http://www.totheremnant.com/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
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
An earlier statement about this council was also posted on his blog on August 16, 2017;
Several women who recently participated in a women’s council asked me to post the following statement:
It has been discovered that some who profess to seek Zion have taught principles of “bonded soulmates,” “bonded wives,” “first eternal spouse,” or some variation thereof; and/or have participated in secret and false ordinances associated with these ideas. These teachings originate with the same evil being who, “from the days of Cain” authored “a secret combination, and their works were in the dark…and thus the works of darkness began to prevail among all the sons of men.” (Moses 5:51, 55). Since that time, Lucifer has continuously sought to destroy the agency and bring people into bondage.
A council of women was brought together to evaluate a man’s approval to act in his priesthood among the fellowships. Through this council these works of darkness have been exposed and we, as members of that council, do openly denounce such teachings and practices, as does the man for whom the council was called. It has been shown that the man was taught such concepts and teachings by a woman, and as such we acknowledge that all men and women are fallible.
Let it be known publicly that the teaching and practice of “bonded soulmates,” secret ordinances between men and women not legally and lawfully married in this world, or physical intimacy outside the bonds of marriage are abominations before the Lord and are denounced by those seeking to establish Zion.
The man’s accusers have made public claims about this private council, including claims that Denver Snuffer said the following:
The man in question was “a key contributor” to the scripture project.
The man in question “had received important revelations concerning the scripture project.”
Denver also confidently assured the council that [the man] was “innocent.”
We were present during all council proceedings, and assert these public statements are false and were never made by Denver Snuffer. We denounce these attempts to mischaracterize the purposes and results of this council.
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.
Posted by Adrian Larsen at 5:20 PM
