The Scriptural Case for Sustaining the Brethren despite their Flaws and Imperfection:

 During Jesus Ministry in the first century, he sustained the "Jewish Brethren" (Leaders) of his day, as those who had the authority to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures which they would do while sitting in Moses' seat. Jesus makes it clear in the passage below, to do what they say when their interpretations and recommendations align with the Scriptures. But Jesus clarifies that, clearly acknowledging they are men who are fallible, if they add some oral tradition (known as the Tradition of the Elders) that conflicts with the Hebrew Scriptures, he recommends his followers do not follow their actions if it's based on their traditions:

Matthew 23:2-3 (EXB):

2 “The ·teachers of the law [scribes] and the Pharisees ·have the authority to interpret what the law of Moses says [L sit in Moses’ seat/chair]. 3 So you should ·obey [do; practice] and ·follow [keep; observe] whatever they tell you, but ·their lives are not good examples for you to follow [L do not follow their actions]. ·They tell you to do things, but they themselves don’t do them [L For they say but do not do].

“Moses’ seat” referred to the place in the synagogue where the Hebrew Scriptures were read. So He is saying to listen to them if their actions and directive align with the Scriptures, but to disregard any additional Traditions they add that conflicts with the Hebrew Canon. For example, one of the Traditions of the Elders was the performance of a ceremonial hand washing, a purity ritual, not based on hygiene but to basically "virtue signal" your piety. So Jesus did not ceremonially wash His hands in the way some of the Leaders demanded, based on their pious traditions (see Matt 15:1–9).

In the same chapter of Mattew 23, quoted above, after Jesus distinguishes between following what the "Israelite Brethren" say and advise if it accords with the Torah/Scriptures and to ignore their added man-made traditions; in the same chapter, Jesus refers to these same Leaders (in regards to their man-made Traditions), that they are “play actors/religious fakers” (verse 13), “blind guides” (verse 16), “blind fools” (verse 17), “full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (v. 28), “serpents” (verse 23), “a brood of vipers” (verse 33). Despite this, Jesus remains a Jew, a member of the Jewish Faith or Judaism. So while he says to obey the Leaders and follow them as Leaders, it is clear that he means only when they are upholding the Hebrew Scriptures; meanwhile he clearly condemns their man-made traditions (see Matt. 15:9, quoting Isa. 29:13).

It's important to note that after Jesus died, his brother James continued to remain a Jew (a member of the Jewish Faith or Judaism); and he attended the Jewish Temple and respected the concept of Leadership and the importance of organized religious behavior, as echoed in the Epistle of James; which according to the EXB translation, the Epistle of James, "is the most Jewish book in the NT. Except for two or three references to Christ, it would fit rather well in the OT. The life to which the epistle exhorts is that of a profoundly pious Jew who is fulfilling the law in every regard. ... A still more striking fact is the number of parallels between this epistle and the words of Jesus. As Ross says, 'this Epistle contains more verbal reminiscences of the teaching of Jesus than all of the other apostolic writings' (The Epistles of James and John, p. 16). Instead of quoting specifically from the gospels, it seems that the author is simply reflecting the words he heard from the lips of Jesus Himself, perhaps as they worked together as youths in Nazareth. He certainly knew and shared the insights and attitudes reflected in the Sermon on the Mount, in parables, and in other teachings about life, poverty, and values (cf. e.g., James 1:22 with Matt 7:20, 24; James 3:12 with Matt 7:16; James 2:5 with Matt 5:3; James 4:11, 12 with Matt 7:1; James 5:2 with Matt 6:19; and James 5:12 with Matt 5:34-37).'

This all actually aligns with the official LDS position:

It makes no difference,” stated President Joseph Fielding Smith, “what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.  You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.  Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-4).

… Teaching the same principle, President Harold B. Lee said: “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they [speak] and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, `Well, that is his own idea.’ And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them `standard’—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it” (“Place of the Living Prophet, Seer and Revelator,” 14).(Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1998], 221.)

Source: https://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org/2016/01/is-that-doctrine/

At this point, somebody might bring up the quote by Brigham Young when he pointed out that the LDS Scriptures are not as important as the "word of the Lord" through a living prophet. This quote needs to be put in perspective, for this was said when Joseph Smith "the Prophet" was alive. Joseph was regularly receiving revelations and continually adding to the Canon when Brigham Young said that the living oracles were more important than the Canon. After Joseph's death LDS Scholars acknowledge that the Leaders of the Utah-based LDS Church referred to themselves as "Presidents," and only Joseph was considered  "the Prophet of the Restoration"; and thus they considered themselves custodians of the revelations and scriptures. For example, in the book Restorations: Scholars in Dialogue from Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with Editors Andrew Bolton and Casey Paul Griffiths, on page 39, in the section written by Joshua Sears of BYU, we read:

After Joseph's death in 1844, Brigham Young and other church leaders who immigrated to Utah saw themselves as custodians of Joseph's scriptural legacy. A new edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1876 added twenty-six new sections, one of which contained a Brigham Young revelation, marking the first expansion of the canon beyond Joseph's work. 

In other words, the Leaders were the custodians of Joseph's authoritative scriptural production. The few additional revelations that came through to later LDS Presidents, after Joseph's death, were themselves canonized in order to make them authoritative. In other words, that which is canonized as scripture is the authority. Not even a signed First Presidency letter is authoritative, for anyone who has diligently studied the issue will find out that when the First Presidency wrote official letters regarding the pre-1978 issue of blacks and the priesthood in the 1950s-1960s, those letters and the racial doctrines therein, were disavowed as folklore in the 2013 Church Essay Race and the Priesthood. 

In his book Doctrines of Salvation, which is quoted from above, we saw that Joseph Fielding Smith declared that only the Scriptures are authoritative, and one should ignore the teaching of any Church President if it is not in alignment with the Scriptures; ironically, Joseph Fielding Smith own book Doctrines of Salvation (originally published before 1978), contains racist ideas about black people being the seed of Cain, which is not contained in the LDS scriptures (which is confirmed by today's LDS Scholars). Thus we see a kind of wisdom in his indirect condemnation of his own racist views, which would a few decades later be considered a contradiction to the gospel and declared false folklore. Yet at that time, Joseph Fielding Smith considered such racist folklore to be true doctrine; while simultaneously telling the reader in the same book to only consider the Scriptural Canon as authoritative and to ignore any Church President if what they say or do contradicts the Scriptures (which is what Joseph Fielding Smith ironically did in fact do, that is contradict the scriptures). Thus, we see a modern recurrence of the issues of Jesus' day, and all the more reason to pay attention to Jesus's admonition in his day to follow the interpretations of the "Israelite Brethren" only when it accords with the Hebrew Scriptures and to not believe or do what they do if it's based on false traditions. So that if we follow this advice today we would sustain the LDS Brethren but only do what they suggest if it aligns with the Scriptures.

This passage of Scripture below is interesting in that it mirrors modern times regarding the Word of Wisdom. Many LDS members who do not agree that the Word of Wisdom should be interpreted as a "commandment" with a constraint on the behavior of the Saints; when it was clearly presented in the original revelation as being not a commandment. For this passage below does two things, it talks about not worrying about what you should eat (food or beverages) but also encourages sustaining "the Brethren" of that era:

Hebrews 13:7, 9, 17 (EXB):

7 Remember your leaders who ·taught [proclaimed; spoke] God’s ·message [word] to you. ·Remember [Consider; Reflect on] ·how they lived and died [or the outcome/result of their way of life], and ·copy [imitate] their faith.

9 Do not let all kinds of strange teachings ·lead you into the wrong way [take you off course; lead you astray]. ·Your hearts should be strengthened by [or Inner strength comes from] God’s grace, not by obeying rules about foods [C referring to Jewish dietary laws; Lev. 11; Mark 7:19; Acts 10; Col. 2:16], which ·do not help [or have never benefited] those who ·obey [observe; live by] them.

17 ·Obey [or Have confidence in] your leaders and ·act under [or submit to] their authority. [L For; Because] They are watching over you, because they ·are responsible [will give an account (to God)] for ·your souls [or you]. ·Obey them [Do this; Act this way] so that they will do this work with joy, not ·sadness [or complaint; groaning], for that would be of no ·benefit [advantage; help] to you.

Bullet Point Summary of the Core Tenets of Emergent Mormonism (as a Humanistic Spiritual Pragmatism):

"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”

~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Amidst the many ways to be "Mormon" (or part of the Latter Day Saint Movement), I decided to summarize in bullet point form what I consider to be the core ideas and points of view of Emergent Mormonism (as discussed on this site):

• Joseph Smith has just as much right and credibility to claim "revelation" as did the apostle Paul; and Joseph has just as much right to produce new scripture as did the authors of the Disputed Letters of Paul (or Pseudepigraphal works of Paul).

• Joseph Smith has just as much right and credibility to produce a kind of gospel just as each succeeding gospel author did; for example, the earliest Gospel of Mark has a different emphasis and theology as did the last gospel, the Gospel of John. As each chronologically succeeding gospel author tried to improve upon or change the view of a former gospel author. This progressively emerging retelling of the Christ-experience is built into the meaning-making artistry that produced Christianity in the first place. So I consider the Book of Mormon to be the Fifth Gospel in this ongoing emergent process of midrashic artistic expression; which I discuss on my website The Phases and Strategies of God.

• Joseph Campbell, Marcus Borg. John Spong, and Jordan Peterson, have all provided rational, psychological and pragmatic interpretations and "ways" to be Christian as a rational male in the 21st century; building off of these authors, and websites like thechurchistrue.com and puremormonism.blogspot.com, I see no reason why a historical-metaphorical lens and Scripture-focused paradigm can't be implemented for understanding and utilizing Mormonism for the rational male in the 21st century.

• Almost every legitimate criticism (as to the problems of 19th century European Christendom) that Nietzsche levels against Augustinian-Lutheran Christianity, was remedied by Joseph Smith in the 1840s. Particularly, "the despising of the body" within pious and puritanical European Christendom is counteracted and corrected by Mormonism. For more details, see my document Like Grass Out of Concrete: Toward a Theology of the Body. 

• While the ideal is to have no "manner of -ites" (4 Nephi 1: 15-17) and unity among the Restoration sects in the Latter Day Saint Movement; the reality is there are many ways to Mormon: as there are Brighamites, Rigonites, Cutlerites, etc. Hence, Emergent Mormonism has just as much right to be considered "Mormon" as does all the other divergent Restoration paths. 

• As Potential Energy for Inspiration: The Emergent Mormon sees the emerging development in Mormon scripture and theology, occurring line upon line, precept upon precept, as not just a Historical Lens (of seeing Smith evolve spiritually from Protestantism to Abrahamic Expansionism), but also as a metaphor for life itself and one's own inbuilt cosmic drive to thrive: represented in Smith's theological philosophizing. So that LDS scripture and theology itself is an emerging memetic potential energy field which can be inspirational to the reader in their becoming more antifragile. Thus, Smith's scripture-making genius is his ability to motivate action and inspire transformation and compassionate unity combined. The Latter-day Saint, and anyone in the Smith-Rigdon Movement, is called to continuously grow and expand toward personal dominion within the collective body of Zion. The Mormon, or Restorationist, is called to break free from whatever might be holding them back -- like a blade of grass cracking out of concrete -- until they reach their fullest potential and grow further toward joy and happiness.

• Part of the Emergent Mormon perspective is that Joseph Smith is a liberator of the Saints from Augustinian Puritanism which I discuss in my blog series Sex, Gods and Zion. In short, Smith creatively restored the original Hebrew Bible theology of Jehovah and the powerful and sensual pneumatic gods. As discussed in the blog series, plural marriage was a temporary solution to counteract Augustinian Puritanism that despised the body; and it was a practical response to the family disabling 19th century forms of Feminism that aimed to dismantle the traditional family; and thus Plural marriage was in part a temporary practice aimed at restoring traditional gender roles, respect for fatherhood, and biblical male headship; while giving women power through the Relief Society and honoring their femininity as queens and priestesses in Zion. Thus, the Emergent Mormon perspective sees plural marriage as a temporary practice aimed at changing the consciousness of the first Saints in the 1800s, which it had done by 1890; therefore the practice of plural marriage is not necessary today as it has fulfilled its purpose.

• An American prophet and American gospel is a natural expansion based on cultural changes since the days of Imperial Rome. Thus, Emergent Mormonism recognizes an emerging phenomenon within Christianity (as explained in Marcus Borg's Evolution of the Word). So that the Mormon Word can be seen as the final revelation so to speak. See my website The Phases and Strategies of God.

• Emergent Mormonism is a "Spiritual Practice," an Ethos and Life Philosophy (not a dogma or a sect); just like Secular Buddhism utilizes Buddhist philosophy and meditation practices to reduce stress and calm the mind, the Emergent Mormon will utilize the philosophy of Mormon Scripture for meditation, motivation, meaning, and communion with Ultimate Reality. The original symbolism and scriptural stories of Mormonism are used as inspirational and empowering metaphors for self-overcoming and ongoing antifragile expansionism: toward greater health, prosperity, robust friendships and communitarian unity.

• I define the "Church" as the Ecclesia. So that the "true church" is not a Church Institution or Chapel building. The church/ecclesia is anywhere two or three Christians gather together. Similar to The Remnant Fellowships, I believe that anytime a Smith-Rigdon Restorationist meets up (gathers) with another that is where the church is. So if a Brighamite meets up  (gathers) with a Remnant Fellowship member, they are the church. If a member of The Community of Christ meets up with a Cutlerite, they are the restored church.

• An Emergent Mormon can be an active member of the Utah-based LDS Church (Brighamites) acting as a New Order Mormon; or they can be an agnostic practicing Emergent Mormonism alone in private as merely philosophical existential meaning-making; or a Remnant Fellowship member, or a member of The Community of Christ, can integrate and graft Emergent Mormonism into their particular style of "Mormoning."

• Joseph Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration, and every successor is a mere placeholder, a "president" of a corporation, sect, or Fellowship group; but they are not actually prophetic (prophesying), seers, and revelators (as I have not seen any proof or convincing demonstration of such). For more details, see the comments by Rock Waterman here; therefore, the restored gospel was completed with what Joseph Smith produced (which was fully published by 1851 with The Pearl of Great Price). In other words, original Mormonism is the doctrines and theological philosophy produced by Joseph Smith and the Pratt Brothers up to 1851. Thus I call it Nauvoo Era Mormonism. This does not mean that somebody Mighty and Strong can't rise up in the future and actually act as a Prophetic Seer and Revelator and produce new Scripture by Common Consent; but currently, I see nobody convincingly organizing and claiming to be Joseph's successor that is truly thee successor. They do not meet the criteria of actual prophetic seership as revelators with their "words" being watched over and proven to be actually "scripture'' as covered in D&C 35. Therefore, Mormonism has moved to the phase of a humanistic pragmatic spiritual practice of inner transformation and a means of communitarian Zion-building. Meanwhile, Joseph intimated a time when the members would take the position as revelators and not seek a "prophet" for guidance. In the Hebrew Bible the prophets often rose up as protesters and revealers, and in my mind that has been accomplished with Joseph. Just as the Hebrews went decades or centuries without a prophet leading them, so too the modern day Saints can act as prophets unto themselves, seeing as seers through the whisperings of the spirit and revealing their own revelatory truths. Thus, I see the published Scripture (by Common Consent) produced by 1851, and the philosophical groundwork provided by Joseph and the Pratt Brothers; to be sufficient for living life today through the Mormon Lens. In other words, there is no need for prophetic guidance if the Spirit can whisper to all the Saints equally. The core doctrines and principles of the restored gospel have been built already and are contained in the scriptural Standard Works. The blueprint and instructions are there and it is up to us to build the ideal Way as healthy and strong "lions" for Zion as a united and restored Ecclesia (regardless of sect or creed).

• I agree with the consensus of biblical scholarship, that the Bible is not "one book" but a library of documents revealing a clear incremental growth and emergence of ideas over time.

• I leave open the possibility that the “Divine” (however one chooses to define it) works through human authors producing fictional works or mythology, i.e. most of Scripture is metaphorical poetry or what some scholars call midrash.

• The Augustine-Lutheran interpretive lens has many problems that the Smith-Rigdon interpretive lens corrected.

• The Book of Mormon is not a literal history but is inspired allegory or what scholars call midrash. In fact, around 2023, LDS historian Patrick Q. Mason referred to the Book of Mormon as midrash on The Mormon Stories Podcast.

• The Book of Mormon can be seen as a “fifth gospel,” in that just as the gospel of Luke improved upon Mark’s gospel, and John’s gospel added ideas and improved upon the synoptic gospels; so too, the Book of Mormon as midrash, updated the first four gospels with new modern ideas that are helpful for the modern person in the 21st century. 

• The Book of Mormon has a simple Protestant message about "grace" (not demanding ritual "works" to earn salvation or exaltation) that does not support the later developments produced by Brigham Young and the subsequent Utah-based (Brighamite) Church’s leaders. This is made clear on the YouTube Channel Mormon Rescue.

• The Book of Mormon is useful as empowering mythology or ethical midrash, because it is pro-family and tells a cautionary tale about the harms of corruption and greed and hate. It also reinvigorates the Old Testament hero archetype within a Protestant language; while presenting an ethic of defending and fighting for democracy and one’s family; while the New Testament is largely pacifist and emphasizes martyrdom and encourages celibacy as the ideal, the Book of Mormon defends fighting for justice and supports monogamous sex. 

• What I call "Emergent Mormonism" is the theory that the Book of Mormon contains the core message of Mormonism, which is based on grace and that you do not need a religion or religious oaths or gatekeepers to be right with God. There are now many websites and movements outside of the Brigham Young succession sect who find inspiration in LDS Scripture but do not believe in wearing garments or that you need to go to a temple to get into the highest level of heaven. For just one example of these movements, see the Remnant Movement.  Note: I am not a member of the Remnant Fellowship but I agree with a lot of what Denver Snuffer says and is trying to do. But I also disagree with a lot of what they say and teach. For example, they deny Joseph Smith ever practiced polygamy while I believe he did. But I really like their new scriptures and the idea of gathering in fellowships. 

• With my “emergent theory," Joseph Smith felt inspired to add a priesthood hierarchy after the publication of the Book of Mormon, in order to maintain control of his growing religion; which he did by necessity not always by inspiration; for even if God was speaking through him, he himself was always fallible and putting things in his own words through his own mind. Joseph Smith grew in knowledge through study, including being a student of the Old Testament and constantly trying to bring back the original Hebraic spiritual energy of the Old Testament. Thus he eventually believed he was called to restore Old Testament plural marriage; and the reason he did this is because I think he truly felt he had discovered the "true nature of God" after studying the Hebrew language and learning that the word “Elohim” is plural. He had read his Old Testament carefully and could see clearly that God the Father is described as having a physical body; which is corroborated by modern biblical scholarship documented in the book God: An Anatomy. He then likely realized that the "angels" (holy ones/messengers) in heaven had physical bodies and were actually sexual beings, based on Genesis 6 for example. Thus I believe he felt inspired to create a new masonic midrash with the 1840s temple ritual because I think he truly felt he was restoring true Masonry (God's true temple ritual) when he created the temple rituals. He then created a bricolaged scriptural mythos in the Book of Abraham that affirmed the plurality of Gods; matching his revelations in D&C sections 130 - 132 wherein God the Father has a physical body and all earthly matter is goodly spirit matter; as he expanded upon the ancient Christian theology of deification to include the original Hebrew concept of the plurality of Gods and God's physical bodily form, so that deification became eternal souls (in the Book of Abraham, chapter 3) becoming "Supercouples" in D&C 132.

• The purpose of the temple in Nauvoo was to cause Mormons to see the body and sex as good and not depraved; the goal was not, as Augustine argued, to be puritan and "despise the body" but as he tells Nancy Rigdon in a letter, "God is more liberal in his views." In other words, Joseph Smith was trying to liberate Mormons from puritanical body shaming and the denial of the Father God's true bodily nature. If he just wanted to commit adultery I do not believe he would have gone out of his way to produce new scripture with the Book of Abraham and set up an elaborate ritual that included others. Instead, I think he sincerely believed he was restoring the lost truths of God through "true Masonry." I doubt he would have gone through all the intellectual and creative work of doing all of that just to have sex with more than one woman. There are far easier ways to do such a thing. Instead, I think he truly believed that he had found the "true theology of The Bible" after reading the Old Testament and studying the Hebrew language. I believe he really did think he was restoring the true nature of God and rescuing the Saints from false beliefs about God through the masonic temple theology. Ironically, it turns out that Joseph was completely right about God the Father's body which has been demonstrated in modern biblical scholarship (like the book God: An Anatomy by Francesca Stavrakopoulou); and he was right about their being a Divine Council of Gods and the goal of Christian discipleship being theosis, which is substantiated to a large degree in the scholarship of the Protestant scholar Michael Heiser.

• What this means is that the temple ritual and polygamy was a mythic attempt to restore the original theology of God in the Old Testament, when God the Father had a body and celestial beings in heaven had sexual bodies. So the temple wardrobe of green aprons represented fertility and the ritual was full of references to the sexual body as a way to affirm procreative life. Thus the ritual was ultimately designed to change the mind of the first Mormons who came from a Puritan background and an Augustinian mindset of "despising the body" as depraved and “dirty.” The temple ritual was meant to cause a shift in consciousness through having sex even with multiple partners (through plural marriage) which would ideally lead them to see sex as good and holy and was the way of the Gods in heaven who were not prudish. By practicing polygamy they would more fully see sex as holy and good, and stop believing in the idea that God was without bodily parts and passions as they were taught by Protestantism then and now. By practicing polygamy they would grow to see God himself as having a sexual body and that therefore their own sexual desire were good and holy. I discuss this in more detail in my post: The Expiation of Sectarian Dogma & The Seeding of The Mormon People.

• In my theory, this shift in consciousness was accomplished by 1890, and so polygamy should no longer be practiced today and should be seen as a temporary method to change the mind of the first Mormons in the 1800s. 

• So the practice of polygamy, D&C 132, and the temple ritual should basically be retired today (ended and archived as now outdated and finished). D&C 132 and the temple ritual have served their purpose and the goal has been accomplished. So it is time to retire D&C 132 and remove it from the cannon and end the temple ritual as it is now performed with its underlying meanings being couched in plural marriage as a pro-body fertility rite. For the purpose of the ritual has been accomplished. It is finished. For now today, Mormons believe God the Father has a body and they reject the Catholic and Protestant ideal of celibacy and Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin. This was the intended outcome of the temporary practice of polygamy and the temple ritual.

• Mormonism can be seen as a pro-earth and pro-body mythology and that the temple rituals practiced in the 1800s were a "stepping stone" and are no longer needed nor required now. Today, the Book of Mormon can simply be added as a fifth gospel to the four gospels of the New Testament, as the Remnant Movement (led my Denver Snuffer) have done by publishing The New Testament and the Book of Mormon together, combined in one book called The New Covenants at restorationarchives.com.  This was Joseph's original intention, to publish the Book of Mormon and the four Gospels as one book. Meanwhile, The Lectures on Faith were the original doctrine. These Lectures were more about principles, like faith as "a principle of action," and the attributes of God. The original Doctrine and Covenants was more about an organically emerging Spiritual Community (the True Vine) through ongoing revelations with the aim of building Zion. It was not a rigid dogmatic religion seeking more and more control over the mind and behavior of members as one finds today in the Brighamite sect.

• The Brigham Young succession sect of Mormonism, headquartered in Salt Lake City Utah, removed the Lectures on Faith from Scripture and produced a Church Handbook of Instruction full of legalism similar to the Tradition of the Elders that Jesus opposed; and has unfortunately become a Corporation and a “high demand religion”: where the leaders are treated like near celebrities and often idolized and nearly worshiped, and the Brighamite sect has become a "cult of personality" in many ways. Thus the Utah-based LDS Leaders become the focal point rather than the principles and values of the LDS Scripture. Thus, the Brighamite Church could be justifiably called “Brethrenism.”

• This does not mean that "Brethrenism" does not do more good than harm overall, as the core values and teachings i the Brighamite sect remain Christian and good. There are flaws in the system yes, but the Brighamite Church does teach from Mormon Scripture and promote healthy families and produces civil law-abiding citizens that is good for society. I also think that for certain personality types and temperaments, the Brighamite sect can be a perfect fit, it can function very well for them and they will thrive in the Brighamite Institution; while for others, it can be a source for feeling oppressed and misery with scrupulosity and low self-esteem from perfectionism. So it is not a one size shoe fits all. I am have seen that every individual will react differently to the Brighamite sect, so I say: if it works for you great, have had it you have my support; but allow grace for whom it does not work, and vice versa.

• In short, my "Emergent Mormon Perspective" is not aligned with Brethrenism and sees Mormon mythology as a pathway to personal transformation on one's own terms.