Apostolic Coup D'é·tat - The History of Brigham Young's Seizure of Church Power

[Luke]

Fables for those with itching ears

If you close your eyes and wish hard enough, one can certainly make that true.

If you know the things I have previously believed and studied, you wouldn’t make such a comment.

A couple of years ago I was in this position and was posting all the evidence I could find in favour of it.

But it’s not true.

No...you believe it's not true. BIG DIFFERENCE!!

Ok… I believe it’s not true.

[gruden2.0]

If you close your eyes and wish hard enough, one can certainly make that true.

If you know the things I have previously believed and studied, you wouldn’t make such a comment.

A couple of years ago I was in this position and was posting all the evidence I could find in favour of it.

But it’s not true.

Like many here, I was a TBM, and swallowed the whole story (made up years after the fact) how Brigham, when delivering his pitch to the Mormons, took on the voice and appearance of Joseph, among many others. Over the years I've read, studied, and came to peer behind the carefully constructed facade of the Mormon church. We do not progress when we believe fairy tales.

It was very clear in the days of Joseph that the apostles jurisdiction lay outside the Stakes of Zion, and much of their time was spent there to underscore that point. They were told that explicitly. They were never sitting in councils of the government of the church. Upon the death of Joseph, it was well-documented how Brigham orchestrated a campaign to remove anyone in his path to leadership of the church. Not only that, Brigham slandered his widow, Emma, for years, and withheld money that was legally hers because she did not cooperate with him. It's all documented. If you want to do a hand wave to dismiss it, well, I simply question such if they're really interested in finding truth.

I can be more understanding if someone has a hard time accepting that Brigham had brought a woman he had taken a liking to back from his mission to England, and that Joseph was planning to convene a council against him at the time he was arrested with Hyrum. But what is certainly undeniable is that Brigham made sure he had a nice house built for himself in Nauvoo while the command stood to build a temple. The man certainly had his priorities.

The Mormon church was placed under condemnation, and Brigham never did a thing to remove that. And here we are now. The church is more a hindrance than a help. Believing in a prophetic calling for Brigham won't get you anywhere as it will for Joseph and the Book of Mormon.

I've read your comments, Luke, and what you seek you will have to get from the Hand of God Himself. The Church's second anointing and related rituals lack any substance and particularly power to accomplish anything meaningful. People with fake degrees can only hand out fake degrees. The authorization granted to Joseph died with him. Understanding that can help you find where to get what you're looking for.

[Luke]

I will respond to your comment tomorrow, gruden. But what is so disappointing to see is people’s hatred for Brigham Young.

I’ve not tried to claim Brigham as more than he actually was (a steady, guiding hand for the Church upon the death of Joseph Smith). But to deny that this righteous man was anything less than faithful to the Prophet Joseph Smith and to God is to deny what is as plain as day.

The Lord has warned me so many times about speaking about Brother Brigham with disdain. Be careful, is all I can say.

[Bronco73idi]

Has anyone hear ever thought about the structure authority of the early church? Peter had ultimate authority until Paul argued with him over keeping the mosaic law in the Christian church.

I haven’t watched the videos yet but I would use the early church workings as a standard. They kept and practiced the Old Testament law for over a decade.

[gruden2.0]

Has anyone hear ever thought about the structure authority of the early church? Peter had ultimate authority until Paul argued with him over keeping the mosaic law in the Christian church.

I haven’t watched the videos yet but I would use the early church workings as a standard. They kept and practiced the Old Testament law for over a decade.

I was reading something recently that there really was no heirarchy then as we imagine it today. Each apostle, through their preaching, built up congregations in all kinds of places, but there was no president or uber-apostle as we like to project today. Peter didn't lose anything (besides possibly an argument) for a disagreement with Paul.

What united people was their belief in Christ, it was more a loose confederacy of like-minded people (usually) than a rigid structure. We project our Mormonism onto past things, a lot like Disney does when they do their historical fiction pieces.

[Lexew1899]

Brigham seems to have to followed the path of Moses. But even Moses didn't step foot into the Promised Land. Was Brigham faulted? He died in 1877. If the globalhomo church is teaching false doctrine it could be blamed more on Rusty than the old Methodist guy that died 145 years ago.

[Christianlee]

John 3:16-17

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

[Bronco73idi]

Has anyone hear ever thought about the structure authority of the early church? Peter had ultimate authority until Paul argued with him over keeping the mosaic law in the Christian church.

I haven’t watched the videos yet but I would use the early church workings as a standard. They kept and practiced the Old Testament law for over a decade.

I was reading something recently that there really was no heirarchy then as we imagine it today. Each apostle, through their preaching, built up congregations in all kinds of places, but there was no president or uber-apostle as we like to project today. Peter didn't lose anything (besides possibly an argument) for a disagreement with Paul.

What united people was their belief in Christ, it was more a loose confederacy of like-minded people (usually) than a rigid structure. We project our Mormonism onto past things, a lot like Disney does when they do their historical fiction pieces.

To a certain degree, yes. If there was absolutely no hierarchy then Paul wouldn’t have had the authority to end polygamy through all of the churches after the argument, this was roughly 55AD or 2 decades after Peter was charged to feed the Lord’s sheep and run the lord’s church. In a since Paul took the reigns.

[GeeR]

This is very well researched, and one of those..."they didn't ever teach this in Sunday-school" moments.

This 2 part series covers how Brigham seized control of the church and made sure he stayed in control. Also discusses the "mysterious" death of Samual Smith shortly after Joseph and Hyrum were murdered.

These videos were put out by Radio Free Mormon, he did a great job. He’s articulate and very well versed in the scriptures and church history. I’d hate to debate with him, he’s too glib. If you want a real treat he just finished exposing the new church historian for the fraud he, like his attorney predecessors, are. He knows the guy well as they were missionary companions in Japan together but went their separate ways. The meat starts at the 11:10 mark.

Radio Free Mormon: 251: Meet the New Church Historian!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J3PQ8uUnkY

[Joan7]

The Church structure was definitely changed post-JS. And it was wrong.

But I don’t believe it was born out of maliciousness. I believe that they simply did not understand the Priesthood like Joseph did (this is just a fact).

You might want to look at how Brigham strong-armed everyone to get his way. It started with Samuel Smith being mysteriously poisoned. People voicing objections to Brigham's leadership were followed by 'whittlers' or abruptly called on missions far away. Hosea Stout was a straight-up thug who did Brigham's bidding.

No, it wasn't a misunderstanding, Brigham wanted the power. He wanted his wives.

Fables for those with itching ears

Have you read Isaiah Chapter 1? There are hundreds of similar scripture references clearly telling of a last days apostasy. You accuse folks here of having itching ears, but could it be that you do not believe the prophetic word in scriptures? It seems to me that Lehi's dream of the iron rod, was exactly for the situation we are in now, i.e. there are some who hold to that iron rod(scriptures) for all they are worth, while others listen to the living prophet, which is never identified as the iron rod. Those that listen to the living prophet, rather than trusting in the words God preserved for us, to help us navigate this time, will end up somewhere very different than they think.

[Reluctant Watchman]

There’s still Twelve Apostles. The Quorum of Twelve has 12 men.

The First Presidency is a separate body. Three High Priests/Apostles.

There is no Q15. It doesn’t exist. It’s a lazy way of speaking collectively of two different priesthood quorums.

Then you need to tell Nelson to stop telling the saints that there are 15 men you can place your “complete trust” in.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I will respond to your comment tomorrow, gruden. But what is so disappointing to see is people’s hatred for Brigham Young.

I’ve not tried to claim Brigham as more than he actually was (a steady, guiding hand for the Church upon the death of Joseph Smith). But to deny that this righteous man was anything less than faithful to the Prophet Joseph Smith and to God is to deny what is as plain as day.

The Lord has warned me so many times about speaking about Brother Brigham with disdain. Be careful, is all I can say.

Of course we have a great dislike for the man. But, of course, our arguments are only “fables” according to you. If Joseph wasn’t a polygamist, then what happened? The church literally espoused sexual abuse and pedophilia under the guise of religion. I mean, I feel Brigham conspired with others to kill the prophet, so there’s that.

[Reluctant Watchman]

BTW, Joseph knew what was coming:
https://www.reluctantwatchman.com/josephs-last-dreams

[BeNotDeceived]

These videos were put out by Radio Free Mormon, he did a great job. He’s articulate and very well versed in the scriptures and church history. I’d hate to debate with him, he’s too glib. If you want a real treat he just finished exposing the new church historian for the fraud he, like his attorney predecessors, are. He knows the guy well as they were missionary companions in Japan together but went their separate ways. The meat starts at the 11:10 mark.

Radio Free Mormon: 251: Meet the New Church Historian!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J3PQ8uUnkY

The deception continues to crumble.

3*8**

[Ado]

I ask this as someone who is trying to figure where I stand in my beliefs : For those of you who feel that the church was seized by BY, or that current priesthood leaders have apostatized and are not worthy to be followed, how do you look at the restoration? Is it on hold? How do you view the temple? Is it God’s house? Are the covenants you made there valid? Where are you going from here?

[BeNotDeceived]

I ask this as someone who is trying to figure where I stand in my beliefs : For those of you who feel that the church was seized by BY, or that current priesthood leaders have apostatized and are not worthy to be followed, how do you look at the restoration? Is it on hold? How do you view the temple? Is it God’s house? Are the covenants you made there valid? Where are you going from here?

User statistics
Joined:Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:17 pm
Last active:Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:14 pm
Total posts:56 | Search user’s posts
(0.00% of all posts / 0.07 posts per day)

Your next post will be your 57th. One in a long list of number 57 Anomalies. Search 57ii or visit march8miracle.org to discover a significant identity.

[Mamabear]

I ask this as someone who is trying to figure where I stand in my beliefs : For those of you who feel that the church was seized by BY, or that current priesthood leaders have apostatized and are not worthy to be followed, how do you look at the restoration? Is it on hold? How do you view the temple? Is it God’s house? Are the covenants you made there valid? Where are you going from here?

I look at the restoration with a different lens. We don’t have all the answers right now because church history is muddled. But we have enough scriptures to teach us the way.
Joseph “restored” truths yet being sealed to families is not in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. It is not a doctrine our Lord Jesus Christ taught. However, being sealed to the Spirit is throughout the scriptures and that is what we need to aim for.
So, for me, the temple is not necessary.
Covenants can be made between a person and God….there is no temple or church needed to do it. The scriptures prove it. If we read Mosiah 5 we know that the people made covenants directly with God. The words they spoke were accepted by God and they were born of the Spirit.
We can achieve the same thing.

[gruden2.0]

I will respond to your comment tomorrow, gruden. But what is so disappointing to see is people’s hatred for Brigham Young.

I’ve not tried to claim Brigham as more than he actually was (a steady, guiding hand for the Church upon the death of Joseph Smith). But to deny that this righteous man was anything less than faithful to the Prophet Joseph Smith and to God is to deny what is as plain as day.

The Lord has warned me so many times about speaking about Brother Brigham with disdain. Be careful, is all I can say.

I do not hate Brigham. But he did many, many things that were wrong.

Joseph Smith taught publicly on numerous occasions that the Saints were NOT to practice polygamy, yet that was one of the first things Brigham instituted when he seized control. Emma maintained after Joseph's death that she had been his only wife, and she was in a position to know, and that's one of the reasons she was slandered.

I wonder if Brigham had received any warning about speaking of an 'Elect Lady' with disdain? I can't imagine Joseph would have been at all pleased at her treatment by Brigham.

There have been a few points in my life where the Lord reproved me for certain things where I had the wrong attitude, but Brigham Young has never been one of them.

[BeNotDeceived]

How did there become 15 Apostles instead of 12?

The 12 were to keep the Prophet in line. Today the profit keeps the 12 in line.

Where did the profit get the authority to fire the Patriarch whose authority is higher?

When did God change His mind about the authority of the 12?

Didn't the LDS church always have a Smith family descendant patriarch until around 10 years ago? The one died and they decided to not replace him.

Yeah. Where did they get the authority to do that? I missed that revelation.

A spattering of Patriarchal Blessing’s are a last vestige of greatness.

[Baurak Ale]

I ask this as someone who is trying to figure where I stand in my beliefs : For those of you who feel that the church was seized by BY, or that current priesthood leaders have apostatized and are not worthy to be followed, how do you look at the restoration? Is it on hold? How do you view the temple? Is it God’s house? Are the covenants you made there valid? Where are you going from here?

I look at the restoration with a different lens. We don’t have all the answers right now because church history is muddled. But we have enough scriptures to teach us the way.
Joseph “restored” truths yet being sealed to families is not in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. It is not a doctrine our Lord Jesus Christ taught. However, being sealed to the Spirit is throughout the scriptures and that is what we need to aim for.
So, for me, the temple is not necessary.
Covenants can be made between a person and God….there is no temple or church needed to do it. The scriptures prove it. If we read Mosiah 5 we know that the people made covenants directly with God. The words they spoke were accepted by God and they were born of the Spirit.
We can achieve the same thing.

I've said it a number of times and will call it a key: that person who grinds their heel against polygamy and refuse to believe that Joseph ever taught it will in time come to reject the temple.

For the passing reader, remember the spirit you have felt in the temple and heed this warning!

[InfoWarrior82]

The Church structure was definitely changed post-JS. And it was wrong.

But I don’t believe it was born out of maliciousness. I believe that they simply did not understand the Priesthood like Joseph did (this is just a fact).

Well it's a good thing we have a prophet that talks with the Lord, right? Hmmm... Maybe he's on vacation and turned His phone off?

[BuriedTartaria]

I ask this as someone who is trying to figure where I stand in my beliefs : For those of you who feel that the church was seized by BY, or that current priesthood leaders have apostatized and are not worthy to be followed, how do you look at the restoration? Is it on hold? How do you view the temple? Is it God’s house? Are the covenants you made there valid? Where are you going from here?

People have varying views on all your questions. You directed this question to people who don't believe in Brigham's claims, so Brigham fans, this post is being explained from that perspective. I view the restoration as sort of on hold, while sort of progressing, though I don't think "the work" is progressing at the hands of the LDS church. The Book of Mormon speaks of the fall of the mighty gentile nation and of a repentant gentile remnant laboring with the Lamanite remnant to build a New Jerusalem. It speaks of the work of the Father, of a mighty servant. The work of the father, I assume, is the work that has gone on since the idea to make this planet was formed and is the plan/work to save this planet.

David Whitmer believed the Book of Mormon alluded to an initial groundwork laying for the Restoration (what Joseph did, bringing forth the book) with a much greater work to be done at a later time by another servant. People feel a variety of ways about David Whitmer because he did end up viewing Joseph as a fallen prophet (some of the audience you directed your question to agree that Joseph was a polygamist and a fallen prophet, but a lot of the people you directed your question to think Joseph's reputation was smeared by conspiracy and that he was not a polygamist and not a fallen prophet), but I think most people who fall under the group you are directing your question to, I think they would agree with David on his view that a greater work is to come using the Book of Mormon by a great servant. So is the restoration on pause as you asked? Hard to say. Seems likely that small and simple things are occurring that will continue to bring us closer to the prophecies discussed in the Book of Mormon that have not yet occurred, but the view is that there isn't currently one single "God's church", that the LDS church isn't "God's church"

I don't believe in temple work the way it is taught and framed by the LDS church. I think there is truth to having a temple and using it for something, but I don't think we have the whole picture. Perhaps other people can offer you better thoughts on this question of yours. If Christ's atonement is going to resurrect me, heal me from my sins and bring me back to my Father's kingdom, am I going to be alone there if I don't get married in a temple? Why exactly do I need a temple marriage to ensure I will be with my spouse after this life? What about people who are in inadequate marriages who have been married in the temple? Are they going to be stuck with that person for eternity when it's clear that their marriage and the love in it is not only not very good, but far from ideal? I'm quoting from Denver Snuffer here, not because I read what he had to say and agreed with it. I'm quoting it because I woke up to the realization that a lot of people are in bad marriages but in LDS doctrine they are sealed to their spouses for eternity. This and realizing I no longer believe in the LDS church's general message made me wonder what the truth of marriage and marriage enduring beyond the grave is. I think Denver's comments here are at the very least interesting musings to consider

There are many unhappy Latter-day Saint marriages which exist in name only. The notorious high record use of anti-depressants by women in Utah is driven in large part by unhappy marriages they believe ought to be preserved because of a misunderstanding of these verses. Yet the underlying reality that the union causes suffering rather than rejoicing cannot be escaped. So they alter their natural reaction to the unhappy union by altering the brain with chemicals. Such a marriage cannot endure into eternity. Though the woman may sacrifice herself to preserve her heart’s desire to be a faithful, married mother, her unworthy marriage is not what will endure. It cannot be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, though she may be otherwise qualified.


Now, to be clear, I do not advocate divorce, particularly where minor children are involved. But I do advocate a higher view of the marital union where the prevailing reason for the union is love. This should be the whole preparation for marriage. Before contracting the union, the parties should look for that spouse with whom they can find heaven on earth. Unhappy marriages might all be saved if the parties would repent. The higher ideal is not impossible for any union to seek and find. That is the right of every party here, if they will but seek after it. If however, after every effort has been made to both find, and cultivate such a union, it proves to be an impossibility, then the parties ought to use the precious time allotted to them in mortality to find a union which will be worthy of continuation. Not at the expense of their children, who are entitled to have both parents raise them. The Holy Spirit of Promise was intended to be shed upon many marriages, rather than a comparative few. Happiness was the design of our creation. When we avoid it by our misconduct and foolishness, we do not please heaven. Nor does gritting our teeth, putting up with miserable relationships, and enduring an unholy union please heaven or merit some eternal reward.

https://denversnuffer.com/2010/10/3-nephi-12-31-32/


The emphasis on Adam and Eve in the bible makes me think there is a heavenly/afterlife element to marriage but I don't think the answer to all this is found in the LDS doctrine of temple marriages particularly how they are the de facto pathway for eternal marriage occurring.


Where am I going from here? I've been on my own for a few years. I believe in God, Christ, the Book of Mormon. I believe Joseph Smith translated it. I believe great work is left to be done. I think the LDS church is less than it claims to be. I don't tell my family about this. I attend church occasionally to maintain appearances. I keep my eyes on people who produce thoughts and analyses on viewing the Book of Mormon (in a believing manner) and Mormon history from a non-LDS orthodox perspective. Out of the people who produce such material, two of them claim to have been visited by Christ and angels. I pay particular attention to what they have to say. I can't say I disbelieve their claims but I can't say I entirely believe their claims either. The two people I read are Denver Snuffer's material and Rob Smith's material.

Here is a link to Rob Smith's blog and a short snippet of what you can expect to hear from him: https://upwardthought.blogspot.com/

We are pretty numb to God's signals, insisting with fervitude that they only come in very restrained channels, narrowly defined by religious traditions given to us by people who very obviously do not know God themselves. Just as God can't be contained within one day a week, he can't be contained in the narrow boxes we try to limit him to.

The rest of his comments attached to that thought - https://upwardthought.blogspot.com/2022 ... harge.html

I think Denver has a better, clearer message about what the restoration is about, what happened to it, and where is it going and I think the following of good people he has gathered is a testament that the writing (fruit) he has produced is sweet to the taste, good for the soul. In other words, it is compelling and it is fruit that at least gives someone the chance to look into his claims. Christ told us to know the validity of claims of alleged prophets by their fruits.

A short statement from him last year that sort of gives an overview of what you can expect from his message:

It was 216 years ago today that Joseph Smith was born. Oddly the largest beneficiary of his birth, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has failed to make any note of his birthday.

The Lord used Joseph Smith to set in motion the events promised as signs to precede the Lord’s return. In his lifetime Joseph accomplished all the preliminary steps, and died before everything could be completed. After a pause for nearly two centuries, the Lord has set in motion the final set of promised events.

We owe a great debt to Joseph, and could not have the opportunities given to us now if not for him.

His blog: https://denversnuffer.com/
A digital library with a lot of stuff attached to him and his following: https://restorationarchives.com/



I would say most of the people you directed your question to are choosing to remain independent believers of the Book of Mormon, at least for the time being.

[BeNotDeceived]

It was 216 years ago today that Joseph Smith was born.

An anniversary of my joining LDSFF for whoever is keeping track of peculiarities.

This was one of my own free will and choice.

[zionssuburb]

I listened to this even though it comes from a source I'd never trust more than I could throw them/him, RFM and 'well-researched' should never be in the same sentence. But if you want the absolute most sinister look at anything in our history, this is where you'd go. It's like the famous panel of experts at Mormon History Association, about the release of the Council of 50 minutes, the absolute best historians of the last 60 years sitting on that panel, and their basic response was to shrug, there's nothing there there was their collective response (Jan Shipps isn't a member and shared the opinion). Could you find sourcing for what they are saying? Sure, but they all quote each other in a circular path that serves to give more credibility. Read everything, Read Leonard/Allen, read Leonard Again, read Bushman, read Park, Compton, Givens, Devry Anderson's Temple stuff, I mean, look at it all, and not a single person could conclude what RFM concluded/

Every opportunity was there for other groups to make their cases long before BY and the rest of the 12 arrive in Nauvoo, it seems like if the saints had the understanding of what was supposed to happen it would've been pretty easy. If it was supposed to be the Stake High council to lead, why didn't they? It isn't all that hard to see what happened was a pretty natural event. With the problem of the next-in-charge (Hyrum) was also killed, there were several options. The 12, the 1P (Rigdon) and/or the Stake High Council (which was Marks who championed a Smith Family succession). Since the conference convened was mostly Rigdon vs Brigham, it appears the church chose against Marks, I've heard lots of speculation here, mostly that it was well known that Marks had split with JS and Mark's group was the Nauvoo Exposister group, and I just don't think American's were going to be in to a family dynasty, some people in the church at this time had served in the Revolutionary War, or were the sons/daughters of soldiers. The 'poisoning Samuel Smith' thing is just not credible to me.

Why, if the people didn't know it was the 12 that was the next best group to run the church did they select them at the conference, one reason might be that it was the 12 that organized the saints flight from Missouri to Nauvoo as well. It's likely the Lord had several options available, it's likely there could've been the Patriarch to lead the church or the Stake High Council, but it just wasn't what the people selected. We have scriptural evidence that the people can choose the leadership structure regardless of what the Lord wanted, to me, the Lord just works with us regardless of how it came to be. HJG almost had the 'senior apostle' thing eliminated as the succession in later years because many of the younger Apostles felt that George Q. Cannon was a tyrant and they didn't want him selected to be in the 1P again, in fact, up until LS the journals of the apostles say they considered many different things than just the next 'senior apostle' would become the prophet. Some of this is Agency and Tradition.

We had stupid Regional Representatives, we had dumb 'Assistants to the 12' that were treated as general authorities. We had Presidents of the High Priesthood alongside a Stake President, sometimes we get some course correction, sometimes I guess we don't. Up until the DOM era the 1P basically ran the church, which is why there were multiple counselors added vs using the 12. Often the 12 were stake presidents, they were mission presidents, etc.. but until part of coorelation suggested that the 12 be given more oversight, did the job of running the church move from the 1P to the Q15.

[BuriedTartaria]

It was 216 years ago today that Joseph Smith was born.

An anniversary of my joining LDSFF for whoever is keeping track of peculiarities.

This was one of my own free will and choice.

That is pretty interesting!