So my wife and I made a mistake... We started reading the Book of Mormon 1830's replica edition without all the foot notes, verses and breaks. It reads differently and the spirit is actually stronger with it.
I dont find any mistakes in it...ive read that version too...I liked it because since it wasnt in 2 tiny collums on each page its a quicker read because the length of the lines works better for speed readers like myself when not reading outloud...the words are all the same. ..its just not chopped in verses thats all
I don’t think that is a mistake. Mixing up the way we read the Book of Mormon is good and it helps us break out of the monotony of reading it the same way every time. It’s the reason Elder Bednar doesn’t read the same exact version of the book every time so he doesn’t resort back to his old notes. And your phrase “feel the spirit stronger” is a very relative statement that a measure can be changed depending on what day of the week you are in.
Thank you. It's so gratifying to hear historical fact in clear and honest reporting without others accusing of apostasy in not worshipping these men instead of Jesus Christ whose worship they claim while still demanding His authority and respect be tendered to them when they are only men in service no more or less than the rest of us. I joined the Church because of the Book of Mormon and a desire to follow and learn more about my Savior Jesus Christ. I completely understand the letters John wrote to the 7 churches and their state of disarray and disobedience. Your musings for our benefit only cause me to shake my head at flawed leadership as part of a necessary gathering and confirm my individual responsibility for study, prayer, and an ongoing search for truth to confirm my obedience to Jesus Christ and no other.
Interesting musing. Years ago I found a book in the library that listed churches started in the U.S., and I remembering it stating there were over 200 break offs from the church after Jospeh’s murder. Most of them were only small groups of people that disagreed with the majority and banded together but eventually disappeared. The Community of Christ (former RLDS church) also went off the rails when they became partners with the UN - which they have a statue depicting their union with the UN in Independence, MO depicted a girl reaching for a dove while standing on top of the world. One man who left the Community of Christ after their UN union and joined the LDS church, made the comment on another video that he was concerned about the LDS church following the same pattern by being in lockstep with the UN. Time will tell… Like you mentioned, there are current break offs that disagree with points of doctrine, as well as those who still remain in the LDS church but have differing beliefs about points of doctrine established during the Brighamite era - such as yourself, Conner. I see those individuals as similar to the people at the time of Christ’s coming in the Americas who believed in Christ, but had disputations among themselves concerning the points of Christ’s doctrine (3 Nephi 11:28-29). I predict that there will be more disputations, contentions, and confusion as the time of Christ’s coming draws closer. It will be so disruptive that, if possible, even the very elect would be deceived. Will you have enough oil in your lamp to not be deceived, hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day? (D&C 45:56-57)
My great grandmother wrote in her journal of bullets flying over her head as she crossed the Mississippi in icy water as she and her children fled Nauvoo. That so many were willing to undertake this excruciatingly difficult trial is a firm testimony to me that Brigham Young was the man God chose to lead his church
@@fightingfortruth9806 yet the Lord told Joseph that if the church repented and obeyed His commandments they would not be moved out of their place. Shouldn’t the trials and exodus indicate the opposite?
Maybe they would not have had to flee Nauvoo if Brigham hadn't a) been doing the polygamy that Joseph never taught and b) been on the run for counterfeiting.
@@JakobPGrau Plural marriage, along with the King Follet discourse , was one of the reasons William Law wanted Joseph dead. Brigham wasn’t even in Nauvoo. Your conclusions don’t add up.
I left over a year ago. AND I respect the decision of those who decide to stay. We all have our own journey. Yesterday I listened to a podcast where the man introduced the ideas of Jacob 5 and the allegory as being about the different breakoffs of the church. I've not had a chance to read it yet with that in mind, but it intrigued me. Hopefully I will be able to this week. I have a bunch of Snuffers books, too, but so far, I have only read A Man Without Doubt about Joseph.
In 1958 or so in south central France, there was a schism started by missionaries. Assistants to the president and zone leaders strayed from the general thesis to institute polygyny. There were entire branches that were "excommunicated" in the area (France has a history of alternate thought).They called themselves the "Church of the Firstborn". I see a reference to a break off by that same name on the graph, but the dates don't jibe. LeBarron was the name of the fellow who was chief among the group. In the late 70's he was a fatal victim of internal insurrection in the movement. He was murdered by his brother if I recall. My dates may not coincide with the actual dates, but the events did happen. I knew a missionary serving in the area at the time. He didn't succumb to the pressure to follow them.
Hi Connor, that chart actually does include the fundamentalist branches. They begin as the council of friends in 1920, and form that darker green tree on the top.
Ok. So ive got a question. Youd mentioned the lack of evidence that joseph actually pratice plural marriage here and have talked about it previously too. So on this side of the coin it can be either way depending on what accounts someone will believe. Thats fine. Did he? We really dont know, its not like if he did, that he journaled "had relations with so-and-so today, tomorrow will be with the other. Will consumate.", obviously he wouldn't have documented these things for our need of proofs. What he did in his private time is of little consequence here I believe. My question or argument is to what we use to ascertain whether or not Brigham was correct in further implementing it. Regardless of Josephs provable or unproven nightly activities, the question is did he teach it? The assumption that Brigham was incorrect because we dont have comparable documentation as we keep today of Josephs private life while this church was still getting going, may be flawed (marriage licenses, church records). As to what Joseph was able to nail down in a publicly accepted appearance with such great turmoil surrounding his every direction possibly requiring protection and discretion on such a taboo principle, remains the question: What did he teach? I know its not popular. I know theres apolegetic p.r. style distancing and doubt we all gravitate towards. But on the other side of the coin, what did he teach. So then, if he did teach it, was Brigham really wrong as many think he was? Lastly, food for thought: If the Gov never came against plural marriage anymore, if they finally were backed into the corner the early saint were suggesting of constitutional religious freedom, and the Gov accepted it- would the principle of plural marriage still have been abandoned and members excommunicated? I believe these are all important considerations in coming to a firmer conclusion.
@oshemer5066 A lot of people im sure would think it doesn't matter since thats not the way it happened, but thats not the point of the question: did Brigham get it wrong. Thats part 1. The 2nd being would it have still been stopped. To this, an investigation into what they had been teaching and discussing up till that point, about the principle. What previous revelations did they claim from God specifically about it? What was their determination? Stance? Direction? Public opinions within the LDS community itself? Also, opinions and feelings of the many children and wives who were about to be abandoned by their husbands and fathers? Were they relieved? Were they truly feeling abused and enslaved as the world thought? Was this a welcome blessing come from God to save them from their current situation? So, another coin here: ultimately, was this orchestrated and brought on by God, or the adversary? And depending on that, ....? I think the assumed faithful answer that people generally consider is "yes of course it was God's Will and yes Brigham was wrong", in an attempt to either follow the prophet or not appear as though they're not following the prophets since. Personally I think this is the incorrect perspective. If God once before was capable of sending an angel with a sword, and also capable of the revelations and the guidance and direction in the past, then surely he's still capable of repeating and doing so again today if needed. Was it Him who removed it in the first place? Ask humans have been known to mess things up, so an answer is determined upon what he has actually said about it leading up. Previous prophets had taught that armies and mobs would combine to come against the saints, and taught that we should stand firm and God would fight our battles. A question since then, is do we roll over and play nice or do we stand firm in our convictions. Thing is, regardless of the outcome of either of those choices, the Saints will always assume and have the opinion that what was done and what they do is the will of God, since that's the faithful answer. I'm not saying we were right or wrong. I'm just asking what is the cold hard prophetically claimed facts regarding these circumstances. Did we mess up? Or did we get it right? If so what implications and other questions arise from either answer. I've strayed from my initial point I was trying to make. Also, does God need to reveal and re command things which he has already revealed and commanded? Sure, a lot has mentioned about policy changes. But my question is is there a policy necessary or was it correct or incorrect? To the person who believes it was incorrect, they possibly believe that all is well and we have nothing to consider or talk about any longer. Into the person who believes Brigham was correct back then, the question could be, what other Commandments are we willing to not keep.
@@masonfam My answer to your first question is it’s not a matter of did Brigham get it right, but whether Joseph got it right because I believe Brigham received the teaching of plural marriage from Joseph Smith. Brigham Young, the Twelve, the women that said they were married to Joseph Smith, the three prophets from John Taylor to Lorenzo Snow who all had firsthand witness from Joseph Smith that the teaching came from him. There are also early RLDS leaders that told Joseph Smith III the teaching started with his father, not with Brigham Young. They all said it came from Joseph. For these reasons I believe section 132 came from Joseph. I believe Joseph was a prophet of God so I do not think he would’ve got something of this magnitude wrong. The answer to your second question is a little more difficult. If we believe the early brethren, then I think plural marriage is an eternal principle. It’s a very hard doctrine as evidenced by the huge backlash even among people in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today, and they don’t even have to live it. But I think if practiced righteously, it would be a blessing. I personally know a lot of single women who are over forty and have never been married. Plural marriage could have been a blessing for sisters like this. I don’t believe it was always lived righteously. Maybe this is why it was taken away. There’s precedence in the Scriptures for the Lord taking higher knowledge away. Moses Sinai comes to mind so maybe the Saints weren’t ready for it because they didn’t live it well or because they weren’t willing to stand and defend it. These are just some of my thoughts. What’s your conclusion?
@oshemer5066 considering today, that Utah for example, is the highest ranked internet searches for pornography, breast enhancement, and male enhancement goes to show that we are so far from the mark if of such a principal was brought today, we'd mess it up, and be under so much more condemnation than before. Going back to the past, was there proof that the Saints back then were messing it up then, too? Yes, actually. It's even been mentioned in several discourses from General Authorities of their disappointment in members taking upon themselves additional wives outside of the bounds, dating abroad while on missions and bringing home women with the intention of having them sealed to them before being permitted to do so. But of course, there's always going to be a handful of stray sheep. It wasn't a widespread problem. But even back then, with these Pioneers that we Revere today, we're still being told and canceled from the pulpit that they weren't living their religion and were constantly being called up to repentance. Something as simple as home manufacturing, making Goods within their own home and supplies to sell, was something they just couldn't all get on board with. There used to be so many more teachings when it came to our everyday lives that not just plural marriage but several things that have gone by the wayside because of the nature of man. If any one of our Generations were to be able to live these things in Purity and righteousness, it was the first saints that started this first 100 years of this dispensation. So, in my own personal conclusion, in my own opinion, which side of the coin do I think we find ourselves on back then? Both. Plural marriage, he added a caveat, that we should maintain it for as long as we were able to maintain it, in righteousness. Did God plan on removing it? Absolutely not. But so, who was the orchestrator of the events that led up to its removal? God or the devil? In my conclusions, both. Or as in, God had zero intention according to his own words to remove it as a gospel principle, yet was only capable of protecting a righteous people who are keeping the Commandments. To those people he promised the ability to fight their battles for them, in faith. But as is the nature of man we go through cycles of ups and downs of faith, righteousness, and pride, just as the lamanites and Nephites. Our test has always been, do we trust in god, or do we fear man? In those heightened situations we have a choice to make. Regardless of all of his admonitions, teachings, revelations, and essentially falling upon his knees with begging and pleadings as the Lord and the vineyard, our choices back then became more apparent. The saints were about to fall. So then the Lord of the Vineyard have a choice to make, allow the Vineyard to be destroyed and burned prematurely, or prune it, and dig about it and graft in with an attempt to save it. Problem was, to do this meant the removal of good branches and the grafting in of wild branches in the hope and attempt that the removal of positive things and the introduction of wild things, that the wild branches would be overcome by the righteous branches. But the good branches would eventually become infected and created all sorts and manner of wild fruit (today). So the lesser of several evils became chosen as the way to move forward, abandon some righteous principles in the hope of saving the more part of the vineyard, in opposition to His more righteous plan. To your point about that Joseph got it right and it wasn't about Brigham. Agreed. The confusion oftentimes however is that Brigham got it wrong because Joseph never taught those things, which then brings about my question did Brigham get it right or wrong. But the correct answer is Joseph got it right and Brigham continued it. But our world today has been systematically purposely orchestrated in such a direction to perfectly oppose this principle specifically. All other manner of actual perversions is permitted, but there is no room for this actual gospel principle, not in the world and not within our church. To such a point and extreme that not even members or some leaders within our church fathom that it's a possible true principle. We have stryed so far from that path as to not be able to be rectified. I believe in the end that we as a whole will be the ones under condemnation for not allowing such a principal room to be able to be practiced and the ones injured will be as you mentioned the single women who could have had families but were kept from it. Our unrighteousness as a whole is literally destroying Eternal families, and we don't even realize it.
For some reason the reply I just sent isn't showing up. Luckily I copied it part way through so let me try again. @oshemer5066 considering today, that Utah for example, is the highest ranked internet searches for pornography, breast enhancement, and male enhancement goes to show that we are so far from the mark if of such a principal was brought today, we'd mess it up, and be under so much more condemnation than before. Going back to the past, was there proof that the Saints back then were messing it up then, too? Yes, actually. It's even been mentioned in several discourses from General Authorities of their disappointment in members taking upon themselves additional wives outside of the bounds, dating abroad while on missions and bringing home women with the intention of having them sealed to them before being permitted to do so. But of course, there's always going to be a handful of stray sheep. It wasn't a widespread problem. But even back then, with these Pioneers that we Revere today, we're still being told and canceled from the pulpit that they weren't living their religion and were constantly being called up to repentance. Something as simple as home manufacturing, making Goods within their own home and supplies to sell, was something they just couldn't all get on board with. There used to be so many more teachings when it came to our everyday lives that not just plural marriage but several things that have gone by the wayside because of the nature of man. If any one of our Generations were to be able to live these things in Purity and righteousness, it was the first saints that started this first 100 years of this dispensation. So, in my own personal conclusion, in my own opinion, which side of the coin do I think we find ourselves on back then? Both. Plural marriage, he added a caveat, that we should maintain it for as long as we were able to maintain it, in righteousness. Did God plan on removing it? Absolutely not. But so, who was the orchestrator of the events that led up to its removal? God or the devil? In my conclusions, both. Or as in, God had zero intention according to his own words to remove it as a gospel principle, yet was only capable of protecting a righteous people who are keeping the Commandments. To those people he promised the ability to fight their battles for them, in faith. But as is the nature of man we go through cycles of ups and downs of faith, righteousness, and pride, just as the lamanites and Nephites. Our test has always been, do we trust in god, or do we fear man? In those heightened situations we have a choice to make. Regardless of all of his admonitions, teachings, revelations, and essentially falling upon his knees with begging and pleadings as the Lord and the vineyard, our choices back then became more apparent. The saints were about to fall. So then the Lord of the Vineyard have a choice to make, allow the Vineyard to be destroyed and burned prematurely, or prune it, and dig about it and graft in with an attempt to save it. Problem was, to do this meant the removal of good branches and the grafting in of wild branches in the hope and attempt that the removal of positive things and the introduction of wild things, that the wild branches would be overcome by the righteous branches. But the good branches would eventually become infected and created all sorts and manner of wild fruit (today). So the lesser of several evils became chosen as the way to move forward, abandon some righteous principles in the hope of saving the more part of the vineyard, in opposition to His more righteous plan. To your point about that Joseph got it right and it wasn't about Brigham. Agreed. The confusion oftentimes however is that Brigham got it wrong because Joseph never taught those things, which then brings about my question did Brigham get it right or wrong. But the correct answer is Joseph got it right and Brigham continued it. But our world today has been systematically purposely orchestrated in such a direction to perfectly oppose this principle specifically. All other manner of actual perversions is permitted, but there is no room for this actual gospel principle, not in the world and not within our church. To such a point and extreme that not even members or some leaders within our church fathom that it's a possible true principle. We have stryed so far from that path as to not be able to be rectified. I can't remember what I said after this, exactly, but let me give the shorthand version: I believe our inability to live this true principle, is going to have us be under condemnation and we don't even know it. There's women out there who want to be married and men who don't. We are keeping them as a whole because of our unrighteousness generally speaking from allowing this principle safety to be practiced. We are destroying Eternal families and we don't even know it
maybe it was more like a fumble than a handoff, and God waited to see who picked it up. the Brighamites (sp?) went on the greater adventure and really had better traction for developing a people, a full culture. that is significant for the economy of God i think. but i also think God acknowledges all sincere intentions attending to Him.
@@MrBillmechanic brainstorming here. hold off on evaluation… did God or someone representing God show up to approve of things for anyone after Joseph’s death?
@@cocadeanNot that I am aware, except for individual’s dreams or purported visions. It would have been an extremely confusing time due to the many voiced claiming succession authority. Many believed that Joseph Smith III should be the next president, including Brigham Young who only acted in a temporary capacity until he was old enough to take the helm. However, after Emma remained resolute in not following Brigham, he ultimately claimed the right and authority to lead the church.
It's about to get more interesting. The nemenhah records. Book. Second complete edition. And the ojibwe have got a start on translating their records too. So there could be a lot more versions of our church coming.
I agree. I'm quietly waiting to see how these things play out. I'm a little familiar with the records of the ojibwe but have never heard of the nemenhah records
Someday Connor will pass on and the first person to greet him on the other side will be Brother Brigham…I would love to be there to witness that conversation. I know who will prevail. My long term thinking is that Joseph restored the church, while Brigham saved it. Without Brigham Young taking the church to Utah and resisting the US govnernment❤, this church would be a minor concern just like all the other breakaway Mormon sects. Other than Joseph, there’s no greater modern day prophet than Brigham Young. The church spends a lot of time and effort to downplay or even reject Brigham Young and his teachings. What does the church administration fear? Possibly that Brigham spoke out about a future apostasy?
Maybe they would not have had to flee Nauvoo if Brigham hadn't a) been doing the polygamy that Joseph never taught and b) been on the run for counterfeiting. Also, Brigham was not a prophet.
Why would the Lord call the man who was directly instrumental in killing the prophet Joseph, why would he ask him to lead his one true church? The short answer is, he didn’t. This is actually very easy to understand, Brigham started his own church. Brigham did not succeed Joseph Smith. Brigham Young was a false prophet. 2 Nephi chapter 28 in the context of it speaking directly about this Brighamite organization that Brigham started. The false, vain and foolish doctrines spoken of in that chapter are talking specifically about Brigham, and all of his ridiculous doctrines. Men must have many wives, black people are cursed and cannot hold the priesthood, there are some sins that men and women have to pay for themselves because the the blood of Jesus will not atone for them, Adam and Eve were God and one of his wives, etc Brigham’s false teachings have done much to harm the reputation and image of the prophet Joseph. Joseph is seen as a corrupt individual who desired women, sex, young girls, and many other ridiculous ideas. Even marrying other men’s wives. This all makes Joseph look like a creep and a Rotter. Yet these things are not even close to true. These are all fabrications, created by a skunk by the name of Brigham Young. He was not a good man, he was not a chosen prophet, he was a master mason that took the identity of the Lord’s restored church, and then he quickly corrupted it. Brigham Young was a horrific individual, his involvement in bloodshed and murder is second to none. The blood of the entire Timpanogos Indian tribe is on his hands. The blood of the innocent travelers through Mountain Meadows is on his hands. The corruption and the pain that he caused so many of the daughters of our Father in Heaven to experience as they endured the grosser crime of polygamy, is on his hands. And especially the blood of Joseph, Hyrum and Samuel Smith are on the hands of Brigham Young. If you think Brigham Young was a righteous man, it’s because you fail to see who he truly was. The reason why the LDS church fights to keep him in the picture is because he is the false bridge that fills the gap between the true restored church, and the corrupt corporation that exists today. Every church is lost, they have all become corrupt and have fallen, yay everyone of them… Every as in EVERY one of them.
I always love Sunday Musings.I am curious to see how my ancestors fit into all these break offs, My ancestors include, Zerah Pulsifer, William Burgess and John Page., My grandmother's father was Jonathan Socwell Page, and my brother's first name was Page., carrying on the Page name. My grandmother's family was raised in the Church. And our family was a very active LDS family with my father being a temporary bishop and High Council member. I am wondering how many of them stayed with the Church?
As a follow-up to my last comment, the rationalizing of early Church polygamy (which splintered the Church) based on the supposed loophole of Jacob 2:30 completely collapses when you realize that "these things" throughout the chapter referred to the bad things (including polygamy) that the Nephites were doing. I capitalized "things" as "THINGS" in the following verses in Jacob 2 to show this: 14 And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in THIS THING? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in THESE THINGS his judgments must speedily come unto you. 21 Do ye not suppose that such THINGS are abominable unto him who created all flesh? And the one being is as precious in his sight as the other. And all flesh is of the dust; and for the selfsame end hath he created them, that they should keep his commandments and glorify him forever. 23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of THE THINGS which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto THESE THINGS. (These things being whoredoms like polygamy. God is saying that if he raises up seed, he needs to be able to command his seed. Which he cannot do if they harken to abominable things.) 34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done THESE THINGS which ye ought not to have done.
Satan divides wherever he can, especially among those that believe in God's church. Did we not read of all the division of the church in this week's Book of Mormon chapters?
I have a journal account passed down from ancestors who witnessed the BY transfiguration and and from someone who was young, a teenager who thought they saw JS like when BY was talking like others reported. So I have family testimony to it in their own words. It wasn't made up.
Most of these "testimonies" were written years, often decades, after the fact. No known contemporary record supports a supernatural occurrence on either the morning or afternoon of 8 August. The most well known version of the tale, from George Cannon, was written two decades later. The earliest detailed accounts of a purported transfiguration did not begin to surface until long after the Saints were settled in the Great Basin.
@@cboyack This is recorded August 8, 1844, with a word for word recounting of the reaction at the time and the words said. You are sweeping such things under a very general "rug." You are trying to ascribe others experiences or as you put in quotes "testimonies" to actually being a regurgitated version of GC Cannon. This is not the case with what I'm referencing. You obviously don't believe the experience and it works best for you to dismiss it weakly. Regardless with your line of reasoning we should throw out the New Testament because it was just not written soon enough and so the content can't be trusted. You don't want to believe it so you find a way to minimize it. Whatever works for you man. Hopefully you see your bias and acknowledge it though such generalizations are not universally true, but are convenient for your argument.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. From another post: A BYU Studies article indicates that the church historians have disagreements about what actually happened that day: "Ronald K. Esplin states, 'Though there is no contemporary diary account, the number of later retellings, many in remarkable detail, argues for the reality of some such experience.' Leonard J. Arrington notes that an important event 'took place' but observes that there may be psychological explanations for the phenomenon and reserves judgment regarding whether a miraculous transfiguration occurred. Others, however, have concluded that it is unlikely that a miraculous spiritual manifestation took place. Richard S. Van Wagoner, for instance, writes, 'When 8 August 1844 is stripped of emotional overlay, there is not a shred of irrefutable contemporary evidence to support the occurrence of a mystical event.' Van Wagoner concludes that 'a more likely scenario was that it was the force of Young’s commanding presence, his well-timed arrival at the morning meeting, and perhaps a bit of theatrical mimicry, that swayed the crowd.'" Did Brigham himself know that something miraculous had happened? His own account, dated August 8, 1844, simply states: "I arose and spocke to the people. my hart was swolen with composion toards them and by the power of the Holy Gost even the spirit of the Prophets I was enabled to comfort the harts of the Saints. in the afternoon a corden to my request the people assembld by thousands\[.\] I lade before them the order of the church and the Power of the Preasthood. after a long and laboras talk of a bout two ours in the open air with the wind blowing, the church was of one hart and one mind\[.\] they wanted the twelve to lead the church as Br Joseph had dun in his day." Not even Brigham’s journal entry from that day mentions an event like the transfiguration. Neither do any of the accounts of the people who attended the meeting. The first mention of the event was 13 years after the fateful meeting. The BYU Studies article talks of the 1857 conference talk: "In a July 19, 1857, conference talk, Brigham Young referred to Albert Carrington’s mantle experience:" "He \[Carrington\] could not tell me from Joseph Smith, when I was speaking in the stand in Nauvoo during the October Conference of 1844. Somebody came along and passed a finger over his eyes and he could not see any one but Joseph speaking, until I got through addressing the congregation." "This talk was printed ten days later in the Deseret News and may have inspired some Saints to write down their memories of the events of August 1844." No journals spoke of the 1844 event before 1857. While some believe that the members had simply neglected to write about the transfiguration earlier, others believe that it did not happen at all and memories were falsely created when Brigham spoke of it at conference. The BYU Studies article addresses this issue: "The spiritual witness received at the August conference was of such magnitude that believers were willing, even eager, to follow Brigham Young and the Twelve. However, for one hundred and fifty years, scholars have searched for a witness account written on the same day as the mantle experience. If the experience was so 'intense and life-changing' for followers of the Prophet Joseph, why were none of the accounts that record the miracle written on the day of the manifestation or shortly thereafter? It is a question that unfortunately cannot be answered definitively."
@@cboyack do you realize that the financial circumstances of most these folks meant they did not have a lot of paper and such to "write these things down"... when they got to Utah they had sagebrush for a decade or more... incredibly people shared similar stories without knowing what others had written because they were in different parts of the west.
In the scriptures, especially BofM, succession was father to son. Seems to me that was how it was supposed to be. There's even some evidence that Brigham claimed to know that was correct and was just a "place-holder" until young Joseph got older... but a we know, people with power very rarely chose to give up said power. And because Joseph refused to accept polygamy Brigham refused to turn the reigns over. There's an excellent chapter of The Secret Chamber on the succession crisis. Worth getting that book for that chapter alone.
We have that same lineal pride in the Brighamite church too. Lots of our leaders are descendants of past leaders and it is mentioned. When a descendant of Joseph's is converted to the Church, we are all proud of that. I know our leadership is not based on being a descendant.
@@cboyack a lot of people don’t realize that many of the polygamist groups today started out as the same group that broke apart into different churches. And they all think they are the one true church.
I believe a comforting assurance about concerns with Church Leadership is having a close relationship with Jesus and the Holy Ghost. Jesus knows about problems and yet He is still sustaining the key-holdership. I don’t believe Jesus would remove the keys from Earth. Interestingly I ponder on what the Synagogue leadership thought of Lehi preaching against them and leaving. They probably excommunicated him and the entire family- then comparatively to what our leaders might do today. Also do you think Alma cared about his post exodus King Noah’s judgment?
It's really not about Brigham Young or the historical events being discussed. Yes, those things matter, but what matters most is to ask what are these religious leaders and churches teaching and doing today? Do they follow and teach the Book of Mormon and the true doctrine of Christ? No.
Correct. Israel fell in and out of apostasy but remained God’s covenant people. The Church of the lamb of God transcends all man-made organizations. The kingdom of God on earth. Those that repent and follow Him as prescribed in the Book of Mormon and Bible, this is His church. This body of Christ must ready themselves for the coming of the groom/Christ by following His doctrine, feasting on the word of Christ, fulfilling His will and His righteousness pursuant greater faith, hope and charity. To think that God’s kingdom is somehow bound by man’s 501(c)3 corporation is foolish, vain and represents the pride of the great and abominable church. We can all look to Alma who started the first Church of Christ in the BoM who was given authority from God directly through His Holy Spirit.
@@weirdlanguageguy Not as is. Its truth is filtered through the church, corrupting meanings. D&C 84: "...and because you have treated lightly the things you have received-Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation. And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all. And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon..."
@@weirdlanguageguy 3 Nephi 11:40ish. Teaching more or less that Christ’s doctrine is a huge no-no according to Christ. Exaltation dependent on the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, secret signs & passwords would qualify as more than Christ’s doctrine.
@@spencerall I'm talking about all the various LDS groups; the bickertonites, the temple lot church, the Brighamites, etc. They all use the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture informing their doctrine.
I wonder what it would've been like when Jesus Christ died. Of course we have some sort of idea of the confusion from the scriptures. But I'm sure there were men who claimed they had the authority. But the proof to me is which one grew and keeps growing, The Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints.
I’ve also thought much about what might have happened after Christ’s death. The difference that I believe I see is that Jesus’s “church” was simply a loose knit group of believers in him. People who shared similar ideology and faith. There was no corporate entity. No authoritarian hierarchy. No deeds to realestate or intellectual property. As Jesus said “my kingdom is not of this world “. It was a spiritual kingdom.
@@johncato4412 no they were the farthest thing from what Christ's church was. They changed doctrines, lost who and what God is by the trinity. The list goes on and on.
Excited for your Brigham Young content. I do not believe Joseph was a polygamist in the sense Brigham was either. And yes, I am a faithful, Latter-day Saint following the prophet and all that good stuff. Would be fun to see you on Ward Radio, Cwic media, maybe even Michelle Stone’s channel
Technically, most within the former RLDS did not believe in the changes of the RLDS church at the time of the name change. Hence many break offs from the Community of Christ. Also the corruption of setting up the leaders retirement funds. I encourage you to check into the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I did my student teaching at a Jr high in Murray. You could tell a kid's last name would be Kingston without asking. They were all very pale, under sized and usually cross-eyed. Don't mean to put them down, but I could tell the lifestyle their church was trying to maintain was hard on the children. But they were smart snd attentive in class.
connors' musings are very important in my view...keeping us frosty to the fact the dc121 is very common among men, especially lawyers, medical dr.s and in general any latter-day sophistry. Connor pushes me to open my heart, seeking virtue and Charity in my conclusions...growing to become aligned with Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. Thoughtful prayer and sharing with your spouse helps to find the balance from opinion to function.
I don't think it is apostate to question narratives and historical documents authenticity. Isn't apostasy falling away from truth? The church has changed their narrative so many times about Joseph his martyrdom, polygamy...etc. how to you keep up with not being apostate then when the "truth" keeps changing.
Those former friends of Joseph and his family did associate with if not sometimes joined the strangites. However that changed as the prophecy came about Joseph Smith the third to lead the church (former RLDS)
Rock star Alice Cooper was the son of one of the “elders” (apostle?) of The Church of Jesus Christ (Rigdonites) and his grandfather was the president. Alice said that as a young person he went to bed with a Book of Mormon on his nightstand. Obviously, he turned away from his church in his late teenage years.
The “Come Follow Me” lesson for Sep 23-29 has several references for knowing when you are hearing the voice of the Spirit. That would be my Chief recommendation on reacting to new Church policies. Whether I immediately agree with a new policy or not, I owe it to myself and to the Church leadership to test it according to the accumulation of understanding I have gained over the years. There are days when I think it would have been exciting to have been part of the early church. And then there are other days when I recognize that I personally need more time to process any new knowledge, and so far have had the luxury of that time to deal with policy changes.
I have a hard time untangling my “beliefs”. What is scriptural?What was just a teaching from a well-intentioned (hopefully) servant trying to calm chaos? One such belief is that the Gospel or priesthood authority will never be taken from the earth as this is the last dispensation. But does this mean the church won’t/can’t fall into apostasy, as I have always been led to believe? Or simply that it has been restored for the final time before Christ’s second coming? Seems like a lot of things were said during periods of massive shift, like the succession crisis or the manifesto, to try and reign things in, but does that mean they are actually doctrine? This question came to mind when you spoke of the RLDS break offs in the 80’s and since. Do those people not harbor the belief that the restoration of priesthood authority was final and lasting? If they do, how can they jump ship from what they’ve decided was the true branch? And if they don’t, where/who did this idea come from, and should it bear as much weight as it always has in my mind?
Didn't Joseph give a prophecy that the church would be split at times but to always follow the MAJORITY of the 12... i think it was called "the key that will never rust"
If there was no transfiguration why then did so many follow Brigham Young west when Voree (James Strange) was so much closer, or Pittsburg with Sidney was much settled and wealthy for the time vs sagebrush and at times hostile native Americans?
Most who went west had been converted in Europe by the 12. BY did not become president of the church for years. They were following the 12. In fact, many of the 12 objected when BY made himself the leader.
@@rebekahgriffin567 again they left in 1846. Not that long. Who do you think is the rightful successor? Who was ordained earlier (don't count James strang what an imposter)
@@Thomas123-c1v I don’t think there was a valid successor. The church had already been put under condemnation. I believe it is currently in the wilderness. Meaning it is up to each person to live the doctrine of Christ- repent and come unto Jesus for redemption. I don’t see authority as something that is passed down man to man, but something that comes from a personal relationship with the Lord. So to me a prophet is not the same as an inherited church leadership position. The scriptures tell us that there will be many prophets in the last days. Crying repentance.
Rule of thumb with all of these 1000s of break off church’s. The church of God the one true church, lies within every actual Mormon that believes in the Book of Mormon and the prophet Joseph. All other earthly church is just that earthly. Stand where you are and preach the gospel.
Only about 30 to 40 percent of the church followed Brigham Young. Many of those who did so were immigrants stuck here and had a language barrier. The Brighamites were the most organized and largest group so many things thought following Brigham Young was their best chance for survival. Those who knew Joseph best and had options knew better than to follow Brigham.
Where do you get your 30-40% number from? I've seen others say this but haven't seen any data. I found a BYU Studies article where they claimed around 50% but again, no source cited.
@@cboyack I have seen this over the years in many reports outside of the official LDS church numbers. I will go back and see if I can find exact sources. The official LDS church numbers do not add up with their narrative. In 1844 the church had a total membership of 26k members. Within two years in 1846 the membership grew to almost 34k. By 1848 the numbers grew to 40 1/2 k. If you agree with the church’s statement that 50% of the church followed Brigham Young the statistics should look like 18k members in 1846 and 20k members in 1848 but they do not report that. What do you have to say about the rest of my comment regarding a large percent who followed Brigham did so mainly because they were immigrants?
@@erikpeoples8041 if you can find the source of those numbers maybe you will find their motivation too. but that’s sounds more likely to be found looking at the branches’ members’ journals and records. we are a record-keeping people. were they? where are these things
I think Whitney Horning mentioned that once Brig taught polygamy was of God, 3,000 saints left the Brighamite church. That group knew Joseph was not a polygamist and knew that he was completely against it. I wonder where that group ended up.
My great great grandfather Benjamin Franklin Johnson, wrote in his journal, about being in that meeting and seeing Brigham Young’s countenance change and how he spoke with a whistle like how Joseph Smith spoke because of his broken tooth. Benny was very close with Joseph and so he bore his testimony on it!
I had a great grandmother who also wrote about Brigham’s transfiguration. It was a testimony builder to me until I found out that she never mentioned it until the 1880s.
@@cboyack I’m sorry you don’t… in it his account he stated that not every member seen it. So I believe what my grandfather wrote as he bore his testimony on the matter. You’re not going to sway my opinion on the either!
1:27. Conner. There are family journals and stories debunking your statement about Brigham Young. They claim to have witnessed it. Just because you believe it’s a fallacy doesn’t make that true.
“…it was Brigham Young and if any one doubts the right of Brigham to manage affairs for the Saints, all I have to say to them is this. Get the spirit of God and know for yourselves. The Lord will provide for his own. Has the word of the Lord ever failed? Br Young will not live forever clothed with mortality. But He who rules in heaven and on earth will control all things by the counsel of his own will. Saints will live.” (37-year-old Emily Smith Hoyt, 1st Cousin and friend of Joseph & Hyrum) Get the Spirit of God and know for yourselves… Yes, you too, Brother Boyack… you “Brighamite” 😂
One can go to any ward he or she wants to go to.... BUT one's records MUST be in the ward they "live " in ... why? If one doesn't feel the Spirit in the ward that they live in but feel the Spirit in the other ward, why can't their records be transferred over to the other ward? The bishop of the assigned ward can know of a person's activity in the other ward for temple recommend interview so why not just transfer records so a person can have full rights and privileges belonging to the ward...
Doctrine of Christ is not the same as the snufferites!. Snufferites focus on the second comforter... Doctrine of Christ focus on the Doctrine of christ and specifically the baptism of fire which would come before receiving the second comforter... they believe in the second comforter but most seem to be seeking of the baptism of fire first... The snufferites do not seem that worried about the baptism of fire... it seems many of them assume they have already recieved it.. which I would not assume...
Connor - I very much enjoy your perspectives, and greatly value the presence of independent thinkers such as yourself among active members of the LDS Church. However, you lose me when you side with Michelle Stone and her polygamy denier sect, which looks to be rapidly headed down the road to eventually breaking away from the LDS Church. I have researched the historical record in depth, and the evidence is overwhelming that polygamy came from Joseph, Jr. I know that the Stone-ites have tons of (very dubious) arguments to back their dissident position, but in my research I found a very relevant historical record that has not received much notice but which I find very convincing, so I share it with you. In the 1865 conference of the RLDS church, Joseph III proposed that it be made an article of faith of the RLDS church that his father did not practice polygamy - but this was voted down because all the older RLDS members who had been adults in Nauvoo, despite their opposition to polygamy (these were after all people who had joined the RLDS rather than go to Utah) knew that in fact Joseph Jr. was involved in polygamy. Joseph III had to wait until these older RLDS (which included William Marks) had all died before implementing denial of his father's involvement with polygamy as a belief of the RLDS church (a belief which the Community of Christ has since acknowledged to be contrary to the historical record).
Connor at 5:55 you said "like the quorum of the 12, Sydney rigdon was ordained a prophet, seer, and revelator" are you sure that the quorum of the 12 was ever ordained as prophets, seers, revelators? I'm pretty sure they were just ordained elders. Another twist in church history and understanding the offices of the priesthood and how they functioned through time is really important to understand the succession crisis. The quorum of 12 was not equal to the first presidency. Only the first presidency was ordained as prophets seers and revelators. It wasn't till later that those titles were bestowed upon the 12 in Utah.
@@cboyack Just one example of revisions to the history... Joseph said to the Twelve in a special council meeting with them held on Saturday, January 16, 1836. The original manuscript says this: “…also the 12 are not subject to any other than the first presidency; viz. myself, S. Rigdon and F.G. Williams-” (you will notice some changes in punctuation as this is now taken directly from Vol. 2 of the History of the Church): “…also the Twelve are not subject to any other than the first Presidency, viz., “myself,” said the Prophet, “Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, who are now my Counselors; and where I am not, there is no First Presidency over the Twelve.”
I have been trying to find information on that. Minutes, 16 August 1841 In 1841 Joseph smith altered their duties after they returned from England. “History, 1838-1856, volume C-1 [2 November 1838-31 July 1842],” 1221, However, when I read it, it says Don Carlos, Emma & Joseph's 14 month baby died that morning and I don't see where Joseph was there and I don't understand the extent of the change in their duties. Someone said "counsel of the 50 meeting" he had right before he died. But those meeting notes written after Joseph died I think
So my wife and I made a mistake... We started reading the Book of Mormon 1830's replica edition without all the foot notes, verses and breaks. It reads differently and the spirit is actually stronger with it.
I'm curious...why do you consider it a mistake?
Where did you get it?
I dont find any mistakes in it...ive read that version too...I liked it because since it wasnt in 2 tiny collums on each page its a quicker read because the length of the lines works better for speed readers like myself when not reading outloud...the words are all the same.
..its just not chopped in verses thats all
I don’t think that is a mistake. Mixing up the way we read the Book of Mormon is good and it helps us break out of the monotony of reading it the same way every time. It’s the reason Elder Bednar doesn’t read the same exact version of the book every time so he doesn’t resort back to his old notes.
And your phrase “feel the spirit stronger” is a very relative statement that a measure can be changed depending on what day of the week you are in.
@@batboy12394 I believe he was being facetious
Thank you. It's so gratifying to hear historical fact in clear and honest reporting without others accusing of apostasy in not worshipping these men instead of Jesus Christ whose worship they claim while still demanding His authority and respect be tendered to them when they are only men in service no more or less than the rest of us. I joined the Church because of the Book of Mormon and a desire to follow and learn more about my Savior Jesus Christ. I completely understand the letters John wrote to the 7 churches and their state of disarray and disobedience. Your musings for our benefit only cause me to shake my head at flawed leadership as part of a necessary gathering and confirm my individual responsibility for study, prayer, and an ongoing search for truth to confirm my obedience to Jesus Christ and no other.
Thanks for the video. Very much looking forward to the two part series!
Interesting musing. Years ago I found a book in the library that listed churches started in the U.S., and I remembering it stating there were over 200 break offs from the church after Jospeh’s murder. Most of them were only small groups of people that disagreed with the majority and banded together but eventually disappeared.
The Community of Christ (former RLDS church) also went off the rails when they became partners with the UN - which they have a statue depicting their union with the UN in Independence, MO depicted a girl reaching for a dove while standing on top of the world.
One man who left the Community of Christ after their UN union and joined the LDS church, made the comment on another video that he was concerned about the LDS church following the same pattern by being in lockstep with the UN. Time will tell…
Like you mentioned, there are current break offs that disagree with points of doctrine, as well as those who still remain in the LDS church but have differing beliefs about points of doctrine established during the Brighamite era - such as yourself, Conner. I see those individuals as similar to the people at the time of Christ’s coming in the Americas who believed in Christ, but had disputations among themselves concerning the points of Christ’s doctrine (3 Nephi 11:28-29).
I predict that there will be more disputations, contentions, and confusion as the time of Christ’s coming draws closer. It will be so disruptive that, if possible, even the very elect would be deceived. Will you have enough oil in your lamp to not be deceived, hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day? (D&C 45:56-57)
My great grandmother wrote in her journal of bullets flying over her head as she crossed the Mississippi in icy water as she and her children fled Nauvoo.
That so many were willing to undertake this excruciatingly difficult trial is a firm testimony to me that Brigham Young was the man God chose to lead his church
@@fightingfortruth9806 yet the Lord told Joseph that if the church repented and obeyed His commandments they would not be moved out of their place. Shouldn’t the trials and exodus indicate the opposite?
They were not moved out of their place. They stayed faithful.
Trials are God's greatest blessing to us. We can know he truly loves us when we face the most difficult obstacles in life.
Maybe they would not have had to flee Nauvoo if Brigham hadn't a) been doing the polygamy that Joseph never taught and b) been on the run for counterfeiting.
@@JakobPGrau Plural marriage, along with the King Follet discourse , was one of the reasons William Law wanted Joseph dead. Brigham wasn’t even in Nauvoo. Your conclusions don’t add up.
I left over a year ago. AND I respect the decision of those who decide to stay. We all have our own journey.
Yesterday I listened to a podcast where the man introduced the ideas of Jacob 5 and the allegory as being about the different breakoffs of the church. I've not had a chance to read it yet with that in mind, but it intrigued me. Hopefully I will be able to this week.
I have a bunch of Snuffers books, too, but so far, I have only read A Man Without Doubt about Joseph.
In 1958 or so in south central France, there was a schism started by missionaries. Assistants to the president and zone leaders strayed from the general thesis to institute polygyny. There were entire branches that were "excommunicated" in the area (France has a history of alternate thought).They called themselves the "Church of the Firstborn". I see a reference to a break off by that same name on the graph, but the dates don't jibe. LeBarron was the name of the fellow who was chief among the group. In the late 70's he was a fatal victim of internal insurrection in the movement. He was murdered by his brother if I recall. My dates may not coincide with the actual dates, but the events did happen. I knew a missionary serving in the area at the time. He didn't succumb to the pressure to follow them.
Cool lesson friend. Peace be with you
This is a great info! I was looking to learn about these LDS branches for a very long time. Thanks sharing it.
Great episode! Can’t wait for your 2 part series! I’m curious if what you share for your reasons of staying are the same as mine.
Hi Connor, that chart actually does include the fundamentalist branches. They begin as the council of friends in 1920, and form that darker green tree on the top.
Yep already caught it and replied to someone else
Ok. So ive got a question. Youd mentioned the lack of evidence that joseph actually pratice plural marriage here and have talked about it previously too. So on this side of the coin it can be either way depending on what accounts someone will believe. Thats fine. Did he? We really dont know, its not like if he did, that he journaled "had relations with so-and-so today, tomorrow will be with the other. Will consumate.", obviously he wouldn't have documented these things for our need of proofs. What he did in his private time is of little consequence here I believe. My question or argument is to what we use to ascertain whether or not Brigham was correct in further implementing it. Regardless of Josephs provable or unproven nightly activities, the question is did he teach it? The assumption that Brigham was incorrect because we dont have comparable documentation as we keep today of Josephs private life while this church was still getting going, may be flawed (marriage licenses, church records). As to what Joseph was able to nail down in a publicly accepted appearance with such great turmoil surrounding his every direction possibly requiring protection and discretion on such a taboo principle, remains the question: What did he teach?
I know its not popular. I know theres apolegetic p.r. style distancing and doubt we all gravitate towards. But on the other side of the coin, what did he teach. So then, if he did teach it, was Brigham really wrong as many think he was?
Lastly, food for thought: If the Gov never came against plural marriage anymore, if they finally were backed into the corner the early saint were suggesting of constitutional religious freedom, and the Gov accepted it- would the principle of plural marriage still have been abandoned and members excommunicated? I believe these are all important considerations in coming to a firmer conclusion.
Great post. My guess is plural marriage would still be part of the church today if not for the Feds.
@oshemer5066 A lot of people im sure would think it doesn't matter since thats not the way it happened, but thats not the point of the question: did Brigham get it wrong. Thats part 1. The 2nd being would it have still been stopped. To this, an investigation into what they had been teaching and discussing up till that point, about the principle. What previous revelations did they claim from God specifically about it? What was their determination? Stance? Direction? Public opinions within the LDS community itself? Also, opinions and feelings of the many children and wives who were about to be abandoned by their husbands and fathers? Were they relieved? Were they truly feeling abused and enslaved as the world thought? Was this a welcome blessing come from God to save them from their current situation? So, another coin here: ultimately, was this orchestrated and brought on by God, or the adversary? And depending on that, ....?
I think the assumed faithful answer that people generally consider is "yes of course it was God's Will and yes Brigham was wrong", in an attempt to either follow the prophet or not appear as though they're not following the prophets since. Personally I think this is the incorrect perspective. If God once before was capable of sending an angel with a sword, and also capable of the revelations and the guidance and direction in the past, then surely he's still capable of repeating and doing so again today if needed. Was it Him who removed it in the first place? Ask humans have been known to mess things up, so an answer is determined upon what he has actually said about it leading up. Previous prophets had taught that armies and mobs would combine to come against the saints, and taught that we should stand firm and God would fight our battles. A question since then, is do we roll over and play nice or do we stand firm in our convictions. Thing is, regardless of the outcome of either of those choices, the Saints will always assume and have the opinion that what was done and what they do is the will of God, since that's the faithful answer. I'm not saying we were right or wrong. I'm just asking what is the cold hard prophetically claimed facts regarding these circumstances. Did we mess up? Or did we get it right? If so what implications and other questions arise from either answer.
I've strayed from my initial point I was trying to make.
Also, does God need to reveal and re command things which he has already revealed and commanded? Sure, a lot has mentioned about policy changes. But my question is is there a policy necessary or was it correct or incorrect? To the person who believes it was incorrect, they possibly believe that all is well and we have nothing to consider or talk about any longer. Into the person who believes Brigham was correct back then, the question could be, what other Commandments are we willing to not keep.
@@masonfam My answer to your first question is it’s not a matter of did Brigham get it right, but whether Joseph got it right because I believe Brigham received the teaching of plural marriage from Joseph Smith. Brigham Young, the Twelve, the women that said they were married to Joseph Smith, the three prophets from John Taylor to Lorenzo Snow who all had firsthand witness from Joseph Smith that the teaching came from him. There are also early RLDS leaders that told Joseph Smith III the teaching started with his father, not with Brigham Young. They all said it came from Joseph. For these reasons I believe section 132 came from Joseph. I believe Joseph was a prophet of God so I do not think he would’ve got something of this magnitude wrong. The answer to your second question is a little more difficult. If we believe the early brethren, then I think plural marriage is an eternal principle. It’s a very hard doctrine as evidenced by the huge backlash even among people in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today, and they don’t even have to live it. But I think if practiced righteously, it would be a blessing. I personally know a lot of single women who are over forty and have never been married. Plural marriage could have been a blessing for sisters like this. I don’t believe it was always lived righteously. Maybe this is why it was taken away. There’s precedence in the Scriptures for the Lord taking higher knowledge away. Moses Sinai comes to mind so maybe the Saints weren’t ready for it because they didn’t live it well or because they weren’t willing to stand and defend it. These are just some of my thoughts. What’s your conclusion?
@oshemer5066 considering today, that Utah for example, is the highest ranked internet searches for pornography, breast enhancement, and male enhancement goes to show that we are so far from the mark if of such a principal was brought today, we'd mess it up, and be under so much more condemnation than before. Going back to the past, was there proof that the Saints back then were messing it up then, too? Yes, actually. It's even been mentioned in several discourses from General Authorities of their disappointment in members taking upon themselves additional wives outside of the bounds, dating abroad while on missions and bringing home women with the intention of having them sealed to them before being permitted to do so. But of course, there's always going to be a handful of stray sheep. It wasn't a widespread problem. But even back then, with these Pioneers that we Revere today, we're still being told and canceled from the pulpit that they weren't living their religion and were constantly being called up to repentance. Something as simple as home manufacturing, making Goods within their own home and supplies to sell, was something they just couldn't all get on board with. There used to be so many more teachings when it came to our everyday lives that not just plural marriage but several things that have gone by the wayside because of the nature of man. If any one of our Generations were to be able to live these things in Purity and righteousness, it was the first saints that started this first 100 years of this dispensation. So, in my own personal conclusion, in my own opinion, which side of the coin do I think we find ourselves on back then? Both. Plural marriage, he added a caveat, that we should maintain it for as long as we were able to maintain it, in righteousness. Did God plan on removing it? Absolutely not. But so, who was the orchestrator of the events that led up to its removal? God or the devil? In my conclusions, both. Or as in, God had zero intention according to his own words to remove it as a gospel principle, yet was only capable of protecting a righteous people who are keeping the Commandments. To those people he promised the ability to fight their battles for them, in faith. But as is the nature of man we go through cycles of ups and downs of faith, righteousness, and pride, just as the lamanites and Nephites. Our test has always been, do we trust in god, or do we fear man? In those heightened situations we have a choice to make. Regardless of all of his admonitions, teachings, revelations, and essentially falling upon his knees with begging and pleadings as the Lord and the vineyard, our choices back then became more apparent. The saints were about to fall. So then the Lord of the Vineyard have a choice to make, allow the Vineyard to be destroyed and burned prematurely, or prune it, and dig about it and graft in with an attempt to save it. Problem was, to do this meant the removal of good branches and the grafting in of wild branches in the hope and attempt that the removal of positive things and the introduction of wild things, that the wild branches would be overcome by the righteous branches. But the good branches would eventually become infected and created all sorts and manner of wild fruit (today). So the lesser of several evils became chosen as the way to move forward, abandon some righteous principles in the hope of saving the more part of the vineyard, in opposition to His more righteous plan.
To your point about that Joseph got it right and it wasn't about Brigham. Agreed. The confusion oftentimes however is that Brigham got it wrong because Joseph never taught those things, which then brings about my question did Brigham get it right or wrong. But the correct answer is Joseph got it right and Brigham continued it. But our world today has been systematically purposely orchestrated in such a direction to perfectly oppose this principle specifically. All other manner of actual perversions is permitted, but there is no room for this actual gospel principle, not in the world and not within our church. To such a point and extreme that not even members or some leaders within our church fathom that it's a possible true principle. We have stryed so far from that path as to not be able to be rectified. I believe in the end that we as a whole will be the ones under condemnation for not allowing such a principal room to be able to be practiced and the ones injured will be as you mentioned the single women who could have had families but were kept from it. Our unrighteousness as a whole is literally destroying Eternal families, and we don't even realize it.
For some reason the reply I just sent isn't showing up. Luckily I copied it part way through so let me try again.
@oshemer5066 considering today, that Utah for example, is the highest ranked internet searches for pornography, breast enhancement, and male enhancement goes to show that we are so far from the mark if of such a principal was brought today, we'd mess it up, and be under so much more condemnation than before. Going back to the past, was there proof that the Saints back then were messing it up then, too? Yes, actually. It's even been mentioned in several discourses from General Authorities of their disappointment in members taking upon themselves additional wives outside of the bounds, dating abroad while on missions and bringing home women with the intention of having them sealed to them before being permitted to do so. But of course, there's always going to be a handful of stray sheep. It wasn't a widespread problem. But even back then, with these Pioneers that we Revere today, we're still being told and canceled from the pulpit that they weren't living their religion and were constantly being called up to repentance. Something as simple as home manufacturing, making Goods within their own home and supplies to sell, was something they just couldn't all get on board with. There used to be so many more teachings when it came to our everyday lives that not just plural marriage but several things that have gone by the wayside because of the nature of man. If any one of our Generations were to be able to live these things in Purity and righteousness, it was the first saints that started this first 100 years of this dispensation. So, in my own personal conclusion, in my own opinion, which side of the coin do I think we find ourselves on back then? Both. Plural marriage, he added a caveat, that we should maintain it for as long as we were able to maintain it, in righteousness. Did God plan on removing it? Absolutely not. But so, who was the orchestrator of the events that led up to its removal? God or the devil? In my conclusions, both. Or as in, God had zero intention according to his own words to remove it as a gospel principle, yet was only capable of protecting a righteous people who are keeping the Commandments. To those people he promised the ability to fight their battles for them, in faith. But as is the nature of man we go through cycles of ups and downs of faith, righteousness, and pride, just as the lamanites and Nephites. Our test has always been, do we trust in god, or do we fear man? In those heightened situations we have a choice to make. Regardless of all of his admonitions, teachings, revelations, and essentially falling upon his knees with begging and pleadings as the Lord and the vineyard, our choices back then became more apparent. The saints were about to fall. So then the Lord of the Vineyard have a choice to make, allow the Vineyard to be destroyed and burned prematurely, or prune it, and dig about it and graft in with an attempt to save it. Problem was, to do this meant the removal of good branches and the grafting in of wild branches in the hope and attempt that the removal of positive things and the introduction of wild things, that the wild branches would be overcome by the righteous branches. But the good branches would eventually become infected and created all sorts and manner of wild fruit (today). So the lesser of several evils became chosen as the way to move forward, abandon some righteous principles in the hope of saving the more part of the vineyard, in opposition to His more righteous plan.
To your point about that Joseph got it right and it wasn't about Brigham. Agreed. The confusion oftentimes however is that Brigham got it wrong because Joseph never taught those things, which then brings about my question did Brigham get it right or wrong. But the correct answer is Joseph got it right and Brigham continued it. But our world today has been systematically purposely orchestrated in such a direction to perfectly oppose this principle specifically. All other manner of actual perversions is permitted, but there is no room for this actual gospel principle, not in the world and not within our church. To such a point and extreme that not even members or some leaders within our church fathom that it's a possible true principle. We have stryed so far from that path as to not be able to be rectified.
I can't remember what I said after this, exactly, but let me give the shorthand version: I believe our inability to live this true principle, is going to have us be under condemnation and we don't even know it. There's women out there who want to be married and men who don't. We are keeping them as a whole because of our unrighteousness generally speaking from allowing this principle safety to be practiced. We are destroying Eternal families and we don't even know it
maybe it was more like a fumble than a handoff, and God waited to see who picked it up. the Brighamites (sp?) went on the greater adventure and really had better traction for developing a people, a full culture. that is significant for the economy of God i think.
but i also think God acknowledges all sincere intentions attending to Him.
@@MrBillmechanic brainstorming here. hold off on evaluation… did God or someone representing God show up to approve of things for anyone after Joseph’s death?
@@cocadeanNot that I am aware, except for individual’s dreams or purported visions.
It would have been an extremely confusing time due to the many voiced claiming succession authority. Many believed that Joseph Smith III should be the next president, including Brigham Young who only acted in a temporary capacity until he was old enough to take the helm. However, after Emma remained resolute in not following Brigham, he ultimately claimed the right and authority to lead the church.
Very good analogy. 👍
@@cocadean h-m-m. excellent point!!! That is worth considering !!!
It's about to get more interesting. The nemenhah records. Book. Second complete edition. And the ojibwe have got a start on translating their records too. So there could be a lot more versions of our church coming.
I agree. I'm quietly waiting to see how these things play out. I'm a little familiar with the records of the ojibwe but have never heard of the nemenhah records
So, looking forward to your videos on Brigham! He is my stumbling block. I do believe this is Christ Church and He has worked through fallen men.
Thank you, Connor!!
Someday Connor will pass on and the first person to greet him on the other side will be Brother Brigham…I would love to be there to witness that conversation. I know who will prevail. My long term thinking is that Joseph restored the church, while Brigham saved it. Without Brigham Young taking the church to Utah and resisting the US govnernment❤, this church would be a minor concern just like all the other breakaway Mormon sects. Other than Joseph, there’s no greater modern day prophet than Brigham Young. The church spends a lot of time and effort to downplay or even reject Brigham Young and his teachings. What does the church administration fear? Possibly that Brigham spoke out about a future apostasy?
Maybe they would not have had to flee Nauvoo if Brigham hadn't a) been doing the polygamy that Joseph never taught and b) been on the run for counterfeiting. Also, Brigham was not a prophet.
I don't think BY will be anywhere close to the pearly gates to meet anyone
Why would the Lord call the man who was directly instrumental in killing the prophet Joseph, why would he ask him to lead his one true church? The short answer is, he didn’t.
This is actually very easy to understand, Brigham started his own church. Brigham did not succeed Joseph Smith. Brigham Young was a false prophet. 2 Nephi chapter 28 in the context of it speaking directly about this Brighamite organization that Brigham started. The false, vain and foolish doctrines spoken of in that chapter are talking specifically about Brigham, and all of his ridiculous doctrines. Men must have many wives, black people are cursed and cannot hold the priesthood, there are some sins that men and women have to pay for themselves because the the blood of Jesus will not atone for them, Adam and Eve were God and one of his wives, etc
Brigham’s false teachings have done much to harm the reputation and image of the prophet Joseph. Joseph is seen as a corrupt individual who desired women, sex, young girls, and many other ridiculous ideas. Even marrying other men’s wives. This all makes Joseph look like a creep and a Rotter. Yet these things are not even close to true. These are all fabrications, created by a skunk by the name of Brigham Young. He was not a good man, he was not a chosen prophet, he was a master mason that took the identity of the Lord’s restored church, and then he quickly corrupted it. Brigham Young was a horrific individual, his involvement in bloodshed and murder is second to none. The blood of the entire Timpanogos Indian tribe is on his hands. The blood of the innocent travelers through Mountain Meadows is on his hands. The corruption and the pain that he caused so many of the daughters of our Father in Heaven to experience as they endured the grosser crime of polygamy, is on his hands. And especially the blood of Joseph, Hyrum and Samuel Smith are on the hands of Brigham Young.
If you think Brigham Young was a righteous man, it’s because you fail to see who he truly was. The reason why the LDS church fights to keep him in the picture is because he is the false bridge that fills the gap between the true restored church, and the corrupt corporation that exists today.
Every church is lost, they have all become corrupt and have fallen, yay everyone of them…
Every as in EVERY one of them.
Brigham was amazing! Prophet Sigma and Revelator
I always love Sunday Musings.I am curious to see how my ancestors fit into all these break offs, My ancestors include, Zerah Pulsifer, William Burgess and John Page., My grandmother's father was Jonathan Socwell Page, and my brother's first name was Page., carrying on the Page name.
My grandmother's family was raised in the Church. And our family was a very active LDS family with my father being a temporary bishop and High Council member. I am wondering how many of them stayed with the Church?
As a follow-up to my last comment, the rationalizing of early Church polygamy (which splintered the Church) based on the supposed loophole of Jacob 2:30 completely collapses when you realize that "these things" throughout the chapter referred to the bad things (including polygamy) that the Nephites were doing.
I capitalized "things" as "THINGS" in the following verses in Jacob 2 to show this:
14 And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in THIS THING? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in THESE THINGS his judgments must speedily come unto you.
21 Do ye not suppose that such THINGS are abominable unto him who created all flesh? And the one being is as precious in his sight as the other. And all flesh is of the dust; and for the selfsame end hath he created them, that they should keep his commandments and glorify him forever.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of THE THINGS which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto THESE THINGS. (These things being whoredoms like polygamy. God is saying that if he raises up seed, he needs to be able to command his seed. Which he cannot do if they harken to abominable things.)
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done THESE THINGS which ye ought not to have done.
Satan divides wherever he can, especially among those that believe in God's church. Did we not read of all the division of the church in this week's Book of Mormon chapters?
I have a journal account passed down from ancestors who witnessed the BY transfiguration and and from someone who was young, a teenager who thought they saw JS like when BY was talking like others reported. So I have family testimony to it in their own words. It wasn't made up.
Most of these "testimonies" were written years, often decades, after the fact. No known contemporary record supports a supernatural occurrence on either the morning or afternoon of 8 August. The most well known version of the tale, from George Cannon, was written two decades later. The earliest detailed accounts of a purported transfiguration did not begin to surface until long after the Saints were settled in the Great Basin.
Thanks for sharing. I think the “the tall tale” is that this story was made up and has no historical evidence.
@@cboyack This is recorded August 8, 1844, with a word for word recounting of the reaction at the time and the words said. You are sweeping such things under a very general "rug." You are trying to ascribe others experiences or as you put in quotes "testimonies" to actually being a regurgitated version of GC Cannon. This is not the case with what I'm referencing. You obviously don't believe the experience and it works best for you to dismiss it weakly.
Regardless with your line of reasoning we should throw out the New Testament because it was just not written soon enough and so the content can't be trusted.
You don't want to believe it so you find a way to minimize it.
Whatever works for you man. Hopefully you see your bias and acknowledge it though such generalizations are not universally true, but are convenient for your argument.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. From another post:
A BYU Studies article indicates that the church historians have disagreements about what actually happened that day:
"Ronald K. Esplin states, 'Though there is no contemporary diary account, the number of later retellings, many in remarkable detail, argues for the reality of some such experience.' Leonard J. Arrington notes that an important event 'took place' but observes that there may be psychological explanations for the phenomenon and reserves judgment regarding whether a miraculous transfiguration occurred. Others, however, have concluded that it is unlikely that a miraculous spiritual manifestation took place. Richard S. Van Wagoner, for instance, writes, 'When 8 August 1844 is stripped of emotional overlay, there is not a shred of irrefutable contemporary evidence to support the occurrence of a mystical event.' Van Wagoner concludes that 'a more likely scenario was that it was the force of Young’s commanding presence, his well-timed arrival at the morning meeting, and perhaps a bit of theatrical mimicry, that swayed the crowd.'"
Did Brigham himself know that something miraculous had happened? His own account, dated August 8, 1844, simply states:
"I arose and spocke to the people. my hart was swolen with composion toards them and by the power of the Holy Gost even the spirit of the Prophets I was enabled to comfort the harts of the Saints. in the afternoon a corden to my request the people assembld by thousands\[.\] I lade before them the order of the church and the Power of the Preasthood. after a long and laboras talk of a bout two ours in the open air with the wind blowing, the church was of one hart and one mind\[.\] they wanted the twelve to lead the church as Br Joseph had dun in his day."
Not even Brigham’s journal entry from that day mentions an event like the transfiguration. Neither do any of the accounts of the people who attended the meeting. The first mention of the event was 13 years after the fateful meeting. The BYU Studies article talks of the 1857 conference talk:
"In a July 19, 1857, conference talk, Brigham Young referred to Albert Carrington’s mantle experience:"
"He \[Carrington\] could not tell me from Joseph Smith, when I was speaking in the stand in Nauvoo during the October Conference of 1844. Somebody came along and passed a finger over his eyes and he could not see any one but Joseph speaking, until I got through addressing the congregation."
"This talk was printed ten days later in the Deseret News and may have inspired some Saints to write down their memories of the events of August 1844."
No journals spoke of the 1844 event before 1857. While some believe that the members had simply neglected to write about the transfiguration earlier, others believe that it did not happen at all and memories were falsely created when Brigham spoke of it at conference. The BYU Studies article addresses this issue:
"The spiritual witness received at the August conference was of such magnitude that believers were willing, even eager, to follow Brigham Young and the Twelve. However, for one hundred and fifty years, scholars have searched for a witness account written on the same day as the mantle experience. If the experience was so 'intense and life-changing' for followers of the Prophet Joseph, why were none of the accounts that record the miracle written on the day of the manifestation or shortly thereafter? It is a question that unfortunately cannot be answered definitively."
@@cboyack do you realize that the financial circumstances of most these folks meant they did not have a lot of paper and such to "write these things down"... when they got to Utah they had sagebrush for a decade or more... incredibly people shared similar stories without knowing what others had written because they were in different parts of the west.
In the scriptures, especially BofM, succession was father to son. Seems to me that was how it was supposed to be. There's even some evidence that Brigham claimed to know that was correct and was just a "place-holder" until young Joseph got older... but a we know, people with power very rarely chose to give up said power. And because Joseph refused to accept polygamy Brigham refused to turn the reigns over.
There's an excellent chapter of The Secret Chamber on the succession crisis. Worth getting that book for that chapter alone.
We have that same lineal pride in the Brighamite church too. Lots of our leaders are descendants of past leaders and it is mentioned. When a descendant of Joseph's is converted to the Church, we are all proud of that. I know our leadership is not based on being a descendant.
The chart does have the FLDS
He addresses that not even 6 minutes into the video...
You're right - before recording this I was looking for the offshoot a few decades prior and somehow missed it coming out in 1920 - my mistake.
@@cboyack a lot of people don’t realize that many of the polygamist groups today started out as the same group that broke apart into different churches. And they all think they are the one true church.
I believe a comforting assurance about concerns with Church Leadership is having a close relationship with Jesus and the Holy Ghost. Jesus knows about problems and yet He is still sustaining the key-holdership. I don’t believe Jesus would remove the keys from Earth. Interestingly I ponder on what the Synagogue leadership thought of Lehi preaching against them and leaving. They probably excommunicated him and the entire family- then comparatively to what our leaders might do today. Also do you think Alma cared about his post exodus King Noah’s judgment?
Can someone link to the video where he talks about why he stays in the largest branch?
You need to put Robert Smith’s ministry on the radar. What he is doing is very significant.
It's really not about Brigham Young or the historical events being discussed. Yes, those things matter, but what matters most is to ask what are these religious leaders and churches teaching and doing today? Do they follow and teach the Book of Mormon and the true doctrine of Christ? No.
Correct. Israel fell in and out of apostasy but remained God’s covenant people. The Church of the lamb of God transcends all man-made organizations. The kingdom of God on earth. Those that repent and follow Him as prescribed in the Book of Mormon and Bible, this is His church. This body of Christ must ready themselves for the coming of the groom/Christ by following His doctrine, feasting on the word of Christ, fulfilling His will and His righteousness pursuant greater faith, hope and charity.
To think that God’s kingdom is somehow bound by man’s 501(c)3 corporation is foolish, vain and represents the pride of the great and abominable church.
We can all look to Alma who started the first Church of Christ in the BoM who was given authority from God directly through His Holy Spirit.
What do you mean? Almost all of these groups continue to teach the Book of Mormon
@@weirdlanguageguy Not as is. Its truth is filtered through the church, corrupting meanings. D&C 84: "...and because you have treated lightly the things you have received-Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation. And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all. And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon..."
@@weirdlanguageguy 3 Nephi 11:40ish. Teaching more or less that Christ’s doctrine is a huge no-no according to Christ. Exaltation dependent on the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, secret signs & passwords would qualify as more than Christ’s doctrine.
@@spencerall I'm talking about all the various LDS groups; the bickertonites, the temple lot church, the Brighamites, etc. They all use the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture informing their doctrine.
I know president Nelson is a prophet of God and he has the mantle and the charge to lead God’s church at this time
I wonder what it would've been like when Jesus Christ died. Of course we have some sort of idea of the confusion from the scriptures. But I'm sure there were men who claimed they had the authority. But the proof to me is which one grew and keeps growing, The Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints.
So Catholics are where we need to be by this rationale?
I’ve also thought much about what might have happened after Christ’s death. The difference that I believe I see is that Jesus’s “church” was simply a loose knit group of believers in him. People who shared similar ideology and faith. There was no corporate entity. No authoritarian hierarchy. No deeds to realestate or intellectual property. As Jesus said “my kingdom is not of this world “. It was a spiritual kingdom.
@@johncato4412 no they were the farthest thing from what Christ's church was. They changed doctrines, lost who and what God is by the trinity. The list goes on and on.
@@thedailydump7407 there's a thing called the priesthood and the authority to perform ordainces in his name.
You just made my point.
FYI, Terry Patience is an extended cousin as I’ve spoken to him
unless you added it to the chart, 1920 council of friends is where the “fundamentalists” line starts.
Excited for your Brigham Young content. I do not believe Joseph was a polygamist in the sense Brigham was either. And yes, I am a faithful, Latter-day Saint following the prophet and all that good stuff.
Would be fun to see you on Ward Radio, Cwic media, maybe even Michelle Stone’s channel
Thanks. I’ve been on Ward Radio and Michelle’s channel.
Technically, most within the former RLDS did not believe in the changes of the RLDS church at the time of the name change. Hence many break offs from the Community of Christ. Also the corruption of setting up the leaders retirement funds. I encourage you to check into the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I did my student teaching at a Jr high in Murray. You could tell a kid's last name would be Kingston without asking. They were all very pale, under sized and usually cross-eyed. Don't mean to put them down, but I could tell the lifestyle their church was trying to maintain was hard on the children. But they were smart snd attentive in class.
I believe the Doctrine of Christ and the Dever Snuffer Fellowship are different groups.
Connor do you want to be in the church? You are posting some things that many would find apostate I think.
connors' musings are very important in my view...keeping us frosty to the fact the dc121 is very common among men, especially lawyers, medical dr.s and in general any latter-day sophistry. Connor pushes me to open my heart, seeking virtue and Charity in my conclusions...growing to become aligned with Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.
Thoughtful prayer and sharing with your spouse helps to find the balance from opinion to function.
I don't think it is apostate to question narratives and historical documents authenticity. Isn't apostasy falling away from truth? The church has changed their narrative so many times about Joseph his martyrdom, polygamy...etc. how to you keep up with not being apostate then when the "truth" keeps changing.
Great research as usual 👍
Those former friends of Joseph and his family did associate with if not sometimes joined the strangites. However that changed as the prophecy came about Joseph Smith the third to lead the church (former RLDS)
Rock star Alice Cooper was the son of one of the “elders” (apostle?) of The Church of Jesus Christ (Rigdonites) and his grandfather was the president. Alice said that as a young person he went to bed with a Book of Mormon on his nightstand. Obviously, he turned away from his church in his late teenage years.
Hence, the beginning of the myth that Alice Cooper was a Mormon.
@@philskousen8574apparently it wasn’t a myth. He just wasn’t a Brighamite Mormon.
Alice Cooper is a devout Christian now. I haven’t been able to find anything about what he thinks of Mormonism now .
Connor do you think it was just a coincidence that the Melchizedek priesthood wasn't conferred for an entire generation?
The “Come Follow Me” lesson for Sep 23-29 has several references for knowing when you are hearing the voice of the Spirit. That would be my Chief recommendation on reacting to new Church policies. Whether I immediately agree with a new policy or not, I owe it to myself and to the Church leadership to test it according to the accumulation of understanding I have gained over the years. There are days when I think it would have been exciting to have been part of the early church. And then there are other days when I recognize that I personally need more time to process any new knowledge, and so far have had the luxury of that time to deal with policy changes.
Man you totally missed the only group that does an endowment-type ritual... the Cutlerites! Bonus: where is their temple they do that today?
I have a hard time untangling my “beliefs”. What is scriptural?What was just a teaching from a well-intentioned (hopefully) servant trying to calm chaos? One such belief is that the Gospel or priesthood authority will never be taken from the earth as this is the last dispensation. But does this mean the church won’t/can’t fall into apostasy, as I have always been led to believe? Or simply that it has been restored for the final time before Christ’s second coming? Seems like a lot of things were said during periods of massive shift, like the succession crisis or the manifesto, to try and reign things in, but does that mean they are actually doctrine? This question came to mind when you spoke of the RLDS break offs in the 80’s and since. Do those people not harbor the belief that the restoration of priesthood authority was final and lasting? If they do, how can they jump ship from what they’ve decided was the true branch? And if they don’t, where/who did this idea come from, and should it bear as much weight as it always has in my mind?
Didn't Joseph give a prophecy that the church would be split at times but to always follow the MAJORITY of the 12... i think it was called "the key that will never rust"
It is alleged that he said this, but I don't believe he did. I'll be discussing this specific quote in an upcoming musing in a few weeks.
Just when I thought Bennett couldn't have been any more of a tool. Now you're telling me he's Illuminati. Literally LOL!
13:03 Do you know when Brigham began styling himself not merely as the president, but the prophet of the Church?
If there was no transfiguration why then did so many follow Brigham Young west when Voree (James Strange) was so much closer, or Pittsburg with Sidney was much settled and wealthy for the time vs sagebrush and at times hostile native Americans?
Most who went west had been converted in Europe by the 12. BY did not become president of the church for years. They were following the 12. In fact, many of the 12 objected when BY made himself the leader.
@@rebekahgriffin567 they left nauvoo in 1846, BY was ordained in what, 1847?
@@Thomas123-c1vover 3.5 yrs after the murders of Joseph and Hyrum. Quite a while if the church members considered him the rightful successor.
@@rebekahgriffin567 again they left in 1846. Not that long. Who do you think is the rightful successor? Who was ordained earlier (don't count James strang what an imposter)
@@Thomas123-c1v I don’t think there was a valid successor. The church had already been put under condemnation. I believe it is currently in the wilderness. Meaning it is up to each person to live the doctrine of Christ- repent and come unto Jesus for redemption. I don’t see authority as something that is passed down man to man, but something that comes from a personal relationship with the Lord. So to me a prophet is not the same as an inherited church leadership position. The scriptures tell us that there will be many prophets in the last days. Crying repentance.
Rule of thumb with all of these 1000s of break off church’s. The church of God the one true church, lies within every actual Mormon that believes in the Book of Mormon and the prophet Joseph. All other earthly church is just that earthly. Stand where you are and preach the gospel.
Only about 30 to 40 percent of the church followed Brigham Young. Many of those who did so were immigrants stuck here and had a language barrier. The Brighamites were the most organized and largest group so many things thought following Brigham Young was their best chance for survival. Those who knew Joseph best and had options knew better than to follow Brigham.
Where do you get your 30-40% number from? I've seen others say this but haven't seen any data. I found a BYU Studies article where they claimed around 50% but again, no source cited.
@@cboyack I have seen this over the years in many reports outside of the official LDS church numbers. I will go back and see if I can find exact sources.
The official LDS church numbers do not add up with their narrative. In 1844 the church had a total membership of 26k members. Within two years in 1846 the membership grew to almost 34k. By 1848 the numbers grew to 40 1/2 k. If you agree with the church’s statement that 50% of the church followed Brigham Young the statistics should look like 18k members in 1846 and 20k members in 1848 but they do not report that.
What do you have to say about the rest of my comment regarding a large percent who followed Brigham did so mainly because they were immigrants?
@@erikpeoples8041 if you can find the source of those numbers maybe you will find their motivation too.
but that’s sounds more likely to be found looking at the branches’ members’ journals and records.
we are a record-keeping people. were they? where are these things
I think Whitney Horning mentioned that once Brig taught polygamy was of God, 3,000 saints left the Brighamite church. That group knew Joseph was not a polygamist and knew that he was completely against it. I wonder where that group ended up.
My great great grandfather Benjamin Franklin Johnson, wrote in his journal, about being in that meeting and seeing Brigham Young’s countenance change and how he spoke with a whistle like how Joseph Smith spoke because of his broken tooth. Benny was very close with Joseph and so he bore his testimony on it!
I had a great grandmother who also wrote about Brigham’s transfiguration. It was a testimony builder to me until I found out that she never mentioned it until the 1880s.
I don't buy it. ua-cam.com/video/9gAmoI51F34/v-deo.html
@@thedailydump7407 This.
Not a contemporary journal recollection. It's called social contagion.
@@cboyack I’m sorry you don’t… in it his account he stated that not every member seen it. So I believe what my grandfather wrote as he bore his testimony on the matter. You’re not going to sway my opinion on the either!
1:27. Conner. There are family journals and stories debunking your statement about Brigham Young. They claim to have witnessed it. Just because you believe it’s a fallacy doesn’t make that true.
“…it was Brigham Young and if any one doubts the right of Brigham to manage affairs for the Saints, all I have to say to them is this. Get the spirit of God and know for yourselves. The Lord will provide for his own. Has the word of the Lord ever failed? Br Young will not live forever clothed with mortality. But He who rules in heaven and on earth will control all things by the counsel of his own will. Saints will live.” (37-year-old Emily Smith Hoyt, 1st Cousin and friend of Joseph & Hyrum)
Get the Spirit of God and know for yourselves… Yes, you too, Brother Boyack… you “Brighamite” 😂
Why doesn’t the temple lot group do baptisms for the dead?
Oh my gosh!!! So much drama!
One can go to any ward he or she wants to go to.... BUT one's records MUST be in the ward they "live " in ... why? If one doesn't feel the Spirit in the ward that they live in but feel the Spirit in the other ward, why can't their records be transferred over to the other ward? The bishop of the assigned ward can know of a person's activity in the other ward for temple recommend interview so why not just transfer records so a person can have full rights and privileges belonging to the ward...
My grandfather went to jail. Iabthus inform Barlow. My dad grew up in Short Creek , but if you say it right , you have to say Short crick
Doctrine of Christ is not the same as the snufferites!.
Snufferites focus on the second comforter...
Doctrine of Christ focus on the Doctrine of christ and specifically the baptism of fire which would come before receiving the second comforter... they believe in the second comforter but most seem to be seeking of the baptism of fire first...
The snufferites do not seem that worried about the baptism of fire... it seems many of them assume they have already recieved it.. which I would not assume...
First! And loved your pronunciation of "sects"!
Connor - I very much enjoy your perspectives, and greatly value the presence of independent thinkers such as yourself among active members of the LDS Church. However, you lose me when you side with Michelle Stone and her polygamy denier sect, which looks to be rapidly headed down the road to eventually breaking away from the LDS Church. I have researched the historical record in depth, and the evidence is overwhelming that polygamy came from Joseph, Jr. I know that the Stone-ites have tons of (very dubious) arguments to back their dissident position, but in my research I found a very relevant historical record that has not received much notice but which I find very convincing, so I share it with you. In the 1865 conference of the RLDS church, Joseph III proposed that it be made an article of faith of the RLDS church that his father did not practice polygamy - but this was voted down because all the older RLDS members who had been adults in Nauvoo, despite their opposition to polygamy (these were after all people who had joined the RLDS rather than go to Utah) knew that in fact Joseph Jr. was involved in polygamy. Joseph III had to wait until these older RLDS (which included William Marks) had all died before implementing denial of his father's involvement with polygamy as a belief of the RLDS church (a belief which the Community of Christ has since acknowledged to be contrary to the historical record).
Connor, my good friend. Look at the similar claim that the former RLDS which is similar to many that followed the false prophet Brigham Young.
Connor at 5:55 you said "like the quorum of the 12, Sydney rigdon was ordained a prophet, seer, and revelator" are you sure that the quorum of the 12 was ever ordained as prophets, seers, revelators? I'm pretty sure they were just ordained elders. Another twist in church history and understanding the offices of the priesthood and how they functioned through time is really important to understand the succession crisis. The quorum of 12 was not equal to the first presidency. Only the first presidency was ordained as prophets seers and revelators. It wasn't till later that those titles were bestowed upon the 12 in Utah.
Good catch, I haven't looked into that specifically and may have just been assuming. I'll add it to the to-research list. :)
@@cboyack Just one example of revisions to the history...
Joseph said to the Twelve in a special council meeting with them held on Saturday, January 16, 1836.
The original manuscript says this:
“…also the 12 are not subject to any other than the first presidency; viz. myself, S. Rigdon and F.G. Williams-”
(you will notice some changes in punctuation as this is now taken directly from Vol. 2 of the History of the Church):
“…also the Twelve are not subject to any other than the first Presidency, viz., “myself,” said the Prophet, “Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, who are now my Counselors; and where I am not, there is no First Presidency over the Twelve.”
I have been trying to find information on that.
Minutes, 16 August 1841
In 1841 Joseph smith altered their duties after they returned from England.
“History, 1838-1856, volume C-1 [2 November 1838-31 July 1842],” 1221,
However, when I read it, it says Don Carlos, Emma & Joseph's 14 month baby died that morning and I don't see where Joseph was there and I don't understand the extent of the change in their duties.
Someone said "counsel of the 50 meeting" he had right before he died. But those meeting notes written after Joseph died I think