure to some.

Each group of dissidents has to do it a little different. Denver's process is very sly. There are some really sharp LDS members who have fallen for it. But as we see with the John Doe scenario, something is rotten in Denmark (or Idaho....). It's rotten enough to have Denver uncloak and show his real colors.
I don't think that's actually Denver's motive. I think that's Satan's motive and Snuffer is a well meaning but beguiled dupe. I posted a much longer explanation over on the other thread.

User avatar
Mark
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6929

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by Mark »

AI2.0 wrote: August 18th, 2017, 10:30 am Here is another comment from the blog post, Hidden things, that I wanted to bring to your attention. Naturally there is pushback from those who don't want this to be examined--one writer has challenged them and is obviously angry about the proceedings against John Doe, but blog contributors come across as honest, concerned and forthright. And considering the outcome, John Doe lost his certificate, I believe their version of events.
Anonymous, you are correct, I was only there to give my witness. I received texts of proceedings throughout the council, including Denver’s statements. All of the witnesses spoke after the council for hours with who were present as well as one of the organizers. The statements did not vary from each account. The trial was recorded. If I have spoken untrue – please state specifically what I have said so I can openly correct the inaccuracy.

As to the fellowship for John Doe – The Answer to the Covenant was posted hours before the Women’s council. It contained new requirements on how to hold a council. Had the Answer to the Covenant been voted on and accepted by the fellowships? Is it currently accepted and in place? The women organized it according to the rules that have been in place as laid out in Preserving the Restoration.

The family member involved was his wife and was not on the Women’s council. She was on the phone and I consider that present. She did not give a statement nor a witness. After he had lied about important facts, she was phoned. She asked him to please tell the Women’s council the truth, which, he then did. Again, I have not ever intended to spread a falsehood. If I am saying something incorrectly – please don’t get angry with me. Show me what I am saying that is false so I can be corrected or clarify. I have no desire to lie or spread anything false.

John Doe only confessed when his wife asked him to please tell the truth. That does not demonstrate repentance to me (nor to the witnesses). This council wasn’t about bonded sole-mates. It was about a pattern of deception and misconduct John Doe continued in committing for years. Please do not say I haven’t forgiven John Doe. You do not know me nor my heart and that is untrue and unkind. My husband and I forgave him years ago. We reached out to him when we saw the false direction he was going, we have prayed for him by name and have continued to do so. His heart is good and he has the potential to be a great warrior for the Lord. I am sorry you view me as an accuser, unwilling to forgive and forget, contentious and like Satan. You are welcome in my home and I am willing to be as transparent as possible. I don’t know you but I know you are fighting for truth. I am too. We see things differently in this situation and for that I am sorry.

What Denver wrote on his blog is partial and limited. I wrote Denver August 3rd asking him to clarify what John Doe’s “revelations” and “key contributions” were. I quoted him and he responded that the communications would be posted. He did not take that opportunity to correct my email nor in his recent post to say that he never said those things. He did correct having never said, “innocent” and we apologized for the possibility of misunderstanding “penitent” with “innocent”. We did not mean to mischaracterize Denver in that way.

I am sorry you feel we are providing staggering darkness. We see things very differently. It sounds like you were one of the Women on the council. If I may ask – why, if he admitted to multiple inappropriate relations in the last six months (and only admitted it after pleading to be honest by his wife who was on the phone), how you consider that repentant?
The wagons are circling. I don't know who John Doe is, but apparently he is high up enough that he has friends who want the decision reversed. Adrian Larsen posted a rebuttal on his 'to the remnant' blog and from the comments section on the 'hidden things' blog, it's clear Doe has supporters who are challenging the decision of the council and accusing them of essentially being on a witch hunt. But, I believe the person quoted above---it sounds like this is a pattern of behavior with Doe--we're talking years, not months; his wife is probably sick of his lies and his affairs and when forced to fess up, he did confess--but only when pressured to. IMO, that's NOT the sign of a penitent person. It is a clear indication that John Doe is a serial philanderer, but holds enough power to get this swept under a rug by taking the tact that if a person repents there should be no repercussions from his actions. D&C 42:23 still applies to Remnant folks, I believe: "And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith and shall not have the spirit." Fact: If John Doe was fooling around while working on the scripture project then he did not have the spirit and therefore, his contributions were NOT inspired by God. Some in the Remnant are willing to face the truth and they want his contributions removed or they have uneasiness about the finished product--I don't blame them, they are thinking clearly, they want to have confidence that the scriptures they use and they entered a 'covenant' over are actually what they claim to be. It is those who have other concerns who want to rationalize this and ignore the truth and bully the others into submission.

The key to understanding why this is happening is the scripture project. It is in jeopardy of being tainted by Doe's participation, so excuses are being made. I don't believe for a minute that Snuffer would have pressed this, spoken up for Doe and now, his attempts to get the council to reverse their decision, IF it wasn't for his precious scripture project and the covenant he's planning in two weeks. It does allow a peek into what truly motivates Denver Snuffer and his true character.

This is sort of like coming upon a bad crash on the opposite side of the freeway. People not effected at all still have to slow down and sneak a peek hoping to get a glance of some poor soul laying on the pavement. I just hope that when the smoke clears some will come back to the fold and join in the fellowship of the saints.

jmack
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1586

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by jmack »

inho wrote: August 18th, 2017, 12:50 pm Has there been in the remnant movement some sort of teachings about "bonded ones" long before this John Doe incident? In a remnant related forum there are some mentions about the idea already two years ago. In those discussions it was linked to Mendenhall's Jedi classes. There is also this document from Val Brinkerhoff's webpage (the meta data dates it to 2016), that mentions the idea of soul mates in connection of the doctrine of multiple mortal probations. It seems that the idea has floated around, but John and Jane Doe just interpreted in a way that allowed them to have physical relations.
good point, the bonded soulmates was believed by some, it probably did come from Mendenhall. I think john doe's identity might be able to figure out, in the comments it mentioned his ex wife (hes divorced) and he worked on the scripture project, someone probably close to snuffer. It seems he was not in a fellowship and traveled often in the western states. Some may have an idea who it is

inquirringmind
captain of 100
Posts: 899

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by inquirringmind »

This was posted in the comments section of the "Bringing to Light" blog today.
MELONIE TURLEY
August 19, 2017 at 5:16 am
John Doe was able to also bring someone in his defense. One of the people he brought (unbeknownst to anyone) was Denver. That was unexpected. Some in the room said that had they known Denver was coming they, would have not showed up that day. (See SIDENOTE) He made an opening statement -which was supposed to be at the end, and so did John Doe. He then said he had to go, but was invited to stay so he could hear the evidence, but declined. He DID NOT hear any evidence.

SIDENOTE: (To clarify that this was not a “more the merrier”….For the reason of a “no show” and others, is why we had 15 women on the counsel. We had 3 alternates in case someone was sick, unavailable, or if after evidence, was undecided. It required a unanimous vote of 12. If someone did not show, we would have had to cancel, because requirements were not met. People would have called it a violation then too!! Witnesses had flown in from Missouri and others traveled up to 11 hours to come from Arizona, Colorado and Idaho. It was fair to all involved to make sure we had the required and some alternates for the unexpected. It still ended up a unanimous vote of all 15)

I would not presume to say that they were deceived, but rather, that since they did not attend, they only had limited evidence from one side, and did not have all the information. He lied many times during the counsel and at the very end was caught in his lies. Does that seem repentant? John Doe had given Denver limited and false information to make a statement for him. That became obvious. Evidence proved that Denver’s statement of him repenting and saying he had not had any recent indiscretions was wrong. Had Denver stayed, he would have seen a different attitude at the end. One of the 15 women even made a statement to that affect. Not ANY of the 7 witnesses have ever had John Doe contact them to try and apologize for any harm, confess any wrongdoing or to correct his teachings. We all only saw him at each event with other women, and were concerned for them. He had been contacted in person 2 times by several witnesses to try and persuade him of deception and cautioned him. The pattern continued. The council needed to happen.
https://bringingtolighthiddenthings.wor ... blog-post/

inquirringmind
captain of 100
Posts: 899

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by inquirringmind »

jmack wrote: August 18th, 2017, 6:40 pm
inho wrote: August 18th, 2017, 12:50 pm Has there been in the remnant movement some sort of teachings about "bonded ones" long before this John Doe incident? In a remnant related forum there are some mentions about the idea already two years ago. In those discussions it was linked to Mendenhall's Jedi classes. There is also this document from Val Brinkerhoff's webpage (the meta data dates it to 2016), that mentions the idea of soul mates in connection of the doctrine of multiple mortal probations. It seems that the idea has floated around, but John and Jane Doe just interpreted in a way that allowed them to have physical relations.
good point, the bonded soulmates was believed by some, it probably did come from Mendenhall. I think john doe's identity might be able to figure out, in the comments it mentioned his ex wife (hes divorced) and he worked on the scripture project, someone probably close to snuffer. It seems he was not in a fellowship and traveled often in the western states. Some may have an idea who it is
He AND HIS EX-WIFE BOTH worked on the scripture project?

User avatar
Silver Pie
seeker after Christ
Posts: 8989
Location: In the state that doesn't exist

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by Silver Pie »

There are too many false, foolish and untrue things said about me for me to be able to denounce them all. I could accomplish nothing else if I were to spend my time denying all these falsehoods. So I leave them unaddressed and continue to move forward accomplishing such little good as I am able.

One recent false attack suggests that, contrary to the many talks, posts, books and teachings I have provided defending sexual purity before marriage and fidelity after marriage, that I am somehow involved in promoting something called “bonded marriage.” I may not have the name right. I do not fully understand the false idea.

Let me be clear, again, that I denounce polygamy, adultery, fornication and sexual impurity. Those who read what I write know there is really no reason for me to even make this denunciation. But almost all opinions about me are formed second-hand, and the tale-bearers speak their falsehoods with the enthusiasm that persuades many people of their lies.

User avatar
Silver Pie
seeker after Christ
Posts: 8989
Location: In the state that doesn't exist

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by Silver Pie »

A recent incident involving a man’s improper conduct was discussed in a private meeting a few weeks ago. I attended a portion of that meeting. The man involved was charged, in part, with spreading a false teaching. The facts turned out that he was not spreading the falsehood, but was the victim of the teaching. He, and a married woman together were taught the falsehood by a woman who believed in the idea. The woman who introduced it to them contacted me directly and confessed she was the source of the false teaching and regretted very much her involvement with the fiasco. To my surprise, two other women contacted me and admitted they had a role in teaching this false idea and were also aware of the harm that followed such erroneous beliefs.

To me the man stated that he realized his error, confessed his mistake, denounced the teaching, and sought to apologize many times to those involved with him before the private meeting I attended. He had also been rebaptized to repent of his error. I don’t defend his actions. I never said he was “innocent.” I did say he was penitent. His penitence before the meeting and while I was present at the meeting was apparent. He admitted his wrongdoing, despite the personal humiliation involved, and he wept over his failure.

User avatar
Silver Pie
seeker after Christ
Posts: 8989
Location: In the state that doesn't exist

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by Silver Pie »

As for the man’s involvement in the scriptures project, he had no effect on the final product by his preliminary work. He worked on the Book of Mormon, and everything he did was discarded a couple of months ago and the whole redone. It was redone because of a recently released publication that provided side-by-side comparisons for every single word of every version of the Book of Mormon in existence. These include, among others, the original, the printer’s manuscript, the 1830, 1837, 1840, 1841, 1840 London, 1920, 1981, and all the others. Every word from the beginning word to the last was detailed. The set was purchased and provided to those who were doing the work. The books were used by two teams; each having two members. All of them are in Utah. Both teams worked as pairs with one another to recheck every word and solve the word discrepancies, deferring to the original manuscript whenever it was available. Joseph’s 1840 version was deferred to secondly. Joseph made changes in 1837 and 1840 to conform back to the original translation.

What the man contributed most meaningfully was peace-making between members of the committee when discussions resulted in disputes. He helped make peace. The rule for the committee was that any question required unanimous agreement. He was part of the unanimity, and no one ever made a solo decision. His greatest contribution was to be the voice speaking for peace and harmony as difficult challenges were faced during the work.
Edited to add bold for the tl;dr folks who prefer to skip over this series of quotes.
Last edited by Silver Pie on August 19th, 2017, 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Silver Pie
seeker after Christ
Posts: 8989
Location: In the state that doesn't exist

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by Silver Pie »

Not only do I teach marital fidelity and sexual propriety, but the new scriptures will include Hyrum Smith’s general epistle to the church, published when he was the presiding authority in the church. His general epistle teaches marital fidelity, and counsels against breaking up marriages because of religious differences.

A man should have only one wife. And he should be faithful to her. Likewise wives should be faithful to their husbands. Everyone should act honorably and keep their marital vows, even when there are differences between spouses over religious ideas.

I alone am responsible for receiving from the Lord the content of the Prayer for Covenant, Answer to Prayer, and Covenant language. The Prayer for Covenant was provided by revelation from the Lord to me alone. It took me nearly 200,000 words in a book to say what the Lord, by inspiration, provided in the Prayer in less than 3,000 words. He is a great deal better at revealing the truth than am I.

____________________________

Women who participated in the private meeting have now released a statement that is linked below:

Clarifying Light and Darkness
Source: DS's blog

User avatar
Silver Pie
seeker after Christ
Posts: 8989
Location: In the state that doesn't exist

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by Silver Pie »

The key comment in the link referenced was this:
This council was not a referendum on the scripture project or Denver Snuffer. It should not be used as such. This was a private action concerning one man who has repented and renounced his prior errors.

User avatar
Silver Pie
seeker after Christ
Posts: 8989
Location: In the state that doesn't exist

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by Silver Pie »

I have no interest in submitting my own views. It seemed like there needed to be more light shed on the topic. If the post was already shared in a previous page of this thread, please forgive me. Carry on.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by AI2.0 »

Silver Pie wrote: August 19th, 2017, 5:26 pm I have no interest in submitting my own views. It seemed like there needed to be more light shed on the topic. If the post was already shared in a previous page of this thread, please forgive me. Carry on.
I suspect your position it to believe Denver Snuffer's explanation. We have read these statements by him, but I think you should know that others have contradicted some of the things Denver Snuffer has said about this. Snuffer seems to be unaware that John Doe was still continuing this behavior even recently. He did not stay for the meeting and was not there when the man's wife was called on the phone and she was able to get her exhusband to admit his lies. Clearly he had been lying to Snuffer.
Also, I for one never thought that Snuffer was teaching 'soul bonding', but I'm quite certain that there are those in his movement who believe it and some who apparently use it as a way to justify sexual relations outside of marriage.

I will reiterate that I think Denver Snuffer needs to accept a large part of the blame for this. He believed the lies of a man who was deceitful, he didn't want to know about it, because he didn't want it to taint his scripture project. He knew too many knew about this man and what he was doing, so something had to be done, he wanted it taken care of, but wanted the council to exonerate the man, not remove his priesthood certificate. The council heard the evidence and made the decision, but the decision caused a new set of problems for them. There are two sides and they don't agree. This can't be glossed over or covered up, unless those in the remnant don't want to look at the evidence and facts.

KFarber
captain of 50
Posts: 73

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by KFarber »

X( https://bringingtolighthiddenthings.wor ... s-council/

is the statement from the Women’s Council held on July 31, 2017.

http://peace-in-paradise.blogspot.com/2 ... -2017.html

This is the quote from Preserving the Restoration page 511-512, that was used as the given guidelines at the time to organize the council.

“If a man’s worthiness to function is called into question, then a conference can be convened to deal with the question. In removing authority, at least two witnesses should speak against the accused, and he should be allowed to speak on his behalf and call such witnesses as he chooses. Men can be witnesses, but only women are allowed to vote. Removal should be by unanimous vote of the women present, with at least 12 votes against a man to end his authority to act in the fellowship community. As for his family, he is free to do as he chooses, but he cannot act in the community until restored by the vote of a conference of that community.”

In prayerfully considering how to work out the details, it was given to have 15 women. This was in the event that if one of women was unable to attend , or if after evidence someone was undecided and could not vote, there would still be 12 to have a vote. A unanimous vote of at least 12 was needed to remove his authority to act in the fellowships.

This process was put in place to bring balance and accountability to those men performing ordinances, and to perform the ordinances in righteousness unto the Lord.

We are grateful for the women who took the time and effort to do this. It was a difficult process for everyone involved. It has been a sacrifice. Blessings and love to all of them.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by AI2.0 »

Thanks for sharing that kfarber, I saw that yesterday but didn't have time to post it. Here is the statement from the person who brought the information forward which created the necessity for the women's council-- for those interested:
Women's Council July 31, 2017
I am responsible for starting the investigation that led to a women's council on July 31, 2017, for a man. Because of gossip, rumors, and false reports, I feel imposed upon to tell the story from my perspective.

In the Doctrine of Christ 2016 Boise Conference, Denver said,

“In the tenth talk, given in Phoenix two years ago, you were warned about false spirits, as happened in Kirtland, which you were warned would come among us. That warning has proven true. False spirits have mislead some into foolish errors. I am astonished at vain, foolish and prideful ideas that are anti-Christ, degrading and dark, but have been welcomed by some. Remember Pharaoh’s magicians also enchanted their rods to become snakes (Exo. 7:11-12), and conjured frogs to mimic the sign given by God through Moses and Aaron (Exo. 8:7.) Pharaoh’s heart was hardened by these imitations. Do not let yours become so likewise.

“For two years I have watched, attended some of your meetings, gathered reports, and tried to let you stand and display your strength and understanding. Even God left Adam and Eve in the Garden, and allowed Lucifer the common enemy to tempt and try them, promising to return again to visit them. They transgressed His commandment, and He provided the means to cover their shame, repent and return. He also promised to later send messengers. But God did not “babysit” Adam and Eve, informing them that it was given unto them to choose, even when He forbids something. God is the same now as in the beginning. We are all required to display our understanding, obedience and prove our strength.

“People have come among you preaching falsehoods, and inviting others to follow false spirits: Adulterers and adulteresses who justify sins, and mock the commandment “thou shalt not commit adultery.” (Exo. 20:14.) False claimants are pretending to seal others up to eternal life, changing the ordinances and introducing foolish and vain ideas borrowed from pagans and heathen, who do not know Christ nor His righteousness. I do not oppose them directly by debate or counter-argument. I declare the truth and leave it for everyone to decide between clearly opposing teachings. If people cannot discern, then they will need to learn from sad experience to choose between good and evil, perhaps only coming to understand after their destruction in this world.

“There are those who use well-reasoned arguments to expound their understanding of scripture who have declared with certainty it is impossible for what I say to be true. These voices come from both the fearful anonymous and proud academics. I do not respond to either.

“In a letter on August 24, 1834, Joseph Smith described the only way falsehoods could be avoided. The responsibility rests—then and now—on believers. He wrote, “If the Saints are very humble, very watchful and very prayerful, that few will not be deceived by those who have not authority to teach, or who have not the Spirit to teach according to the power of the Holy Ghost, in the scriptures.” (JS Papers, Documents Vol. 4, p. 117.)

“Only the truth is at issue. Individuals other than Christ do not matter. The message I have and do preach is from the Lord. His sheep hear His voice. If they accept it as His, then deceivers, false spirits and men’s learning are powerless to destroy faith in Him. He promised He “will take care of our flocks” (D&C 88:72) and therefore it will be Him, and not me, who will keep His flock shepherded.” (Denver Snuffer – Doctrine of Christ Conference Boise 2016)

A man's worthiness to function in performing priesthood ordinances was called into question, and so a council of women was called to deal with the question. It says in Preserving the Restoration page 511-512, “If a man's worthiness to function is called into question, then a conference can be convened to deal with the question. In removing authority, at least two witnesses should speak against the accused, and he should be allowed to speak on his behalf and call such witnesses as he chooses. Men can be witnesses, but only women are allowed to vote. Removal should be by unanimous vote of the women present, with at least 12 votes against a man to end his authority to act in the fellowship community. As for his family, he is free to do as he chooses, but he cannot act in the community until restored by the vote of a conference of that community.”

As a council we voted to keep the man's identity confidential as we feel repentance and forgiveness is a private matter. After hearing testimonies of witnesses, it was made clear that we needed to act that we may know the truth, that we may chase darkness from among us.

It was on May 11, 2017 I learned about teachings and practices that are alarming. I have spent the last three months talking to witnesses and gathering information. There are more witnesses than the ones who spoke before the council. It has taken time for the witnesses who have testified to gather the courage to share their story before a women's council. When we had a sufficient number of witnesses, two primary witnesses and five secondary witnesses testified before the council of their involvement with this man.

I do not feel the necessity to rehearse all the details presented to the council. But after hearing testimonies for almost six hours and deliberating for many more hours, a council of fifteen women reached a unanimous decision to remove the sustaining vote for a man to perform public priesthood ordinances. This is the letter written by the women's council sent from my email July 31, 2017, 11:56 p.m.

Dear ____,

After prayerful consideration of all the facts and testimonies from the witnesses and yourself, the council of fifteen women has voted unanimously to rescind your authority to use priesthood outside your family on the grounds of priestcraft. Further details will be provided.

When you desire reinstatement of your authority, it must be considered by the same council of at least twelve of the fifteen women, and requires seven of the twelve to agree upon your reinstatement, which can occur at any time. We pray for your reinstatement.

During this period of suspension, nothing affects your duties and responsibilities within your own family.

With wisdom and love,

. . .

To all those who are tempted to judge and point an accusing finger, I ask you to look at your own weakness and know that all of our weakness should and will come into the light. Treat others as you want to be treated in your weakness.

In the Book of Mormon we see an example of true repentance.

And now it came to pass that Alma began from this time forward, to teach the people, and those who were with Alma at the time the angel appeared unto them: travelling round about through all the land, publishing to all the people the things which they had heard and seen, and preaching the word of God in much tribulation, being greatly persecuted by those who were unbelievers, being smitten by many of them; but notwithstanding all this, they did impart much consolation to the church, confirming their faith, and exhorting them with long suffering and much travail, to keep the commandments of God. And four of them were the sons of Mosiah; and their names were Ammon, and Aaron, and Omner, and Himni; these were the names of the sons of Mosiah. And they travelled throughout all the land of Zarahemla, and among all the people who were under the reign of king Mosiah, zealously striving to repair all the injuries which they had done to the church: confessing all their sins, and publishing all the things which they had seen, and explaining the prophecies and the scriptures to all who desired to hear them; and thus they were instruments in the hands of God, in bringing many to the knowledge of the truth, yea, to the knowledge of their Redeemer. And how blessed are they! For they did publish peace; they did publish good tidings of good; and they did declare unto the people that the Lord reigneth.

Alma and the Sons of Mosiah were not afraid of confessing all their sins throughout all the land. We do not think less of them because they made mistakes. We all make mistakes, but Jesus tells us to become as a little child. Little children are open and transparent, but as they grow older, they are taught by satan, “Quick! Hide!” Alma and the Sons of Mosiah repentance was real, and they have become some of our greatest Book of Mormon heroes.

With Love and Concern,

Jennifer Willis
http://peace-in-paradise.blogspot.com/2 ... -2017.html

User avatar
Rose Garden
Don't ask . . .
Posts: 7031
Contact:

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by Rose Garden »

I have a friend who told me this Sunday that she has been very close to this situation and could have given a favorable testimony at the council but was not given the opportunity to testify. She said that the person who had organized the council has talked with her several times but would not listen to what she had to say. She said that the people who were chosen for the council and testimonies were picked because of their leanings toward the wanted outcome of the council. Perhaps it would be best to leave the matter alone since we have no ability to truly determine what went on.

cestlavive
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 3

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by cestlavive »

Contrary to what is being circulated, this was not a council of women gathered together to call out "spiritually bonded soulmates". This ENTIRE council was about PRIESTCRAFT. Priestcraft is using God's name to get power, authority, women, money, gain, popularity and control by using means of lying, deceit and manipulation.

MelT
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 1

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by MelT »

Meili wrote: I have a friend who told me this Sunday that she has been very close to this situation and could have given a favorable testimony at the council but was not given the opportunity to testify. She said that the person who had organized the council has talked with her several times but would not listen to what she had to say. She said that the people who were chosen for the council and testimonies were picked because of their leanings toward the wanted outcome of the council. Perhaps it would be best to leave the matter alone since we have no ability to truly determine what went on.
Meili wrote: I have a friend who told me this Sunday that she has been very close to this situation and could have given a favorable testimony at the council but was not given the opportunity to testify. She said that the person who had organized the council has talked with her several times but would not listen to what she had to say. She said that the people who were chosen for the council and testimonies were picked because of their leanings toward the wanted outcome of the council. Perhaps it would be best to leave the matter alone since we have no ability to truly determine what went on.
Arenera wrote: August 18th, 2017, 10:07 am
inquirringmind wrote: August 17th, 2017, 11:20 pm I don't know if this is true, but someone just posted this in the comments of bringing hidden things to light.
To all. I am one of three who has been accused of teaching the bonded soul theory. I am on this blog to state I have been misrepresented. The words used in current blogs twisted my involvement in an attempt to redirect any negative focus on the scripture project and covenant. In a brilliant strategy, the bloggers have put forth a theory of John Doe being victimized by a woman who taught him a concept...I have never believed or practiced spiritual wifery. I had a belief that when we are created, we are created in pairs of male/female, which is referred to as soulmates and at some point in their eternal progression they come together as sealed couples. That’s it. Never did i promote adultery or polygamy or spiritual wifery, quite to the contrary. I’ve always fought against it. However, without breaking confidences or divulging names, my role was that I said that I felt he and another person were soulmates. The most stupid thing I could ever do and I’m humiliated that I said it and I will never make that mistake again. But I was not out teaching these concepts. I said something out of order. But I did not force him into action and warned him several times not to. I made a huge mistake but does that mistake rise to the level of victimizing? But it gets even crazier because he himself was telling other married people they were actually bonded to someone else and this was before I ever met him. So how could I possibly be victimizing someone who is actively involved in doing the very thing I’m accused of?

No one forced him to take action. I did not steal his free agency but the bloggers now want to clear him of all accountability and wanting to present him as the victim. So again, let’s blame Eve and her daughter’s for all the mistakes of mankind.

God help us all. I wish there was more truth and integrity but we are living in hell and dealing with imperfect people. Kindness and love and accountability needs to rule not selfish desires. i write this anonymously because I do not want to experience the same cruelty that has been directed to the owners of this blog by those claiming a desire for Zion. The only solution is for everyone to take accountability for their own mistakes, their own hurtful words and actions, and to offer apologies to those they have offended or hurt. To stand by and do nothing proves we are a prideful people. John Doe I am asking you to begin the healing process by offering your sincere apologies. You other bloggers might want to do the same. If we can’t swallow our pride, and actually humble ourselves, we do not qualify for gods good mercy.
https://bringingtolighthiddenthings.wor ... comment-49
John Doe has been involved in serious sin for years. The timing of him being called to accountability had unfortunate timing for Denver's designs, who has been designing for years. Hopefully this might help a few see the reality of Denver's deviance and departure from Christ's real church, but i suspect that those who have followed him will continue to do so.

Hi,
I am new to this forum, someone sent me some comments and thought I might contribute.
Maybe I can help here....but I cannot quite navigate around here yet! I am trying to reply to Meili but I cannot find the original one!!!
I was a witness.
I helped compose a list of potential witnesses. Many of them did not want to participate from the beginning, because we were functioning with the understanding that this was all going to be made public--all of our names, as well as John Doe. When potential people were told this they declined. It is not needful to hear of someones story if it is not going to be used. There were many people to talk to. If she was a favorable witness for John Doe, it would be up to him to secure her as a witness.
As far as the counsel, there were some chosen that were unaware of the situation at all, so they could be unbiased. Others were chosen intentionally because they were sympathetic to John Doe. They tried to be extremely fair! Of course the desired outcome was for truth to be discovered and the priestcraft exposed so that others would not fall prey to the tactics being used.
People needed to be aware of the deception and priestcraft used by him and also others. Many good people are being led astray because they are being told it is of God. Would you want someone going among your friends, or to your daughter trying to convince them to participate in special ordinances because they were supposedly approved of God and Christ was standing there smiling that they had found each other?! The women's counsel needed to happen and the practices had to be exposed. It is destroying marriages, families and trust among friends. If there were no evidence, we would not need to go through this difficult exercise.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by AI2.0 »

MelT wrote: August 27th, 2017, 12:40 am
Meili wrote: I have a friend who told me this Sunday that she has been very close to this situation and could have given a favorable testimony at the council but was not given the opportunity to testify. She said that the person who had organized the council has talked with her several times but would not listen to what she had to say. She said that the people who were chosen for the council and testimonies were picked because of their leanings toward the wanted outcome of the council. Perhaps it would be best to leave the matter alone since we have no ability to truly determine what went on.
Meili wrote: I have a friend who told me this Sunday that she has been very close to this situation and could have given a favorable testimony at the council but was not given the opportunity to testify. She said that the person who had organized the council has talked with her several times but would not listen to what she had to say. She said that the people who were chosen for the council and testimonies were picked because of their leanings toward the wanted outcome of the council. Perhaps it would be best to leave the matter alone since we have no ability to truly determine what went on.
Arenera wrote: August 18th, 2017, 10:07 am
inquirringmind wrote: August 17th, 2017, 11:20 pm I don't know if this is true, but someone just posted this in the comments of bringing hidden things to light.
To all. I am one of three who has been accused of teaching the bonded soul theory. I am on this blog to state I have been misrepresented. The words used in current blogs twisted my involvement in an attempt to redirect any negative focus on the scripture project and covenant. In a brilliant strategy, the bloggers have put forth a theory of John Doe being victimized by a woman who taught him a concept...I have never believed or practiced spiritual wifery. I had a belief that when we are created, we are created in pairs of male/female, which is referred to as soulmates and at some point in their eternal progression they come together as sealed couples. That’s it. Never did i promote adultery or polygamy or spiritual wifery, quite to the contrary. I’ve always fought against it. However, without breaking confidences or divulging names, my role was that I said that I felt he and another person were soulmates. The most stupid thing I could ever do and I’m humiliated that I said it and I will never make that mistake again. But I was not out teaching these concepts. I said something out of order. But I did not force him into action and warned him several times not to. I made a huge mistake but does that mistake rise to the level of victimizing? But it gets even crazier because he himself was telling other married people they were actually bonded to someone else and this was before I ever met him. So how could I possibly be victimizing someone who is actively involved in doing the very thing I’m accused of?

No one forced him to take action. I did not steal his free agency but the bloggers now want to clear him of all accountability and wanting to present him as the victim. So again, let’s blame Eve and her daughter’s for all the mistakes of mankind.

God help us all. I wish there was more truth and integrity but we are living in hell and dealing with imperfect people. Kindness and love and accountability needs to rule not selfish desires. i write this anonymously because I do not want to experience the same cruelty that has been directed to the owners of this blog by those claiming a desire for Zion. The only solution is for everyone to take accountability for their own mistakes, their own hurtful words and actions, and to offer apologies to those they have offended or hurt. To stand by and do nothing proves we are a prideful people. John Doe I am asking you to begin the healing process by offering your sincere apologies. You other bloggers might want to do the same. If we can’t swallow our pride, and actually humble ourselves, we do not qualify for gods good mercy.
https://bringingtolighthiddenthings.wor ... comment-49
John Doe has been involved in serious sin for years. The timing of him being called to accountability had unfortunate timing for Denver's designs, who has been designing for years. Hopefully this might help a few see the reality of Denver's deviance and departure from Christ's real church, but i suspect that those who have followed him will continue to do so.

Hi,
I am new to this forum, someone sent me some comments and thought I might contribute.
Maybe I can help here....but I cannot quite navigate around here yet! I am trying to reply to Meili but I cannot find the original one!!!
I was a witness.
I helped compose a list of potential witnesses. Many of them did not want to participate from the beginning, because we were functioning with the understanding that this was all going to be made public--all of our names, as well as John Doe. When potential people were told this they declined. It is not needful to hear of someones story if it is not going to be used. There were many people to talk to. If she was a favorable witness for John Doe, it would be up to him to secure her as a witness.
As far as the counsel, there were some chosen that were unaware of the situation at all, so they could be unbiased. Others were chosen intentionally because they were sympathetic to John Doe. They tried to be extremely fair! Of course the desired outcome was for truth to be discovered and the priestcraft exposed so that others would not fall prey to the tactics being used.
People needed to be aware of the deception and priestcraft used by him and also others. Many good people are being led astray because they are being told it is of God. Would you want someone going among your friends, or to your daughter trying to convince them to participate in special ordinances because they were supposedly approved of God and Christ was standing there smiling that they had found each other?! The women's counsel needed to happen and the practices had to be exposed. It is destroying marriages, families and trust among friends. If there were no evidence, we would not need to go through this difficult exercise.
I just saw your comments. Thanks for sharing what you know on this.

I have to say, while I'm not a Remnant member and I am critical of their decision to break with the LDS faith and start their own 'movement', I don't doubt that most involved are very sincere and truly want to be righteous and follow God's commandments. That's why I've been so surprised by the controversy this has caused. I agree, I don't see how any person who came from an LDS background would look the other way to some man using his influence to manipulate their wife or daughter or friend into a sexual relationship with the claim that Jesus approved of an illicit affair, because they were some kind of soul mates in a past life. This kind of garbage is definitely the practice of priestcraft in one of it's basest forms. What I find very sad is the pushback the council received for simply doing what they'd been asked to do.

I think the idea of judging someone's personal revelations and teachings is part of the problem--Snuffer's initial teachings were always for a loose, fluidy non-organized community, but over time, with the fellowships and the beginnings of correllating what are accceptable beliefs and what are not, within the Remnant (with Snuffer's essay on polygamy being an example), the council was simply doing what was proscribed in Snuffers' book 'Preserving the restoration'.

Suffice it to say, if they are going to try to control behavior among their members, then someone using mystical beliefs as a cover to sanctioned promiscuity, ought to be the first they try to stamp out.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by shadow »

MelT wrote: August 27th, 2017, 12:40 am Many good people are being led astray because they are being told it is of God.
That's the Snuffer movement in a nut shell.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by AI2.0 »

I'm also going to post this recent twist in the saga of John Doe and the Remnant movement since it ought to be shared on this thread and also in case they try to scrub it from their websites later on;

This is from Adrian Larsen's blog "To the Remnant". Larsen seems to function as a de facto '1st counselor' to Denver Snuffer' and he has shared two statements on his blog in regards to the John Doe hearing--both statements he posted for others undermined the Women's council and their decision. This one is worse because four of the council members retracted their vote. Note that the very first blog on this, that brought it to light, said that 'pressure' was being put on the women to change their vote. Apparently the pressure worked on four of them.

Here is the statement posted on August 28, 2017
On July 31, 2017, a women’s council was convened for the purpose of considering the removal of a man’s priesthood sustaining certificate. To protect the man’s privacy, we will call him John Doe in this statement. The result of that council was a vote by 15 women to remove Brother Doe’s certificate.

We are three four of the 15 women who sat on that council, and we can no longer keep silent about some important factors surrounding this decision. For reasons that we’ll explain, we hereby retract our votes and proclaim our belief that Brother Doe still holds a valid priesthood sustaining certificate (which I, Tausha Larsen, originally signed at his sustaining.)

The council should be considered invalid, due to misrepresentation, withholding of information, and failure to follow proper procedure. The Lord has imposed a requirement of privacy on these proceedings (Answer and Covenant, p. 8) which we intend to respect. Therefore, we will speak only about procedures, rather than specific details.

Because this is the first women’s council of this type, we recognize this proceeding will set a precedent for future councils for many years. It therefore becomes even more important to recognize our error and correct our course now, while it is still possible to do so. We do not want to see these errors become enshrined as precedents for future abuse.

As Joseph Smith stated, “If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right.” (King Follet Discourse)

On August 3, we became aware of important information, bearing directly on this council, that had not been considered properly. This new information shed new light on the council proceedings. Since then, the three of us have labored unceasingly to undo the injustice that was done. This statement is part of our repentance for the wrongs we were involved in. We wish to proclaim our repentance before the heavens so that we may enter into the coming covenant with clean hands.

We hope that by articulating our mistakes and missteps, the same mistakes will not be made again. We pray that the Lord will forgive us for our initial misguided decision, and that by our dissent, He will see our desire to do better.

We feel it necessary to address the following procedural issues we believe deem the council invalid:

1. Prior Repentance. The charges brought against Brother Doe stemmed from events that happened at least a year and a half ago. He has since renounced these sins, and has stopped teaching the false doctrines he was charged for. He tried to resolve things privately with those who willingly participated with him in his sins, but his attempts were met with silence or rebuffed. He was left to seek repentance solely with the Lord. He recognized his errors and has grieved sorely because of them. He has prayed for those he’s harmed to be healed, restored and given peace.

He begged to have the opportunity to make amends privately, in lieu of a council and asked how to make that happen, but was denied by the women organizing the council. He sought and desired forgiveness in a manner consistent with the Lord’s teachings. He confessed his sins, renounced them, and forsook them. He even took the extra step of being re-baptized as a sign of his repentance. He sought to make whole those he had injured—all before the council was ever held.

This information was given to the women organizing the council, but not to the other council members until after the council was convened. Brother Doe had met the Lord’s definition of repentance:

D&C 42:88 And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled.

D&C 58:43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.

Now, if a man is guilty of abusing his priesthood rights and he refuses to repent, it is certainly justified to remove his right to officiate. But when the man has met the Lord’s definition of repentance, is it still appropriate to remove his right to officiate? If so, for how long? What will be the indicator that he should be reinstated? Is this a year of probation like the LDS church? Or do we accept repentance and move on, as the Savior and Joseph Smith did? Joseph Smith would accept repentance right up until the moment of a church court, and would cancel the court if the person confessed and showed remorse prior to the proceedings.

JST Mark 9:40 Therefore, if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; or if thy brother offend thee and confess not and forsake not, he shall be cut off. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands, to go into hell.

D&C 98:40 And so on unto the second and third time; and as oft as thine enemy repenteth of the trespass wherewith he has trespassed against thee, thou shalt forgive him, until seventy times seven.

3 Nephi 12:7 And blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

In summary, there was no reason to call this council to address past sins for which the man had already repented, and which he was no longer committing. Charging a man with sin after the Lord has forgiven him and after baptism has cleansed him mocks both the atonement and the ordinance of baptism.

2. Manufacturing New Charges. Without going into detail, Brother Doe was initially charged with specific sins, which charges were brought by multiple witnesses, as required by the Lord. But the council failed to unanimously believe he was still guilty of these things. When it became clear the initial charges would not produce the desired result, new charges were added during the proceedings, without the required witnesses to testify. The Lord’s law of witnesses was ignored.

“In removing authority, at least two witnesses should speak against the accused.” (Preserving the Restoration, p. 511)

The final verdict for Brother Doe, which resulted in his loss of authority, did not match the original charges, and was not brought by the required two witnesses.

During the council proceedings, all facets of Brother Doe’s life were delved into in an attempt to uncover further sin, beyond the original charges. Any sin found became fair game to remove authority. It became clear the goal was to reach a specific outcome, regardless of the methods employed. Here’s an example:

3. Secret Combinations. Brother Doe and his ex-wife, who was not in attendance, both agreed that she would not participate in the council as a witness or a council member. This was stated at the beginning of the proceedings. But when it became clear the initial charges wouldn’t stick, one of the council organizers began secretly texting Brother Doe’s ex-wife, declaring to her that Brother Doe was lying. The ex-wife then told the council organizer to ask two questions, which had nothing to do with the original charges. Her additional questions uncovered further issues that ultimately resulted in his loss of authority. All this without witnesses to testify of the additional charges, and without him being able to face his accusers.

After the council, feelings were expressed that it was only the ex-wife’s questioning that brought about the desired outcome of certificate removal. She was the trump card, held in reserve, just in case the witnesses on hand failed to produce the desired loss of authority.

When the woman who organized the council, and who secretly texted the ex-wife, was questioned as to whether she began with a preferred outcome in mind, she refused to answer the question.

Changing charges, ignoring the Lord’s law of witnesses, fishing expeditions, and secret “gotcha” questions are NOT the precedents that should be set for future councils. What man, or woman for that matter, would hold up under that sort of scrutiny?

As the Savior said when confronted with the woman caught in the very act of adultery, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

How far is too far to probe? How appropriate is it to examine all parts of a man’s life, regardless of the Lord’s requirements and example? We set the terms for our own judgment by the judgment we apply to others.

3 Nephi 14:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

4. The Lord’s Requirements.

“A council of twelve women must be convened either in the man’s home fellowship among those who are acquainted with his daily walk, or in private at a general conference also including among the twelve women from the conference those who are acquainted with his daily walk, so that no injustice results.” (Answer and Covenant, p. 8)

Because Brother Doe comes from a small fellowship, it was not possible to convene a council in his home fellowship. Therefore, the council was convened thousands of miles away from his home, by one who was friends with the witnesses who wanted the council held. It was not convened at a general conference. Nobody on the council was truly familiar with his daily walk, and the participants were hand picked by the one who organized the council. I, Tausha, was asked to participate because I had signed Brother Doe’s original certificate. I was the only woman in attendance who had signed it.

I realize now the wisdom of the Lord in placing these requirements “so that no injustice results.” I repent of my error in agreeing to participate in a council that did not meet the Lord’s requirements.

5. Stacking the Deck. The Lord requires at least 12 women, and a unanimous vote, to remove authority. The organizers of this council misunderstood this requirement and got extra women in case some wouldn’t vote for removal. Therefore there were 15 women, supposedly allowing 3 to vote in favor of Brother Doe, and still providing the required 12 to remove his authority.

This was a false understanding. The Lord requires unanimity among ALL the women on the council. Whether there are 12 or 400 women, even one dissenting vote is enough for the man to retain his authority.

It appears the Lord set a very high bar for removal—much higher than the requirement for sustaining—demonstrating not only His mercy, but also the gravity of undertaking to judge another. It’s clear the Lord thinks removal should be rare, and only applied as a last resort when all else has failed and the man in question will not repent.

6. Singling Out. Brother Doe was by no means the only participant in the events that led to this council being held. Other women—and men—were willing participants in, and proponents of, the things that were happening. Similarly, other men who hold valid priesthood certificates have become embroiled in sin, but there is no investigation or effort to hold a council for them, even when they are unrepentant and it would be proper to do so.

It appears Brother Doe was specifically singled out due to his work with the scripture committee. This brings us to our next point:

7. Ulterior Motives. Soon after the council reached its verdict, some of Brother Doe’s accusers began using the council verdict as leverage to publicly and privately call into question the work of the Scripture Committee, and to call Denver Snuffer deceived because he testified in favor of Brother Doe. They manufactured and published false statements, claiming Denver Snuffer had made them.

We do not claim to know the hearts or motives of Brother Doe’s accusers or the council organizers. Only the Lord knows our hearts, and only He can judge them. But the apparent conflict of interest, and the demonstrated agenda to use the council verdict as a weapon to fight against God, combine to destroy any semblance of objectivity. It is difficult to believe there was no agenda behind these events.

8. Aftermath and Reinstatement. Brother Doe requested that the council consider reinstating his certificate. It took the council weeks to consider whether a meeting would be held for this purpose. Here are some of the details of that decision.


Due to private details that were made public against the rules of the council, Brother Doe requested that this reinstatement meeting be kept private and not be recorded. Many of the women objected to his request and believed the recording was necessary. In the end, the majority of women decided it was wise to record the proceedings.
There was an effort to require Brother Doe to organize the meeting himself if he wanted his certificate reinstated. Ultimately, this effort was dropped and the meeting was organized by the women.
Prior to the reinstatement meeting, there has been an active effort to seek out more witnesses and bring more charges against Brother Doe. It appears no amount of repentance is satisfactory. This is one of the reasons we’re making this public statement. It appears there is no other way to right the wrongs that have taken place, and are still taking place. Brother Doe has endured enough shame and abuse. There is no point in continuing to attack him. The effort to continue bringing new charges demonstrates the agenda still stands. How is it possible for him to even get a fair hearing at this point? We want no part of these continued proceedings.
The organizer of the council has taught the women that any who vote to reinstate Brother Doe’s certificate will automatically take on the responsibility to see that Brother Doe walks uprightly before the Lord in the use of his priesthood for the rest of his life, and that having this kind of accountability will prove a great blessing to Brother Doe throughout his life. We find this idea unscriptural and false. Brother Doe is accountable to the Lord, not to mortal overseers. We believe this to be an example of unrighteous dominion as stated in D&C 121.


Conclusion

At the end of the proceeding, and after many hours of deliberation, a pre-written statement was brought out for the women to sign, displaying the pre-determined intent to remove Brother Doe’s certificate. In the end, the women drafted their own written statement and all the women on the council were asked to sign it. The statement included a charge that Brother Doe was not even found guilty of. We signed it at the time to bring closure to the 12-hour-long meeting.

Even though the meeting went on for 12 hours, Brother Doe was not given adequate time to defend himself or answer questions. The majority of the time was taken by the testimonies of the accusing witnesses who Brother Doe was not allowed to question. He was only allowed a brief statement at the end of their testimonies. Questions were cut short due to time constraints. This was unfair to Brother Doe as well as the women on the council.

Now that much new information has come to light, we declare that our signatures were obtained under false pretenses, and are not now, nor were they ever, valid. A signature obtained by deception is not binding. The unanimity required by the Lord was only obtained by deceit.

As the women on the council have fiercely debated these issues over the last several weeks, some continually invoke an appeal to “wisdom” as the virtue governing their actions. Understanding that wisdom is a feminine virtue, some women have claimed it for themselves as their exclusive domain, by virtue of their gender alone, invoking it over and over as justification for severe error.

Quoting the Lord:

D&C 46:17-18 And again, verily I say unto you, to some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of wisdom. To another is given the word of knowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge.

Wisdom is a gift of the Spirit. It is obtained only from God, and is not at all automatic merely by virtue of being female. The Lord says ALL may be taught to be wise. This even includes men—Jesus Christ being the most wise person to ever walk this earth.

Deception and darkness drive away the Lord’s Spirit. Wisdom flees, and all that remains is “a little authority as they suppose.” Under such circumstances, we have learned by sad experience, that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, and evidently women as well, to begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

Parting Thoughts

Some will contend that the original document was signed and is therefore valid. End of story. We’ve written this to demonstrate these signatures were obtained in an invalid proceeding, by employing deception, and ignoring the Lord’s requirements. We will not stand by those signatures, and declare before mortals and angels that our hands are clean from the results of this invalid council and its aftermath.

Repentance means recognizing error and correcting it. There is no shame in erring and repenting. We all err, and we all should change course when we recognize our errors.

There is a great desire among the women involved, to make this council the example moving forward, and the precedent for future councils. Consequently, there’s great hesitation, even shame, to admit severe errors were made and the council is, by rights, invalid. But making this admission will prove to be the most humble, noble, and repentant thing we can do. What a marvelous precedent will be set if we can humbly acknowledge that our first try fell flat, we got it wrong, we recognized our errors, and we changed course to align with the Lord’s teachings. This will serve as a wonderful caution and example to all future women’s councils—teaching us to proceed with humility, mercy, and fear of the Lord.

THAT is a precedent we can get behind.

Tausha Larsen
Cherry Ann Redd
Shalyce Woodard
Kay Webster

Note from Kay Webster: While I am unable to personally attest to the accuracy of all of the above statements due to my lack of complete knowledge, I am willing to sign my name to witness that I now believe I erred in voting to remove this man's priesthood certificate. This is simply an act of personal repentance for not extending mercy when there was enough reason to do so, when I myself am in need of others' and especially the Lords' mercy, and for not recognizing at the time that some errors accompanied this women's council. It is not my intent to accuse or denounce any of the other women's council members' decision or motives. I love each one of them and consider them my sisters.
Posted by Tausha Larsen at 3:18 PM
http://www.totheremnant.com/

The very sad thing about this is that apparently they didn't want to know if John Doe was using religion to manipulate women into sexual affairs. They don't want to know if he's not truly repentant, they'd rather take his behavior and his assurances of feigned remorse as they stand and ignore the whole thing. They are typical of those who get angry at those who take a stand, who put themselves out to expose the sin (because they want to stop it from continuing under cover of hiding) rather than at the actual sinner-in this case, the perpetrator. I'm surprised they put their names to this, caving under pressure and ignoring obviously non-repentant behavior and showing a callousness towards future potential victims, is NOT something to proudly sign one's name to, IMO.

User avatar
Rose Garden
Don't ask . . .
Posts: 7031
Contact:

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by Rose Garden »

shadow wrote: September 2nd, 2017, 4:29 pm
MelT wrote: August 27th, 2017, 12:40 am Many good people are being led astray because they are being told it is of God.
That's the Snuffer movement in a nut shell.
That's life in a nutshell.

KFarber
captain of 50
Posts: 73

Re: Priestcraft and spiritual wifery in the Mormon remnant movement?

Post by KFarber »

BRINGING TO LIGHT ALL THE HIDDEN THINGS
"…for your consideration the propriety of all the saints gathering up a knowledge of all the facts" ~ D&C 123: 1 MENU
HARD LOVE
Posted on September 18, 2017 by melonieturley
jesus with wolves

Sometimes life hands you a lesson that forever changes you. God has a way of doing that and making it very difficult, almost impossible. You then ask for his hand, and just when you think it is unbearable, He picks you up, the clouds part, the wolves stop growling around you and He carries you to a safe place. The sun comes shining through and you feel the love He has for you and all of creation.

He is very good at his job, this learning stuff he gives to us. Somehow it puts us to just the right test. He hold us to the fire until a bit more dross is burned off. It’s a Hard Love. That love he gives so freely, and then the love he requires we learn and give too. Our ability to feel that love, and then turn around and give that love is an amazing process to go through. It is only accomplished by and through Christ, and the capacity he gives us to do so, for sometimes it is beyond us.

I found a song that came out with the movie “The Shack”. I was looking for a song by Lauren Daigle, she is one of my favorite artists. There was a version of this song which she sang in, and it came up. As I listened to the song, the words just struck me.

The way God changes us. How the lessons he gives us, require parts of us to die, “Burn your old self away”. We “can’t change without a fallout”. Sometimes it seems he has abandoned us in our very time of need and the “road is long”, but it gave us the opportunity to be stretched and expanded and increase our faith and make our “courage strong”. He gives us a burning love that builds strength in and through Him. When wolves come, and they will, when the trials are heavy and difficult, we are strengthened by our past struggles and are able to endure. We get back up and go forward, but sometimes, it is a hard love we have learned.

Beautiful. Amazing. Hard.

“HARD LOVE”

Trading punches with the heart of darkness
Going to blows with your fear incarnate
Never gone until it’s stripped away
A part of you has gotta die to change

In the morning you gon’ need an answer
Ain’t nobody gonna change the standard
It’s not enough to just feel the flame
You’ve gotta burn your old self away

Hold on tight a little longer
What don’t kill ya, makes ya stronger
Get back up, ’cause it’s a hard love
You can’t change without a fallout
It’s gon’ hurt, but don’t you slow down
Get back up, ’cause it’s a hard love

You know the situation can’t be right
And all you ever do is fight
But there’s a reason that the road is long
It take some time to make your courage strong

Hold on tight a little longer
What don’t kill ya, makes ya stronger
Get back up, ’cause it’s a hard love
You can’t change without a fallout
It’s gon’ hurt, but don’t you slow down
Get back up, ’cause it’s a hard love

When the wolves come and hunt me down
I will face them all and stand my ground
‘Cause there’s a fire burnin’ in me
They will see my strength in this love I found
Oh

Hold on tight a little longer
What don’t kill ya, makes ya stronger
Get back up, ’cause it’s a hard love
You can’t change without a fallout
It’s gon’ hurt, but don’t you slow down
Get back up, ’cause it’s a hard love

It’s a hard love…

Hold on tight a little longer
What don’t kill ya, makes ya stronger
Get back up, ’cause it’s a hard love
You can’t change without a fallout
It’s gon’ hurt, but don’t you slow down
Get back up, ’cause it’s a hard love
‘Cause it’s a hard love

NEEDTOBREATHE Lyrics Songwriters: Nathaniel Rinehart / William Rinehart


It dawns on me that all of the experiences or projects that many have been involved in have not been completed in one way or another. The scriptures are not done, the guides and standards is not completed, and the women’s council was not even recognized. It was given to me at that time, that then, the Lord was more interested in the process, not an end result. Our lessons were given in the entire process each so us went through to get where we are now. Even those observing. How did we go through that process? What did it teach us? What was the intention? Did circumstances alter our decision to hold to direction we were given? Did our heart stay true to God? Did we have hurt feelings? Did we hurt others? Were we critical of others? It was a good experience to measure our readiness- for anything! It demonstrated on a grand scale, for all of us our weaknesses, both individually and as a body of believers.

I learned to love on another level. I learned to not be critical just because someone has a different opinion. Everyone’s perspective is different and we can and still should be friends. Fellowships can consist of both people who took the covenant, and those who did not. It will be yet; another exercise in how we treat each other. I know I will be better.

God is good at giving us second chances. He is always willing to let us try again. Progress has been made. Repentance is always welcome, at any point.

Luke 6:27-31 ¶ But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

It is good to know effort has been and is still being made to heal and change, both individually and collectively. Some have cried on each other’s shoulders and arms extended to offer love. Friendships and hearts have been mended. Bridges have been reestablished to cross over to newer and greener pastures of love and forgiveness.

Post Reply