After learning about the various alternatives to the Utah-based Mormon Church (aka Brighamite sect), which I first began exploring after I served part of my LDS mission in Missouri, I began to think of the way of describing a common denominator of these various Book of Mormon sects or movements. So I decided to call them Scripture Focused Mormons. These are basically "Mormons" who believe that the Scriptures that were voted on by the early Saints in the 1830s to be included in the Standard Works (Canon), are truly revelations from the Lord to Joseph Smith. They believe that the Scripture is the Standard Works (aka the Mormon Canon).
Someone might call them "Protestant Mormons" but this is inaccurate because it not only carries too much baggage from Lutheran Protestantism, but "Scripture Focused Mormons" do not believe that the LDS Scriptural Canon is closed like Protestant do. They believe in continuous revelation and the other gifts of the Spirit described in 1 Corinthians 12; but revelation needs to come through an actual seer and revelator who is actually revealing the words of the Lord ("thus saith the Lord") that is to be bound in Scripture as was the case with the apostle Paul and Joseph Smith.
In a scripture-focused Mormonism, as Joseph Smith taught, "a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such," and some revelations (like the ones through Hiram Page's stone) are not always considered divine writ by the body of LDS believers. For a doctrine or policy to be binding it needs to go through the process of common consent. Many LDS sects today have anadoned the way set out in LDS Scripture and as I see it there is a cultural phenomenon where some (not all) LDS members (and other LDS sects) engage in the formation of a "cult of personality": wherein the top leaders are treated like infallible Pope's and celebrities. So that every 20 years Mormon culture is reformed by the personality and temperament and pet peeves or personal projects of that current LDS President. None of this behavior is supported by actual official LDS revelation, doctrine, in LDS Scripture. It is a cultural phenomenon.
According to Britannica.com, the core doctrines of the Protestant Reformation were:
... justification by grace alone through faith, the priesthood of all believers, and the supremacy of Holy Scripture in matters of faith and order.
The reason for these core doctrines that made up the Protestant Reformation were due to the corruptions that took place in the Catholic Church: such as the sale of indulgences and a priestly hiearchy leading to an infallible Pope and a lack of checks and balances and corruption in the leadership. Also, the system of pious perfectionism through the confessional led to Catholic Monks like Martin Luther to feel perpetually inadequate and shamed, feeling like he could never live up to perfect piety; while also repressing his biological instincts as a celibate monk. When Luther gained the insight from scripture study, that he was worthy already and saved by grace alone and not through the constant attendance of the confessional, and that he did not need to be celibate; he must have been filled with a profound alleviation of stress and anxiety and an overwhelming feeling of freedom!
I have experienced this same feeling of alleviation and freedom from a Mormon perspective, wherein I have realized that original Mormonism was more like Protestantism in giving members more security through the doctrine of grace alone and more freedom of conscience and speech and behavior.
Where Mormonism differs drastically from Protestantism is that Mormon theology left the Canon open and living oracles capable of adding to the spiritual canon. But there needs to be checks and balances to avoid "leadership worship." D&C 28 explains that revelations and commandments that are binding on all LDS members needed to align with other scrptural "covenants" in LDS scripture (otherwise they could be deemed writings not of God, see D&C 28:11). Binding practices also had to be approved "by common consent in the church" for authoratative cannonization, as section 28 makes clear: "For all things must be done in order" (D&C 28:13). This process is missing today in many of the LDS denominations where the mere opinioms of the leaeder is trated as if scripture without being approved by common consent or cannonized. A good example of this is a recent Area 70 dealing with the toxic shame taught by a previous LDS leader and him saying we can reject dead prohets and go with living ones. I discuss this in the section titled The Case for Many “Mormonisms” but One Zion People in the document here. The problem with ignoring dead prophets for living one's is one day those living ones with be dead ones too, so what's considered true today can be changed to untrue tomorrow. I think a better criteria for truth is the Standard Works, the Canon of LDS Scripture and the checks and balances laid out in those scriptures as to what is what is not binding on LDS Christians.
Cannonized LDS Scripture over Even Popular LDS Doctrines and Traditions taught by Church Leaders
In a podcast discussion in January 24, 2026 about Creedal Christianity versus Mormon Christianity, Jacob Hansen responds to the question of whether or not LDS members believe God the Father had a God and a father by saying the following at the 1 hour and 20 minutes mark:
There is nowhere in our scriptures where you will ever find [the belief or doctrine] that God became God. In fact, you can find the exact opposite. In our sacrament prayer that we say every Sunday over the bread and water, it is God the Eternal Father. The notion that God has always been fully divine is what Latter Day Saints scriptures teach. Now, there have been LDS Leaders who have theorized, there are Latter-Day Saints who believe in an infinite regress of Gods, but that notion is not reconcilable with Latter-day Saint scripture; and even in the famous King Follett discourse (that was given by Joseph Smith), Joseph talks about this idea of a Head [God] of all gods; so you can find a debate, a theological debate, about this [in LDS culture] but it is not -- and and I would say even a large majority of Latter Day Saints during a particular period in our history held the sort of infinite regress model -- that is not what our scriptures teach; and ultimately I go with what our scriptures say as the more authoritative voice on who God is.
Brigham Young, first and foremost, produced only one canonized revelation, I think. Brigham Young, in what he actually produced in canonized revelation for Latter-day Saints, there's very very little. Brigham Young was someone who would just say, “Hey this is what I think,” and the thing is that there's a big difference in the Latter-day Saint tradition between that which is given by revelation from God, claimed as such, and then accepted by the Church as binding upon them versus the ideas and theories that every man is entitled to. So yes we do have a variety of opinions within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints …
Previous revelations in the Scriptures should be consulted before seeking new prophetic guidance through new revelations:
We learn from The Joseph Smith Papers, that Joseph Smith wrote a Letter to John S. Carter, 13 April 1833 that basically talks about priesthood hierarchy and it's orderly organization and how no one should claim to receive revelation directing those of a higher status in the priesthood in order to maintain order. Joseph Smith goes on to say that the rich should not cast out the poor. In regards to dealing with disagreements, Joseph Smith says to do what New Testament scripture says in regards to handling disputes. Joseph then later says, “we never enquire of at the hand of the Lord God for special revelation only in case of ther being no previous revelation to suit the case …”
The Standard Works as the Yardstick:
Here is a good sampling of Brighamite (LDS) leaders on the authority of scripture over leader's opinions:
Harold B. Lee:
If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, Reports and Discourses, p.69)
Harold B. Lee:
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," Stand in Holy Places, (1974), p.162-163; originally delivered on 8 July 1964)
Joseph Fielding Smith:
STANDARD WORKS JUDGE TEACHINGS OF ALL MEN
It makes no difference 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 teaching 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 [Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price] as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine.
The standard works are scripture. They are binding upon us. They are the mind and will and voice of the Lord. He never has, he does not now, and he never will reveal anything which is contrary to what is in them. No person, speaking by the spirit of inspiration, will ever teach doctrine that is out of harmony with the truths God has already revealed....
You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only insofar 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.
Source: Page 575 of Doctrines of Salvation Volume 3 by Joseph Fielding Smith
Bruce R. McConkie:
Men who wear the prophetic mantle are still men; they have their own views; and their understanding of gospel truths is dependent upon the study and inspiration that is theirs. Some prophets—I say it respectfully—know more and have greater inspiration than others. Thus, if Brigham Young, who was one of the greatest of the prophets, said something about Adam which is out of harmony with what is in the Book of Moses and in section 78, it is the scripture that prevails. This is one of the reasons we call our scriptures The Standard Works. They are the standard of judgment and the measuring rod against which all doctrines and views are weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are involved. The scriptures always take precedence. ("Finding Answers to Gospel Questions," Letter dated 1 July 1980. Published in Teaching Seminary Preservice Readings, Religion 370, 471, and 475 (2004))
President Gordon B. Hinckley:
“‘The Standard Works’ … are the reservoir of our doctrine from which flows the waters of gospel light. They provide the standard by which all gospel doctrine is measured. All other [materials] should spring from the word of the Lord as set forth in these volumes” (“Cornerstones of Responsibility” [regional representatives’ seminar, 5 Apr. 1991], 2).
Most of the Smith-Rigdon Restoration Movements stick to the LDS Scriptures as their source of authority as well. What this means for the Independent Mormon is that many ideas and practices thought to be binding on the LDS Christian is actually not binding at all, but are based on a particular sect's corporate policy and not actual scripture. For example, D&C 89 does not ban someone from the temple because they drink coffee and in fact the section says that this teachings are not given by commandment nor constraint. This has led one LDS YouTube channel Keystone (in April 2025), to say that someday coffee might be allowed in the Mormon Church again as it was for the first several decades.
In the New Testament the word church means Ekklesia, meaning the collective mystical body of Believers and not a church building, leadership hiearchy, or Dogma. The Book of Mormon follows this line of thinking when a group is kicked out of their house of worship they are told they can worship God in nature or anywhere, just as Jesus tells the Samaritan woman at the well.
In The Scriptural Teachings of Joseph Smith, at location 348-356 of the ebook we read, "Brother Joseph Smith, Jr. said: ... except the Church receive the fulness of the Scriptures (D&C 42:15; D&C 104:48.) that they would yet fail [5] (Oct. 25, 1831.) FWR, p. 16." Note as well the Book of Mormon passage: "Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do" (2 Nephi 32:3). The words of Christ are for us The Scriptures, especially the "thus sayeth the Lord" type passages, the Gospels, and the Doctrine of Christ in The Book of Mormon. Note that it does not say "feast upon the words of the Brethren (or any ecclesiastical leader), and they will tell you all things what you should do."
The Scripture Focused argument is simple: prophets prophesy (as Smith did), seers "see" things through spiritual eyes or use say a seer stone to reveal scripture, or they act as revelators declaring "Thus saith the Lord." The body of believers (the Ecclesia) then vote on those revealed words to become Scripture by common consent (see D&C 26). The succession of Brighamite leaders as Church Presidents (following in line from Brigham Young in Utah) most often do not do this; that is, they do not provide ongoing legitament revelations that are voted on by common consent. All we have are a few claims to revelation with D&C 138 and Official Declarations 1 and 2 (the latter of which was merely a policy change to remove a racial policy); and the Brighamite-Church leader Russel M. Nelson, in January 2016, claiming President Monson and the "12 apostles" received a revelation ("the revealed will of the Lord") to withhold baptism from children of gay parents (without first gaining the approval of the "Bretheren" to do so), which was then reversed with another alleged "revelation"; and the Brighamite Church website then saying "the changes reflect the continuing revelation that has been a part of the modern Church since the Restoration" (Source: Policy Changes Announced for Members in Gay Marriages, Children of LGBT Parents Contributed By Sarah Jane Weaver, Church News editor, 4 April 2019). What is obvious is that besides the exception of D&C 138, what you have is the leaders of the Brighamite sect basically appealing to "revelation" to mostly undo prior policies. This is because they are in the role of guardians of the Church most of the time and not acting as prohets, seers, and revelators as much as the Prophet the Joseph Smith. The undeniable truth is that you just don't have anything comparable to Joseph Smith channeling the voice of Jesus (just as the Apostle Paul did) in today's Utah-based Brighamite sect. This does not mean that the Brighamite Church Leaders have never been inspired or can't be inspired but that the facts of the matter are that they are obviously functioning more as administrators, managers and guardians of Joseph Smith's Revelations than anything else.
As Parley P. Pratt writes on pages 12-13 of Keys to the Science of Theology, regarding the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans and how the Lord then went to the Gentiles in 70 AD:
"From that very time to the present—One thousand eight hundred and fifty-one of the Christian era, the voice of a Prophet has not been heard among the Jews. Angels have not ministered unto them. There has been no vision from the Lord. No dream or interpretation. No answer by Urim or Thummim [or seer stone]. No Prophet. No voice. No sound. No reproof. No comforting whisper. All is silence—stillness— ..."
Can't the same be said of the Brigamite sect today, that ever since the days of Joseph Smith and Parley P. Pratt, there has been no real visions from the Lord, no dream or interpretation; no answer by Urim or Thummim [or use of the seer stone the LDS Church has in its possession]. No Prophet [that gives prophetic prophecies like Joseph Smith did]. No voice [of the Lord as came through Joseph]. No sound. No reproof [when are the Brethren ever reproofed/rebuked by revelation from the Lord like Joseph often was]?
Could this be because Joseph Smith was the last genuine prophetic seer and revelator of new scripture for the Restoration? Could it be that what we have in the LDS Scriptural Canon (voted on by common consent) is sufficient to move forward when the Standard Works are combined with wise guidance by LDS Leqders and receiving our personal revelation ourselves? Is not the best course to take to enact the core principles and values of the restored gospel by feasting on the words of Christ in scripture?
I am not saying that the LDS Q15 can't provide prophetic guidance, in fact I think they can and did with the Proclamation on the Family. But I think we need to get real in recogzing a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such, and not act like every statement or teaching from an LDS Leader is revelation to be blindly obeyed without one's own confirming personal revelation by the dictates of our own conscience after consulting scripture just as Sidney Rigdon was told to do as a checks and balances to Joseph's revelations. Formit is clear to me that the current Brighamite Leadership is not providing continuous revelation akin to the Apostle to the Gentiles (Paul) and the Prophet of the Restoration (Joseph Smith). So it behooves us to be wise as serpents and not be tossed to and from with every wind of doctrine and that when they seat in Moses and Joseph's seat that we follow that which is wise and if not we hold fast only to the good.
Could it be that when the heavens were opened and revelations poured forth through the Apostle Paul (with the Lord speaking through him) to integrate the Gentiles into Israel, that when Paul died the revolatory gift closed for a time, or at least no one had the spiritual skills to manifest the gift? After Paul's death, according to biblical scholarship, what we have is those who came after Paul were not speaking "the word of the Lord" but instead adding to Paul's revolatory words by providing structure and policy changes as maintenance; until new light and knowledge was needed through Joseph Smith: who was like Paul in that he had the prophetic gift, the ability to reveal the "word of the Lord." Could it be that today we just don't have somebody with that spiritual gift? Or is it because that spiritual gift is not needed and the Restored Scriptures are sufficient for now?
For Scripture Focused LDS, the Gifts of the Spirit is available to all the Saints. Yet when revelation truly comes there is usually only one who is a Spiritual Master of the Gifts (like Paul or Joseph): who both demonstrated strong leadership skills and the strength of going against established traditions. Paul challenged those who demanded Gentiles be circumcised and Joseph challenging the Augustinian Creeds. Both demonstrated the gift of producing scripture. Both challenged the leaders of their day.
So there is no "one true prophet" in a line of succession based on the seniority of the next leader in line (as in the Brigamite sect). Intead, the Lord can call anyone to lead, whether it be Moses or Paul, or an obscure farm boy like Joseph Smith: who is described as being "like unto Moses" in The Book of Mormon.
The truth is Paul was not "next in line" as prophet, seer and revelator. Bible scholarship shows that it was James the Just who was the leader of the Jerusalem Church after Jesus died. Paul came out of nowhere to challenge those who he referred to as the "super apostles." For more details see Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity by James D. Tabor.
Meanwhile, most of what Jesus did was challenge the religious leadership of his day, as many of the religious leaders of his Jewish Faith were emphasizing the Tradition of the Elders; while he was emphasizing a scripture focused approach by basically arguing "the spirit of the law" in interpreting the Torah (the Standard Works or Scripture Canon of his day) and not adding heavy burdens by adding man-made policies and traditions to the origional ways of The Scriptures. This is why Jesus said to his fellow Jews in Matthew 23:3 (EXB): "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]." In other words, do what they say when they sit on "Moses's seat" (while reading from the Torah) and what they say aligns with Scripture; but when they add their traditions and policies that don't match the Scriptures, don't bother following their false traditions. As he said earlier in Matthew 15:14 (EXB): "·Stay away from the Pharisees [L Leave/Ignore them]; they are blind ·leaders [guides]. And if a blind person ·leads [guides] a blind person, both will fall into a ·ditch [pit; hole].”
Jesus also challenged the leaders who ran the temple and basically spent most of his time criticizing those in charge at that time; and one could argue that he actually came to end controlling forms of "dogmatic religion."
So to recap, any Christian/Saint is capable of receiving revelation and producing description on par with The Book of Mormon or the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, we have just not seen that demonstrated.
What we have seen demonstrated was accomplished by Joseph Smith who produced The Book of Mormon and multiple revelations that has not been matched by anyone after him. So for Scripture Focused Mormons, Joseph alone is the Prophet of the Restoration and the "Church" (in Greek: Ekklesia, meaning "the assembled community") is the LDS Restorationists collectively and not a Corporation led by a CEO/Church President in Utah. In other words, the church is the "vine and the branches'' (as the Book of Mormon teaches) and not a church building or hiearchical leadership.
See episode (1), episode (4), and episode (47) of The Iron Rod Podcast. Note that I disagree with the concluding thesis of Taylor Drake, on this podcast, that Joseph Smith was a "fallen prophet." Taylor Drake explains his theory in detail in his book Joseph in the Gap: The Hidden History That Explains Mormonism's Past, Present, and Future. I do agree with the historical facts that Drake presents in his book and on this podcast. I also agree with their emphasis on being Scripture Focused, and not following any Mormon leaders blindly when they haven't proven the actual gift of revelation, and especially if they contradict Scripture. But I have an alternative theory and interpretation of the historical facts and data points that they discuss, which I discuss in my blog series Sex, Gods and Zion, and my website The Phases and Strategies of God. So I agree with most of their historical analysis and positions, just not their concluding argument that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet.
Moving on to what I do agree with them on. In episode 1 of the Iron Rod Podcast, one of the speakers makes an excellent point that very often when something is offensive or troublesome in Mormon teaching and culture, it is usually not in the actual Scriptures (the Standard Works) but is some additional tradition added by the Utah-based Brighamite leaders; that very often, turns out to be not in accordance with the Scriptures. For example, the Utah-based LDS Church teaching that African-Americans were the "seed of Cain" and thus restricted from holding the priesthood, was taught by their First Presidency in official statements in 1949 and 1969. According to fairlatterdaysaints.org, around this time Church President David O McKay:
formed a special committee of the Twelve that "concluded there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but that church membership was not prepared for its reversal."[Leonard J. Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1998), 183]
(Source)
As we can see there was no scriptural justification for this erroneous doctrine and policy, it was simply based on tradition. Yet it was interpreted as official doctrine while it was actually false doctrine that remained doctrine and taught by the Brighamite leaders for over a century. The Utah-based LDS Church finally disavowed this false doctrine in the 2013 essay Race and the Priesthood, acknowledging it was never scriptural and was based on the racial attitudes of Brigham Young. Other examples can be given where the General Authorities (or "the Brethren") in the Utah-based LDS Church taught something as doctrine or church policy that was something completely contrary to and at odds with the Scriptures.
Before I continue I want to present a disclaimer: I am not encouraging all Utah-based Mormons to leave or go inactive from the Brighamite Church. I am more of a "big tent" type of person. Meaning I am seeking to present a variety of positions under the same big tent of the Smith-Rigdon Restoration Movement. I find that there are many roads and options to take in the broad Restoration Movement, other than one narrow option of what I call Brethrenism. It is true that I consider Brethrenism a blindly obedient attitude toward Utah-based LDS leaders and a dynamic of what transactional analysis calls a child-to-parent or parent-to-child dynamic. But I also know that everybody is different, and there are different personality types and intellectual styles. Some people prefer to be essentially "parented" so to speak and given absolutist answers and to have their life "controlled" or constrained to a certain degree. There is also the familial comfort and social stability of the institutional Utah-based church and its financial success and structural security. I do think the Utah-base Church does more good than harm overall, and I wish to see it continue to be a positive force for good in the world. Yet just as not all shoes are made to fit all, the varieties of Mormonisms (Restoration groups) is like a shoe store with many side shoes for different size feet. So Brighamite Mormonism can be restrictive and uncomfortable and thus "unhealthy" for some people, just as you can't force someone with a size 7 foot to fit into a size 4 shoe without causing a lot of a foot pains. Yet there are certain personalities and temperaments who have certain needs and preferences, so that the Brighamite sect fits them perfectly.
