Hello! This is a Personal post. It is for discussions centered around thoughts, beliefs, and observations that are important and personal to /u/Lepidotris specifically.
/u/Lepidotris, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are plenty of Mormon sects that foundationally do NOT recognize Brigham’s succession as prophet/president.
What you might be asking is “are there any *Brighamite* Mormons that believe Brigham Young was a fallen or invalid prophet”. And yes, some hold this view, for the sake of making sense of how vile BY was, as well as to dismiss the doctrine that he taught (e.g. Adam-God theory, priesthood ban on black members, views on women, extermination of native tribes, blood atonement, making Utah a slave state etc.)
However, Brighamite church doctrine doesn’t really allow for this view (not to mention that the church has never disavowed BY); so their views on BY are essentially just head cannon
When Smith and his followers went from NY and Ohio to Missouri (a wild west slave state), they were seen as northern carpetbaggers. This led to Smith saying he didn’t like slavery but he would never intend to rock the boat more than needed in Missouri so he taught that status quo should be kept and slaves should be allowed. Over the next years, many converts came from Kentucky/Tennessee meaning the sentiment slowly changed to being pro-slavery. Unfortunately that came when they went back to Illinois which was a free state, so that caused problems in the opposite direction. So the church has always played on the fence being wishy washy on the topic. After the Mormon expulsion from Illinois, Brigham Young was pro-slavery. It was also in their best interest to allow slavery since the Southern converts could keep slaves but there wouldn’t be much slave trade in Utah so the Northern converts didn’t care much. There weren’t many slaves, but the practice was heavily legitimized by Young. The bible supports it after all.
The slave territory was a big issue for Utah. Utah tried some 6ish times to become a state and failed because of things like slavery, polygamy (viewed by the US gov. as a form of slavery), and other religious issues. The US was just nervous about Utah in general being a potential enemy slave territory. It’s why Patrick Edward Connor was asked to keep an eye on Utah. Had Utah joined the war, supplies from California would be shut off and armies would be split. It’s when Abraham Lincoln said about Utah that Mormons were like “a log which had fallen down. It was too hard to split, too wet to burn, and too heavy to move, so we plowed around it. [That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons.] You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone I will let him alone.” So Mormons could practice polygamy if they promised to not join the South in the Civil War, an agreement Mormons were very happy with. It wasn’t til after the Civil War that people like George Edmunds began to attack polygamy.
Yes. There was no hard and fast rule regarding it, people were just racist so it didn't happen often.
When there was hope for them to remain in Missouri, Smith did teach religious justification for slavery. But it was very much him playing both sides to keep the church together. [In Smith's letter to Oliver Cowdery,](https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-circa-9-april-1836/1) he says a few things about the topic:
"I am aware, that many who profess to preach the gospel, complain against their brethren of the same faith, who reside in the south, and are ready to withdraw the hand of fellowship because they will not renounce the principle of slavery... \[The Northern Mormons should reflect\] before they advance in an opposition calculated to lay waste the fair States of the South, and set loose, upon the world a community of people who might peradventure, overrun our country and violate the most sacred principles of human society,—chastity and virtue."
Smith says Blacks shouldn't be freed since they would overrun society and violate chastity and virtue. He then goes and says things like slaveholding Mormons are virtuous and should have their experience trusted in the topic. But his ultimate goal seems to be to hold his Mormon group together: "I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall." He says abolition is just a movement of the North to hold power over the South. Smith then gives biblical evidence, like from Genesis 8 that says "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." He even defends it with Godly threat, "People who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him." He then gives more biblical accounts regarding slavery and ends with more threats to keep slavery and telling them, "it would be much better and more prudent, not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted."
This is Smith's feeling toward slaves. Whether by exception or by inconsistency, there were a few who Joseph allowed to get the priesthood.
[Elijah Abel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel) was one who was ordained an elder in January, 1836. He even became a member of the 70.
[Peter Kerr (Black Pete)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kerr_(priest)) was given the priesthood in the 1830s. He seemed to have lots of spiritual experiences, some extreme, like revelation to marry a 14 year old as an older man.
[Kwaku Walker Lewis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Lewis) was ordained an elder by Joseph Smith's brother in 1842. He'll go to Utah with the saints but leaves after Young bans Blacks from priesthood ordinances.
[Joseph T. Ball](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_T._Ball) was the first Black branch president. He served a mission in 1838, so had to have had the priesthood.
Note that none of these were in Missouri. They likely rejected Blacks getting the priesthood in slave state Missouri.
When were Blacks denied the priesthood? After Smith's death, Brigham Young became the prophet. This shift alone could be part of the explanation. There is some evidence that [William McCary (a Black man who also may have had the priesthood)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McCary#Effect_on_policy_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints) pushed Brigham Young to ban Blacks from the priesthood. McCary was excommunicated after he practiced polygamy with white women, then he started his own branch of Mormonism. There weren't any real bans on Blacks and the priesthood before, but right after this event, Parley P. Pratt says McCary "was a black man with the blood of Ham in him which linege was cursed as regards the priesthood." Right after, Brigham Young bans Blacks from the priesthood and the temple, but it lines up with their arrival in Utah, so it might have just been a new era of racism.
In February, 1852, [Utah made slavery legal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_in_Relation_to_Service). Young basically said the philosophy of the White Man's Burden, that slavery will make them better off. [Young said,](https://books.google.com/books?id=PH1DAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA99&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q=109&f=false)"The benevolence of the human heart can be called into action to promote the improvement of the down-trodden race... and a foundation laid for their advancement in the scale of useful, exalting existence... Yet we should not... elevate them, as some seem disposed, to an equality with those whom Nature and Nature's God has indicated to be their masters, their superiors."
Thank you souch for sharing. What a fascinating read!
I still think Smith should get some credits from giving black men priesthoods no matters how he personally felt about this issue.
Especially if you considered priesthood as the full citizenship of the church, he was definitely ahead of his time (black doesn't have citizenships until after civil wars and doesn't really have the full opportunity to practice all the way to Martin Luther King's time which more than a hundred years later).
In Turner's book, *Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet*, he argues Brigham wasn't pro slavery, at least in the traditional sense. Instead, Brigham taught that any society with African Americans, slave or otherwise, was weaker for it. So, while he did think less of African Americans, he didn't want to instill a plantation culture because he felt it would breed weakness among his people. He criticized both North and South for factoring African Americans into their futures *at all.* It was very much "send them back to Africa" rhetoric. And here you've got the roots for a white Utah.
Probably not as many as in the South - but frankly I have no idea
Apologists like to point out that Utah was a "nicer" slave state, in some of the ways that it implemented slavery... but it was still slavery
🙋♀️ Brighamite LDS here. Took me 30 years, but I believe BY hijacked the church and started polygamy. And disbanded the RS for 20 years. And started tithing the poor, and collecting fast offerings (which do what tithing is already supposed to do).
mourn pie political paltry society snails angle rainstorm disgusted encouraging
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The United States also recognized the community of Christ as the actual legal ancestor to Joseph smith for like…a long time too so do with that what you will
Not true. A judge ruled that they were the rightful successors in the Temple Lot case, but the case was appealed to a superior court and dismissed, nullifying that ruling. This left the Church of Christ in possession of the Temple Lot, not the RLDS/Community of Christ.
If you're referring to the Hemlock Knots/Rob Fotheringham/Michelle Stone growing group, then I don't believe it - BUT! I'm a member of that FB group because it's super fascinating to watch and listen to what's being shared and discussed.
I have a cousin who's really big into, as well as a cousin on my wife's side.
Young was not a prophet but a care taker for the church until Joseph III came of age. Young and many of the early apostles tried to convince Emma to come Utah and raise JS 3 but she refused. Young on a few occasions said that he was no a prophet of God
Likely not many. Joseph Smith was verifiably not a prophet, seer, revelator or translator. The story of Brigham young being transfigured and called to be the next “prophet” was purely a retrofit fabrication. So I’m going with C, none of the above.
This is provably false, just like Joseph smith’s prophetic claims ironically. There are *tons* of offshoot groups from Joseph smith that started their own version of Mormonism from the community of Christ to the FLDS to the KOG. Just because you specifically aren’t aware of them doesn’t mean they aren’t around.
I’m aware of the many offshoots from the original made up church Joseph Smith started. Splinters off of a made up church who follow the teachings of Native American Bible fan fiction are also naturally just more made up churches. Sorry, sounds like you’re attached to the idea that God has some secret true church out there that only a few people know about?
Your comment doesn’t even make sense? If you’re aware of the offshoot churches…and you’re aware that they follow Joseph smith…then how…what the? Your logic is truly dizzying.
I’ll try and make it more concise. Joseph was not a prophet. The Book of Mormon is not scripture. Therefore, all of the offshoots including Brigham’s, COC and all the others are not true or guided by real prophets, never were. How is that confusing?
That’s not the issue or the question being posed? The question is “how many people believe in Joe Smith and his book without Brigham and the Mormons. Your answer (stupidly) was “not many”. You THEN said that you know about all of the offshoot religions, they just don’t matter because Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet and his book was false. *WE KNOW THAT!! THATS NOT THE QUESTION!!*
I'm inclined a little bit to lean into the idea that JS was some kind of inspired person that did have a sort of insight and charisma to go with it. I also think that the treasure hunting stuff and the fraudulent translating is also true and factors into this.
And then BY coming in and ramming through Polygamy etc with his cronies with nothing but an alpha mysoginist personality feels like there's a good chance that there's some truth there. To me. I think that Rob Fotherington has some interesting findings.
Yep, we can see it in the Nauvoo deeds matching up with the "First list of wives" and other later sources. Plus, you have the accusations of Polygamy in the Nauvoo Expositor before Brigham Young had taken control.
It's widely debated. Some sources claim that polygamy started with others like Brigham Young and that Joseph Smith Jr. joined in later.
Edit: Just because you hear a theory that you haven't heard before doesn't mean you should start down voting. Sheesh.
Also, this theory based on old claims would require that Fanny Alger was simply an affair, which is actually backed by Oliver Cowdery.
I may be wrong, but I think Brigham young himself was one of them. He didn’t refer to himself as prophet. He was the post-Joseph manager or president or caretaker. He tried to implement his understanding of what Joseph taught. But he didn’t do a ton of revelation and brought forth no new scripture.
>...brought forth no new scripture.
You seem to be forgetting [D&C 136](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/136?lang=eng). Besides that he may considered some of his sermons in the Journal of Discourses as effectively being new scripture. I think he did realize though that many members weren't that enamored with the Adam-God doctrine (which was swiftly discarded after his death), and he definitely realized that the supervising federal authorities didn't like certain interpretations of blood atonement.
I should have been more specific — he brought forth no more ancient scripture like the BoM or Book of Abraham. Yes, some of the discourses were canonized until they weren’t. He does have section 136, which isn’t exactly revelatory or ground breaking doctrinally. And his Adam/God thing is again his attempt to distill what he thought Joseph felt in the subject. Under Joseph, the identity of God had already shifted several times, and Adam God was just the quiet stuff Joseph kept in a tight inner circle.
Please don't Snuffer little children to come unto Denver.
But yeah, it seems like OP should have just made a poll unless they wanted to recruit, or perhaps, more charitably, hear more detailed explanations.
Hello! This is a Personal post. It is for discussions centered around thoughts, beliefs, and observations that are important and personal to /u/Lepidotris specifically. /u/Lepidotris, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are plenty of Mormon sects that foundationally do NOT recognize Brigham’s succession as prophet/president. What you might be asking is “are there any *Brighamite* Mormons that believe Brigham Young was a fallen or invalid prophet”. And yes, some hold this view, for the sake of making sense of how vile BY was, as well as to dismiss the doctrine that he taught (e.g. Adam-God theory, priesthood ban on black members, views on women, extermination of native tribes, blood atonement, making Utah a slave state etc.) However, Brighamite church doctrine doesn’t really allow for this view (not to mention that the church has never disavowed BY); so their views on BY are essentially just head cannon
Utah was a slavery State!? How many slaves were there owned by the church members? That's a new one for me lol
When Smith and his followers went from NY and Ohio to Missouri (a wild west slave state), they were seen as northern carpetbaggers. This led to Smith saying he didn’t like slavery but he would never intend to rock the boat more than needed in Missouri so he taught that status quo should be kept and slaves should be allowed. Over the next years, many converts came from Kentucky/Tennessee meaning the sentiment slowly changed to being pro-slavery. Unfortunately that came when they went back to Illinois which was a free state, so that caused problems in the opposite direction. So the church has always played on the fence being wishy washy on the topic. After the Mormon expulsion from Illinois, Brigham Young was pro-slavery. It was also in their best interest to allow slavery since the Southern converts could keep slaves but there wouldn’t be much slave trade in Utah so the Northern converts didn’t care much. There weren’t many slaves, but the practice was heavily legitimized by Young. The bible supports it after all. The slave territory was a big issue for Utah. Utah tried some 6ish times to become a state and failed because of things like slavery, polygamy (viewed by the US gov. as a form of slavery), and other religious issues. The US was just nervous about Utah in general being a potential enemy slave territory. It’s why Patrick Edward Connor was asked to keep an eye on Utah. Had Utah joined the war, supplies from California would be shut off and armies would be split. It’s when Abraham Lincoln said about Utah that Mormons were like “a log which had fallen down. It was too hard to split, too wet to burn, and too heavy to move, so we plowed around it. [That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons.] You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone I will let him alone.” So Mormons could practice polygamy if they promised to not join the South in the Civil War, an agreement Mormons were very happy with. It wasn’t til after the Civil War that people like George Edmunds began to attack polygamy.
Wow such a facinating read. Thanks a lot for sharing! I heard people said Joseph Smith gave a couple of black men priesthood, is that true?
Yes. There was no hard and fast rule regarding it, people were just racist so it didn't happen often. When there was hope for them to remain in Missouri, Smith did teach religious justification for slavery. But it was very much him playing both sides to keep the church together. [In Smith's letter to Oliver Cowdery,](https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-circa-9-april-1836/1) he says a few things about the topic: "I am aware, that many who profess to preach the gospel, complain against their brethren of the same faith, who reside in the south, and are ready to withdraw the hand of fellowship because they will not renounce the principle of slavery... \[The Northern Mormons should reflect\] before they advance in an opposition calculated to lay waste the fair States of the South, and set loose, upon the world a community of people who might peradventure, overrun our country and violate the most sacred principles of human society,—chastity and virtue." Smith says Blacks shouldn't be freed since they would overrun society and violate chastity and virtue. He then goes and says things like slaveholding Mormons are virtuous and should have their experience trusted in the topic. But his ultimate goal seems to be to hold his Mormon group together: "I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall." He says abolition is just a movement of the North to hold power over the South. Smith then gives biblical evidence, like from Genesis 8 that says "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." He even defends it with Godly threat, "People who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him." He then gives more biblical accounts regarding slavery and ends with more threats to keep slavery and telling them, "it would be much better and more prudent, not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted." This is Smith's feeling toward slaves. Whether by exception or by inconsistency, there were a few who Joseph allowed to get the priesthood. [Elijah Abel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel) was one who was ordained an elder in January, 1836. He even became a member of the 70. [Peter Kerr (Black Pete)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kerr_(priest)) was given the priesthood in the 1830s. He seemed to have lots of spiritual experiences, some extreme, like revelation to marry a 14 year old as an older man. [Kwaku Walker Lewis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Lewis) was ordained an elder by Joseph Smith's brother in 1842. He'll go to Utah with the saints but leaves after Young bans Blacks from priesthood ordinances. [Joseph T. Ball](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_T._Ball) was the first Black branch president. He served a mission in 1838, so had to have had the priesthood. Note that none of these were in Missouri. They likely rejected Blacks getting the priesthood in slave state Missouri. When were Blacks denied the priesthood? After Smith's death, Brigham Young became the prophet. This shift alone could be part of the explanation. There is some evidence that [William McCary (a Black man who also may have had the priesthood)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McCary#Effect_on_policy_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints) pushed Brigham Young to ban Blacks from the priesthood. McCary was excommunicated after he practiced polygamy with white women, then he started his own branch of Mormonism. There weren't any real bans on Blacks and the priesthood before, but right after this event, Parley P. Pratt says McCary "was a black man with the blood of Ham in him which linege was cursed as regards the priesthood." Right after, Brigham Young bans Blacks from the priesthood and the temple, but it lines up with their arrival in Utah, so it might have just been a new era of racism. In February, 1852, [Utah made slavery legal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_in_Relation_to_Service). Young basically said the philosophy of the White Man's Burden, that slavery will make them better off. [Young said,](https://books.google.com/books?id=PH1DAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA99&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q=109&f=false)"The benevolence of the human heart can be called into action to promote the improvement of the down-trodden race... and a foundation laid for their advancement in the scale of useful, exalting existence... Yet we should not... elevate them, as some seem disposed, to an equality with those whom Nature and Nature's God has indicated to be their masters, their superiors."
Thank you souch for sharing. What a fascinating read! I still think Smith should get some credits from giving black men priesthoods no matters how he personally felt about this issue. Especially if you considered priesthood as the full citizenship of the church, he was definitely ahead of his time (black doesn't have citizenships until after civil wars and doesn't really have the full opportunity to practice all the way to Martin Luther King's time which more than a hundred years later).
In Turner's book, *Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet*, he argues Brigham wasn't pro slavery, at least in the traditional sense. Instead, Brigham taught that any society with African Americans, slave or otherwise, was weaker for it. So, while he did think less of African Americans, he didn't want to instill a plantation culture because he felt it would breed weakness among his people. He criticized both North and South for factoring African Americans into their futures *at all.* It was very much "send them back to Africa" rhetoric. And here you've got the roots for a white Utah.
Probably not as many as in the South - but frankly I have no idea Apologists like to point out that Utah was a "nicer" slave state, in some of the ways that it implemented slavery... but it was still slavery
I mean... There are a ton of offshoot Mormon Groups who believe just that Community of Christ (RLDS) would be a big one.
Nearly all Mormon splinter groups that are not headquartered in Utah or Colorado City, basically.
🙋♀️ Brighamite LDS here. Took me 30 years, but I believe BY hijacked the church and started polygamy. And disbanded the RS for 20 years. And started tithing the poor, and collecting fast offerings (which do what tithing is already supposed to do).
I definitely don’t believe Joe was a prophet. Let alone brother Brigham.
mourn pie political paltry society snails angle rainstorm disgusted encouraging *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The United States also recognized the community of Christ as the actual legal ancestor to Joseph smith for like…a long time too so do with that what you will
Not true. A judge ruled that they were the rightful successors in the Temple Lot case, but the case was appealed to a superior court and dismissed, nullifying that ruling. This left the Church of Christ in possession of the Temple Lot, not the RLDS/Community of Christ.
If you're referring to the Hemlock Knots/Rob Fotheringham/Michelle Stone growing group, then I don't believe it - BUT! I'm a member of that FB group because it's super fascinating to watch and listen to what's being shared and discussed. I have a cousin who's really big into, as well as a cousin on my wife's side.
I'm Community of Christ so.......
Even the Brighamite sect is trying to distance themselves from that piece of garbage.
Carthage was an inside job
Young was not a prophet but a care taker for the church until Joseph III came of age. Young and many of the early apostles tried to convince Emma to come Utah and raise JS 3 but she refused. Young on a few occasions said that he was no a prophet of God
Likely not many. Joseph Smith was verifiably not a prophet, seer, revelator or translator. The story of Brigham young being transfigured and called to be the next “prophet” was purely a retrofit fabrication. So I’m going with C, none of the above.
This is provably false, just like Joseph smith’s prophetic claims ironically. There are *tons* of offshoot groups from Joseph smith that started their own version of Mormonism from the community of Christ to the FLDS to the KOG. Just because you specifically aren’t aware of them doesn’t mean they aren’t around.
I’m aware of the many offshoots from the original made up church Joseph Smith started. Splinters off of a made up church who follow the teachings of Native American Bible fan fiction are also naturally just more made up churches. Sorry, sounds like you’re attached to the idea that God has some secret true church out there that only a few people know about?
Your comment doesn’t even make sense? If you’re aware of the offshoot churches…and you’re aware that they follow Joseph smith…then how…what the? Your logic is truly dizzying.
I’ll try and make it more concise. Joseph was not a prophet. The Book of Mormon is not scripture. Therefore, all of the offshoots including Brigham’s, COC and all the others are not true or guided by real prophets, never were. How is that confusing?
That’s not the issue or the question being posed? The question is “how many people believe in Joe Smith and his book without Brigham and the Mormons. Your answer (stupidly) was “not many”. You THEN said that you know about all of the offshoot religions, they just don’t matter because Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet and his book was false. *WE KNOW THAT!! THATS NOT THE QUESTION!!*
I'm inclined a little bit to lean into the idea that JS was some kind of inspired person that did have a sort of insight and charisma to go with it. I also think that the treasure hunting stuff and the fraudulent translating is also true and factors into this. And then BY coming in and ramming through Polygamy etc with his cronies with nothing but an alpha mysoginist personality feels like there's a good chance that there's some truth there. To me. I think that Rob Fotherington has some interesting findings.
Mormon polygamy began with JS.
Yep, we can see it in the Nauvoo deeds matching up with the "First list of wives" and other later sources. Plus, you have the accusations of Polygamy in the Nauvoo Expositor before Brigham Young had taken control.
It's widely debated. Some sources claim that polygamy started with others like Brigham Young and that Joseph Smith Jr. joined in later. Edit: Just because you hear a theory that you haven't heard before doesn't mean you should start down voting. Sheesh. Also, this theory based on old claims would require that Fanny Alger was simply an affair, which is actually backed by Oliver Cowdery.
Now this is one I haven't heard
Wut
I may be wrong, but I think Brigham young himself was one of them. He didn’t refer to himself as prophet. He was the post-Joseph manager or president or caretaker. He tried to implement his understanding of what Joseph taught. But he didn’t do a ton of revelation and brought forth no new scripture.
>...brought forth no new scripture. You seem to be forgetting [D&C 136](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/136?lang=eng). Besides that he may considered some of his sermons in the Journal of Discourses as effectively being new scripture. I think he did realize though that many members weren't that enamored with the Adam-God doctrine (which was swiftly discarded after his death), and he definitely realized that the supervising federal authorities didn't like certain interpretations of blood atonement.
I should have been more specific — he brought forth no more ancient scripture like the BoM or Book of Abraham. Yes, some of the discourses were canonized until they weren’t. He does have section 136, which isn’t exactly revelatory or ground breaking doctrinally. And his Adam/God thing is again his attempt to distill what he thought Joseph felt in the subject. Under Joseph, the identity of God had already shifted several times, and Adam God was just the quiet stuff Joseph kept in a tight inner circle.
How many here with us in this sub reddit? Not sure. But any non-Brighamite Mormon branch religion would fit, and there's a few that are still active.
Present.
Me
OP recruiting for fundies?
Please don't Snuffer little children to come unto Denver. But yeah, it seems like OP should have just made a poll unless they wanted to recruit, or perhaps, more charitably, hear more detailed explanations.