In the news
Texas and Mississippi lift coronavirus restrictions: It will be interesting to see how quickly they unleash the next wave before their current power dissipates.
Biden Senior Adviser: “Cash Payments” For Black Reparations Are Coming — ‘We Won’t Wait For Congress’
A list of pedophiles became unsealed with countless democrats on it
Trump speaks at CPAC and encourages supporters to get vaxed!!!
I recently had a few notable emails from readers of the blog and newsletter-
Why so hard on Brother Brig?
Hi Watcher,
So I've been giving your perspective on church history some serious thought again. One question I have is in regards to your low opinion of Brigham Young.
I understand that you take issue with polygamy, Adam-God, the endowment, plurality of the Gods, etc. But didn't all of these things originate with Joseph Smith?
It would seem to me that the majority of Brigham's controversial teachings originated with Joseph Smith.
I'm curious what heresies you believe Brigham introduced?
My Response-
Hi XXXXXXX
As a descendant of Brigham Young, I may be harder on him than I otherwise would be in some sort of demented way LOL
You bring up a really good point about Joseph being the source of some of Brigham's false doctrines. Clearly, polygamy would be in that category, Brigham's masonic participation would also fall into that category, although I think Brigham may have been a mason long before Joseph was, nevertheless Joseph obviously condoned and justified it. Plurality of Gods and possibly the Adam God doctrine may be traced to Joseph. It appears as if Brigham's racial doctrine did not come from Joseph.
I think there are several reasons why I come down hard on Brigham.
One is the succession controversy wherein he intimidated everyone into casting off Sidney. When I read the account of the trial of Sidney I was deeply enraged and it left a very distinct impression on my mind that has obviously colored everything else I have read about him. .
Another is that as I read about Brighams heavy handed leadership style in Utah and some of the things he is accused of and the wealth he accumulated during his life, really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
One issue for me is that I see a clear calling and justification for Joseph's and Sidney's actions as the intercessory servant and I have always assumed that Brigham did not fall into the category of being one of the sacrifice goats of the atonement statute.
It is interesting that he is prophetically mentioned in the atonement statute as the "fit man" who leads the scapegoat into the wilderness. What is a "fit man"? Is it a good or a bad connotation?
I don't know.
It is also interesting the fit man was supposed to wash himself and his clothing before returning to the congregation. Is that symbolic of how Brigham and his brethren delivered Sidney over to the buffetings of Satan?? Did they wash their feet or shake their garments when they did that?? Does it mean that Brigham will also become clean during the 3rd watch?
Possibly.
"The Scapegoat came no more into the camp of Israel, and the man who led him away was required to wash himself and his clothing with water before returning to the camp.” Great Controversy 419
To be fair, some of the early blessings and promises that Brigham got indicate that he will possibly return in the third watch and participate in the missionary effort. If those promises are unconditional, then he gets to have the same pass that Joseph, Sidney and others of the first laborers get to have.
BTW Another reader of the blog just sent this speculation several days ago which I found quite thought provoking
"if Lehi is in a dark and dreary wilderness and then follows a man dressed in white who leads him to a dark and dreary waste, could I make an apt comparison to Navuoo being a wilderness and Utah being a waste and Brigham being the man dressed in white?"
I think there may be a viable parallel, however, just as we don't know for sure what the status of the fit man is, we also don't know what the status of the angel in white is. Perhaps he was simply doing the Lord's bidding.
The bottom-line is that I don't know for sure what the fate of Brigham Young will be. It is not for me to judge his eternal soul. All I can do I observe the things he did and determine for myself if he was acting as a true Christian and servant of the Lord or if he was not. Frankly, I don't get a good feeling as I observe his lifestyle and actions..
But again, I cannot judge him personally nor do I wish to.
Additionally, my view of him should not be a consideration for how you choose to view his place in history. If you feel that he acted honorably and that he was correct in the doctrines that he taught then that is your call.
Don't allow my bias to affect how you interpret the facts of history and the prophecies pertaining thereof.
Hope all is well with you and yours
The Importance of lineal succession
I got an interesting email the other day from a person who is a prolific writer and researcher.
He feels passionate about the Mauricio Berger- Brazil Movement and has researched the topic of succession.
He wanted me to direct my readers to an article he wrote on that topic and let them decide for themselves if the article is accurate or not.
In the past I have been very free to blog about interesting movements even when I knew they were heretical because I felt that the process of publicly evaluating and exposing such movements was instructional as observations are made the discussion takes place.
However, when I first brought to light the Mauricio movement several years ago, I had no idea that several of my readers had zero ability to discern truth from error and would fall for the BS that Mauricio was spouting. I
had no idea they would waste their time, literally for years, chasing down a rabbit hole after the proverbial priesthood button.
Because of this I must confess that I am very reticent to direct people’s attention to heretical movements.
And yet, I am conflicted.
Am I responsible for the bad decisions that people make if I am the one introducing them to something that I am trying to expose as a fraud? After all, I was not promoting the scam, in fact, I was exposing it. And yet, people still disregarded the mountain of evidence that I and others provided and they believed the blue smoke that Mauricio was blowing in their direct.
So..
Again..
I feel conflicted.
On the one hand, I don’t think anyone made me captain of the world and I think I should treat everyone like adults and respect their agency to be exposed to all the claims out there and make their own decisions.
On the other hand, it gives me great indigestion when people become decieved and spend their energy on something that is false.
If you have a strong opinion on this question, please send an email to me and let me have it with both barrels.
Anyway, my initial response to this situation was to suppress the request from this fellow. However I have reconsidered and decided to treat everyone like adults especially since this is all yesterdays news to 95% of my readers
Even though I am making my view very clear, and providing more than enough evidence to debunk the fabrication, I realize that there may be people who are looking for some cool-aid to drink.
With that introduction, I will share the exchange that this person and I had with each other. A few clarifications and links have been included. This is what he said when he contacted me-
Hi Watcher,
My understanding of your calling is that it is to watch all the remnant,
restoration, and new revelation movements occurring in the LDS
community, and provide a scriptural basis for your readers to help them
distinguish the wheat from the tares.
There is a new article on that very subject, which discusses one
scriptural key to recognize the true Church from all the false ones:
lineal succession of the Church President. It is "Wheat, Tares, and
Lineal Succession" at
with your broad knowledge of the scriptures and Church history, you'd
like to review it, or at least provide a link to it for your readers so
they can decide for themselves.
Believing we are on the same side, both searching for the truth,
John
My response-
John-
I was not aware that I had a calling.
I certainly don't recall ever making that claim.
Lets wait awhile to see if you are still affiliated with the current movement you have jumped into or if you jump into another one.
BTW how familiar are you will PXXX DXXXX and his group in Utah Valley. I must believe you have rubbed shoulders with several of them while you were a Snufferite and while some of them were investigating Joseph and Mauricio's claims??
He reply:
Watcher,
The article is not about me, so it does not matter if I jump ship, which, by the way, I've never done. I'm still in Denver's group. He has no intention to begin a church and told followers that they can be in any church. So I took that literally and joined the one in Brazil.
Many of your articles have pointed out errors in various offshoots from Joseph Smith's original church, focused mainly on the LDS Church. Have you published an article about the need for lineal succession of the president?
If so, then you may not need to reference mine at all. If you have one, please send me a link to it. If not, perhaps you could write one. And if not, then reference mine. It is something that all LDS members should know about!
My article is a somewhat detailed summary of the claims of the Reorganized Church (back at its beginning) with copious endnotes. LDS members know virtually nothing about lineal succession.
It is one main point of the wheat and tares parable as explained at the end of D&C 86, which I cover in detail. I believe you should read my article before saying you want to wait forever, because I won't be changing my position. I can't see why you wouldn't want this information known.
I believe you do have a calling and that there is a need for your work. Many readers trust your opinion and value the detailed research you have done. I thoroughly enjoyed your 600-page Puzzle book and quoted it in my articles. The book stands by itself, and I didn't need to wait to see if you change your mind about your position. The merit of your book is your summary of the facts and the merit of my article is the same.
I'm not at all familiar with PXXX DXXXX and his group.
Please reconsider, even if you choose to rip my article to shreds. You can point out that our "lineal descendant" has left us and started his own church, so you don't have to agree with the Brazilian Church. The important thing to me is to get these problems with the LDS Church known to its members as well as to those who have left it.
Thanks for your time,
John
My response after several days because I was distracted-
John
Sorry about the late response.. I have really been busy
I can appreciate the fact that you desire to promote the claims of Mauricio by getting me to bring the topic of lineal succession into the light.
However, I and others have written countless articles debunking the fabricated claims of Mauricio Berger and I have no desire to give him any more publicity. The cold hard fact of the matter is that you have come late to the party and are apparently not aware of all of the problems with his claims.
Here are a few of the articles I have written on the topic that were easily found by title. I don't have time to find all of them:
John- you will have very little credibility since you are still claiming that Denver is a true prophet, especially since he has essentially rejected the claims of Mauricio. He must be mortified at the double mindedness that you are displaying.
These are among the factors as to why your efforts in promoting Mauricio's claims are not gaining much traction in America.
John, you said:
"The article is not about me, so it does not matter if I jump ship, which, by the way, I've never done. I'm still in Denver's group. He has no intention to begin a church and told followers that they can be in any church."
Here are a few responses to some of your statements and claims-
The fact that Denver allows people to stay in the Mormon Church or join other ones does not mean that he has not created a church. I wish Snufferites would quit using that argument in their rebuttals, it is irrelevant and disingenuous..
Whenever someone tells me that Denver has not started a church they lose credibility with me. Just because they have not incorporated a legal name and prefer to refer to themselves as the "remnant" does not change the fact that they are a church in every possible way!!!
All of the majoy events of the movement revolve around him.
Every definition of a church fits Denver's group.
The most simplified definition of "church" as given in scripture is found in section 10 states that "whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church"
That is exactly what Denver claims he and his followers are doing.
Of course other passages indicate that the definition above represents a transitionary process that eventually does in fact necessitate priesthood authority, structure, saving ordinances, the collections of tithes, etc., etc. all of which Denver is addressing and claiming to provide the proper protocol and authority for.
Let's document a few things that make the Snufferite Remnant Movement a church.
Just as the restored church was restored with priesthood authority and the saving ordinances, Denver has also implemented those things in his church.
Priesthood Authority and Baptism: Denver has given a specific protocol for baptism that his followers follow to have a valid baptism. If other baptisms are acceptable why create confusion by directing people to do it differently than the modern church?
If he honestly felt that no special authority was necessary, he would simply post that in his literature and let people know that anyone can baptize anyone without needing to join a group.
He could even provide a link to the Book of Mormon passages of how to officiate in a baptism which he apparently feels is more authentic and accurate than the protocol given in section 20 of the D&C which the mainstream church attempts to use.
The reason Denver's Blog and all of his true followers sites have the "Request baptism" logo/link on it is because they have a priesthood structure and power-base that people are being directed into, regardless of how simple and flat it may appear.
BTW you may be the only Snufferite I am aware of that neglects to put that logo/link on your website.
Are you really a serious believing Snufferite or are you simply using your association with them to proselyte Denver's sheep about Mauricio??
My guess is that if someone came to you for baptism, you would bring them into Mauricio's fold, not Denver's. I seem to recall that you have been ordained to a high calling by Mauricio, to officiate in his church.
I hardly think you would be promoting Denver's church when you preside over Mauricio’s branch in the US.
Denver has waffled on priesthood authority over the years. At one time he claimed that sections 20 and 107 and other sections do not state that priesthood is necessary to baptize and officiate in the saving ordinances, which continues to mystify me to this day.
Eventually, he got enough blow-back on that mind boggling claim that he finally declared section 20 to not be credible, and he deleted it from their revised scriptures and presided over a protocol for creating a differing standard.
At one point, he indicated that the authority one got in the Mormon church was sufficient, Oh, and lets not forget his innovation about getting seven women to sustain priesthood authority or some such nonsense. .
Prophet Seer and Revelator: Latter day Saints believe that a living prophet is necessary to have over the church. Denver has relentlessly, (until his most recent interview in which he refused to give a straight answer when asked that question) maintained that he was not a prophet which again, mystifies me since he publicly tells people that he speaks with God and has messages from God.
He produces revelations from God declaring that his prophetic name is "David", etc. Do his revelations and his directives that everyone follows not make him a prophet over a church?
The fact that Denver took it upon himself to de-canonize section 20 and create a new and improved set of church articles for his church proves that he fashions himself to be a prophet and revelator. and the collective group sustains him as such.
When Denver pronounced section 110 to be an event that never took place YOU challenged him and got him to back down. He then attempted to save face by saying that the event did take place although section 110 was just not an accurate account of it, etc.
John, you said:
"Many of your articles have pointed out errors in various offshoots from Joseph Smith's original church, focused mainly on the LDS Church. Have you published an article about the need for lineal succession of the president?
Yes, I have addressed lineal priesthood many times over the years. My most recent one explained how the church was downgraded to a lesser lineal priesthood structure after the fulness of Melchizedek priesthood was "lost or taken away" per section 124.
I think you would do well to study it and let me know if you are in agreement with the principles and history discussed pertaining to priesthood
John, you said:
My article is a somewhat detailed summary of the claims of the Reorganized Church (back at its beginning) with copious endnotes. LDS members know virtually nothing about lineal succession.
It is one main point of the wheat and tares parable as explained at the end of D&C 86, which I cover in detail. I believe you should read my article before saying you want to wait forever, because I won't be changing my position. I can't see why you wouldn't want this information known.
John, your article convolutes the fulness of the Melchizedek with the patriarchal/evangelical order of the priesthood. Again, Please read my article and let's discuss what you don't agree with..
This was his reply after reading my article:
Hi Watcher,
Thanks for taking the time for your detailed response. It really helps me understand just where you are at.
I read your article and now remember better your position on Patriarchal Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood.
I see why you thought I had confused them, whereas I didn't want to bring up the Patriarchal because it would confuse readers.
I see how set you are in your understanding and that I was naive to think to you might have learned something from my article.
I don't see much hope for future discussions between us.
Again, thanks for the thoroughness of your response,
John
I then sent him one last response that he has not responded to
“Although I agree that there is probably little chance we are going to come to an agreement, I extend the offer to you to do a zoom meeting to review the very basic five part historical timeline of Joseph Smith's ministry to see where you disagree with it.”
I love people like John because they are passionate and thoughtful and willing to take a stand when they believe God is doing His work. However, the discernment we render and the choices we make have eternal consequences and I feel a responsibility to call it as I see it.
I plead with John and all of the readers of this Newsletter to not make emotional decisions and don't join a group just because you long for fellowship.
Learn to prayerfully search the scriptures and the history of the church and to receive personal revelation. Do not make hasty decisions about joining groups that are making fantastic claims.
Yes, the day will come when God’s true servants will return.
Hopefully we will all be found waiting (and not getting ahead of ourselves by jumping into false movements), watching (for the true servants) and discerning so that we will recognize and embrace the truth and not be deceived.
