There are many people who are attracted to the Remnant Movement. I asked Denver why that was, and if people practiced speaking in tongues like in the early days of the Church.
Denver: Yes, the answer is yes. But the way in which its manifest itself is not something that we’ve done a lot to publicize, advertise or speak about. Signs generally attract the wrong sort of folk. So while there are abundant things that have and do take place, they’re not spoken openly too much because the wrong kind of people get attracted to that sort of stuff and we’re interested more in substantive, reflective, serious-minded people who are genuinely interested in trying to find and do the will of God.
Check out our conversation, but this episode is for newsletter subscribers only. Subscribe to our free newsletter at https://GospelTangents.com/newsletter and I will send you a secret link to hear the conclusion!
Don’t miss our previous conversations with Denver!
Denver Snuffer welcomes people to join his movement but emphasizes that the Remnant Movement is not a church! How does that work?
GT: Your movement is the Remnant Movement. That’s kind of the name. Do you have an official name for your church?
Denver: No, there isn’t a church. There isn’t a church, except in the sense that the church was defined in the revelation given to Joseph Smith. The Church that existed were people that repented, came into the Lord and were baptized. That’s it. That’s the definition of the Church. And that definition preceded the organization in April of 1830. There were at least three different congregations or fellowships of people that existed before the incorporation took place in April of 1830. All of them were considered members of Christ’s church because the definition was just repent, come unto me, be baptized in my name for remission of your sins. If you’re going to say there’s a Church, that’s it.
We don’t require. I don’t require. I don’t know of anyone that says you have to leave the LDS Church to accept the work that God has got underway today. I have said, a Catholic priest could come and be baptized for the remission of his sins, accept the restoration and go on his way, and retain his status as a Catholic and a priest, if he chose to do so. Methodists can join. Latter-day Saints can join. There’s nothing to be done except have someone that has authority to baptize, baptize you. And then the name of the person, (because we’re required to keep track of the names,) has to be submitted to another volunteer who’s keeping what’s called the recorders clearinghouse. Those names get given to him. At the end of a year, all of the names are alphabetized, and they’re put in for that calendar year and they’re entered by hand into a book. There’s no electronic version. No one can hack it. No one can go online and get into it. There’s only one hand-written copy.
In Denver Snuffer’s book, Passing the Heavenly Gift, he argued that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Since that book was written, Denver has changed his mind and now believes Joseph was a monogamist. How did he come to change his mind?
Denver: The Fanny Alger stuff, and you’ve got all of these points to triangulate from. What do you make of it? I can tell you that story and make Joseph Smith an adulterer, and a plural marriage practitioner, or I can tell you that story, and I can make Joseph Smith absolutely chaste, and that what happened there was not by any stretch, a sexual liaison. Fanny Alger would have nine children from a husband.
Denver: Joseph Smith fathered eight children through Emma Smith. They were both at the peak of their fertility when the two of them had something going on, and yet there was no progeny. There was no child. In fact, there’s no child born, that was fathered by Joseph Smith, other than the children that came through Emma Smith. So if you’re going to turn Joseph Smith into something that is akin to the narrative tour by the LDS Church, one of the questions that ought to enter into your balancing of what happened, is the absence of any progeny when you’ve got a fertile man, and you’ve got fertile women who bore children to other men, but never bore a child for Joseph Smith. What effect ought that have on your thinking and interpretation of the historical events?
Denver: You consider nothing that got written down or got introduced after June 27, 1844. You are limited, absolutely, to the material that got its existence, put pen to paper before that date. Okay. What do you have? What do you have to support Joseph Smith practicing plural marriage with sexual relations with other women than Emma?
While I understand that Denver is a lawyer, it seems inapproprate to throw out all evidence after the death of Joseph Smith. Do you agree or disagree? Check out our conversation….