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

[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?

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.

Glad to know I am at least not alone. Thanks!

[The Red Pill]

Joseph Smith taught that we should seek truth from any source...that would include RFM in this case.

I don't agree with RFM on certain things, many things actually. But I am speaking about his interpretation of things...NOT his presentation of facts.

On this issue, I think RFM nails it.

The more I go down the rabbit hole, in many cases studying the actual words of Brigham himself...the guy was a gangster. Every vice and every angle. He destroyed the restoration.

Draw your own conclusions, but don't defend Brigham in ignorance.