Jacob Vidrine tells how authority transferred from Benjamin F Johnson in Nauvoo to Alma Dayer LeBaron and the LeBaron groups. Check out our conversation…

The LeBaron authority line, originating from Benjamin F. Johnson, is like a secret royal charter given directly by the king (Joseph Smith) to a trusted advisor, authorizing him to establish a new subsidiary branch of the kingdom. While other fundamentalist lines (Woolleyites) claim authority based on a later, more public decree (John Taylor’s revelation), the LeBaron claim bypasses that decree entirely, asserting that they hold the direct, foundational keys passed down in private, reserved councils from the original founder, allowing them to continue the highest work of the kingdom regardless of later organizational changes.

0:00 Succession Crisis

Don’t miss our other conversations with Jacob: https://gospeltangents.com/people/jacob-vidrine

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

When most people, particularly those familiar with the history of the Latter-day Saint (LDS) Church, think of Mormon fundamentalism, their minds often drift immediately to groups like the FLDS or the AUB, tracing their origins back to the Lorin Woolley story. These groups represent 80 to 90% of fundamentalists who trace their authority back to the story of John Taylor receiving an 1886 revelation to keep plural marriage alive.

However, the history of fundamentalism is far more complex, encompassing groups like the Kingstons and the LeBarons, who assert a distinct and separate line of authority. The LeBaron family lineage, from which the Church of the Firstborn descends, presents one of the most peculiar and historically rich claims in fundamentalist Mormonism, tracing its authority back to the Nauvoo period of Joseph Smith’s ministry.

The LeBaron name often carries stigma due to Ervil LeBaron, who led the Church of the Lamb of God and was a convicted murderer. This historical exploration focuses on the lineage claimed by the Ross LeBaron line, or “Firstborners,” who are not associated with Ervil’s violence.

To understand the LeBaron claim, one must examine the higher orders of priesthood introduced by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. This era saw the introduction of new temple rituals, doctrines pertaining to godhood, and work for the dead. Central to this was the concept of the “fullness of the priesthood” or “highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood,” associated with making men and women kings and priests and queens and priestesses.

Joseph Smith taught that this authority derived from keys restored in the Kirtland Temple by Moses, Elias, and Elijah. Statements from the time suggest that those who received this highest authority—such as the second anointing—held the potential to restore the entire church and kingdom, possessing power to officiate in any office from the lowest to the highest. This higher authority was sometimes referred to as patriarchal priesthood.

This higher order was perceived as priesthood above the church. During the trial of Sidney Rigdon, for example, Heber C. Kimball stated that Rigdon, despite being a member of the First Presidency, did not hold the same “higher authority” possessed by more than 30 other men. This higher authority may have referred to members of the Anointed Quorum or the Council of Fifty.

The Council of Fifty, established in the last months before Joseph Smith’s death, was intended to be the political kingdom of God on earth, functioning as a literal government. However, historical sources suggest it was viewed by many, including Lyman Wight and critical “Brewster-ites,” as a presiding priesthood body that held authority no church tribunal could control. Brigham Young himself stated that the Council of Fifty would be the “governing and presiding body of this kingdom,” defying anyone to draw a dividing line between its spiritual and temporal affairs.

This Council of Fifty was also the setting for Joseph Smith’s “last charge” speech, where he is traditionally recorded as rolling the responsibility of establishing the kingdom onto the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. However, some accounts, including a statement from Brigham Young in the 1845 Council of Fifty minutes, corrected the notion that the charge was solely to the Twelve, asserting that it was a charge to the entire Council of Fifty to “bear off the kingdom to all the world.”

The LeBaron authority traces directly to a specific member of the Council of Fifty and an intimate friend of Joseph Smith: Benjamin F Johnson.

Johnson was among the men added to the Council of Fifty on March 26, 1844, during a meeting where Joseph Smith “continued his instructions on heavenly matter[s].” Johnson was also the last living original member of the Council of Fifty, a fact he repeatedly emphasized in his later writings. Johnson was taught by Joseph Smith about temple ordinances, plural marriage, endowments, garments, and the second anointing from the beginning.

Crucially, Johnson claimed that Joseph Smith authorized him “to teach this to others when I was led to do so.” In a 1903 letter to the First Presidency, Johnson referred to other things that Joseph taught to us in this council that I am not at liberty to write, emphasizing that Joseph had told him: Benjamin, those things that have been committed to you, you are authorized to commit them to others when you are led to do so by the… Holy Spirit. Johnson was claiming exclusive secret knowledge and independent authority stemming from his temple experience and Joseph Smith’s charge.

The distinct LeBaron fundamentalist claim arises because Alma Dayer LeBaron Sr. (Dayer), the family patriarch, was Benjamin F. Johnson’s grandson.

Dayer received a patriarchal blessing from Johnson in the mid-1890s when Dayer was about ten years old, which family tradition holds appointed him to be the birthright of Joseph Smith. This connection was bolstered by the family tradition that the LeBarons were spiritually Joseph Smith’s posterity, drawing on the Nauvoo/early Utah concept of leverite marriage where children born after a sealing to Joseph would be considered his eternal seed. The blessing record itself mentioned holding the “birthright in… thy father’s house,” using the exact verbiage John Taylor had used for appointing family birthrights in the Nauvoo Temple.

According to the LeBaron family, Johnson charged Dayer near his death (1903–1905) to “carry on the kingdom” and conferred upon him all the priesthood that Johnson had received from Joseph Smith. Dayer spent his life attempting to establish a colony in Mexico and entered plural marriage in the 1920s, which led to his excommunication from the LDS Church.

Dayer was generally secretive about his authority claim, often referred to by his daughter as “The Silent Prophet.” However, antagonist witnesses, such as Margarito Bautista, recalled Dayer speaking of receiving a special authority claim as early as 1910–1913, only five years after Johnson’s death.

Dayer’s secrecy contributed to a succession crisis upon his death around 1951, mirroring the succession crisis that followed Joseph Smith’s death. Dayer had been hesitant to appoint a successor, stating he could not do so unless the Holy Ghost directed him.

The two most prominent sons in the authority claim were Benjamin (Ben), the oldest, and Ross Wesley LeBaron (the second oldest.) Unfortunately, Ben suffered from mental illness after being ordained by his father, claiming to be “the one mighty and strong”8788. Dayer’s reluctance to teach his younger children about his claim was partially linked to Ben’s mental demise.

The crisis culminated with the three primary contenders:

The unique authority claim of the Ross LeBaron line, and the Church of the Firstborn today, rests on this direct, non-Woolley lineage stemming from Joseph Smith’s highest priesthood orders in Nauvoo, passed through Benjamin F. Johnson, and ultimately commissioned to Ross Wesley LeBaron to carry on the patriarchal work of the kingdom.

Don’t miss our other conversations with Jacob: https://gospeltangents.com/people/jacob-vidrine

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

Let’s look into the unique authority claims of the Church of the Firstborn, also often referred to by the term Ross LeBaron-ite. They claim authority through the Council of 50 in Nauvoo! This group represents an interesting fundamentalist branch because its line of authority is distinct from the majority of other fundamentalist groups, such as the FLDS and AUB, who primarily trace their authority through the Lorin Woolley story.

https://youtu.be/HeX3jEvK0FQ

Don’t miss our other conversations with Jacob: https://gospeltangents.com/people/jacob-vidrine

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

Most Mormon fundamentalists—around 80% to 90%—trace their priesthood origin story back to the Lorin Woolley story. This story holds that John Taylor received an 1886 revelation telling him that plural marriage was never to be taken from the earth, leading him to set apart men (including Woolley) to keep the practice alive separate from the church911.

The LeBarons, along with the Kingston group, represent authority claims that are separate from this dominant Woolley line. While the Kingstons claim a “new dispensation” or visitation by messengers to confer authority, the LeBarons trace their authority back to Benjamin F. Johnson and the Nauvoo era, which often sounds like “probably the most peculiar out of any fundamentalist claim.”

To understand the LeBaron claim, one must examine the “higher orders of priesthood” introduced by Joseph Smith during the Nauvoo period.

This higher authority was often referred to as the fullness of the priesthood or the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, which entailed being ordained a king and a priest. This authority was conferred through temple ordinances administered to select close followers, initially in the Anointed Quorum (or Holy Order) and later related to the Council of 50.

The LeBaron authority is rooted in the claims of Benjamin F. Johnson, who was a close friend of Joseph Smith. Johnson claimed that Joseph taught him about plural marriage, endowments, garments, and the second anointing, and authorized him “to teach it to others when I’m led to when I’m led to do so.” Johnson emphasized in his later writings that he was the “last living original member of the Council of 50.”

Alma Dayer LeBaron Sr. (often called Dayer) was a grandson of Benjamin F. Johnson. The LeBaron family tradition claims that in the mid-1890s, Johnson gave Dayer a patriarchal blessing appointing him to be the birthright of Joseph Smith to hold a special family position. The family claims that Johnson charged Dayer to carry on the kingdom and conferred upon him all the priesthood authority that Johnson himself had received from Joseph Smith.

Alma Dayer LeBaron Sr. spent most of his life in Mexico, trying to establish a colony and living plural marriage after being excommunicated from the LDS Church. He maintained a distinct priesthood claim but kept it secretive for much of his life.

Upon Dayer’s death (c. 1951), the LeBaron family faced a succession crisis, similar to the tension seen in the Nauvoo period or the contemporaneous split happening in the Woolley group.

Dayer had several sons who became prominent, notably:

Because Alma Dayer LeBaron Sr. died without clearly appointing a successor, the LeBarons broke into different factions, each claiming the authority Dayer had passed down. Ross’s specific brand of LeBaronism focuses on the direct transfer of temple keys and the charge to continue the patriarchal work in Utah, separate from the tragedies and violence that plagued the Mexico-based groups.

What do you think of these claims?

Don’t miss our other conversations with Jacob: https://gospeltangents.com/people/jacob-vidrine

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission

I’m excited to introduce Jacob Vidrine, a member of Church of the Firstborn. This is a group that is part of the LeBaron fundamentalist group. Jacob is a human encyclopedia of Mormn fundamentalism, and we’re going to dive deep into how the LeBaron group cross-pollinates with other fundamentalist groups. Check it out!

0:00 Intro LeBaron Family

For more info on Mormon fundamentalism: https://gospeltangents.com/denominations/fundamentalim/

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.

When discussing Mormon Fundamentalism, most people—especially members of the LDS Church—immediately think of the FLDS or AUB (Apostolic United Brethren). These groups largely trace their origin back to the authority line popularized by Lorin Woolley. However, there is a fascinating and often misunderstood branch of fundamentalism that descends from a completely different line of authority: the LeBarons. As a helpful overview of this distinctive lineage, we spoke with Jacob Vidrine of the Church of the Firstborn, sometimes colloquially referred to as Ross LeBaron-ites.

——————————————————————————–

The name LeBaron often carries a dark stigma, primarily due to the terrible acts committed by Ervil LeBaron, who was a murderer and died in jail. It is important to note that Vidrine is not associated with Ervil’s group6….

The LeBaron family, descending from patriarch Alma Dayer LeBaron Sr. (“Dayer”), primarily split into two main groups:

Approximately 80% to 90% of fundamentalists trace their priesthood authority back to the Lorin Woolley story. This claim rests on the assertion that John Taylor received a revelation in 1886 confirming that plural marriage should never be removed from the earth, after which he set apart men (including Woolley) to keep the practice alive.

Historically, however, the LeBarons and Kingstons maintain a distinct authority claim. The LeBaron claim is deemed by some to be “the most peculiar out of any fundamentalist claim”, as it bypasses the 1886 revelation entirely and goes straight back to the Nauvoo era through Benjamin F. Johnson.

Benjamin F. Johnson was a close friend of Joseph Smith and was one of the men added to the Council of 50 in March 1844. Johnson was heavily invested in the secretive Nauvoo doctrines and claimed that Joseph Smith taught him about plural marriage, the endowment, garments, and the second anointing. Crucially, Johnson claimed that Joseph Smith authorized him “to teach this to others when I’m was led to when I’m led to do” by the Holy Spirit.

Alma Dayer LeBaron, the patriarch of the LeBaron family, was Benjamin F. Johnson’s grandson. Family tradition holds that Johnson conferred upon Dayer a patriarchal blessing in the mid-1890s, appointing him to the “birthright of Joseph Smith” to preside over the family. Near his death (1905), Johnson allegedly charged Dayer to carry on the kingdom and conferred all the priesthood authority that Johnson had received from Joseph Smith.

Alma Dayer LeBaron was secretive about this authority claim for much of his life (earning him the nickname “The Silent Prophet” by his daughter.) However, his son, Ross LeBaron, claimed that in 1950, his father conferred upon him “all the keys, rights, and authority of the patriarchal order of priesthood,” which Ross understood to be the temple keys restored by Moses, Elias, and Elijah in Kirtland.

The entire foundation of the LeBaron claim rests on the idea that Joseph Smith established a higher order of priesthood in Nauvoo that operates independently of the mainstream church structure.

Joseph Smith taught that this higher authority was the “fullness of the priesthood” or the “highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood”. This fullness, Joseph and Brigham Young taught, was the authority required “to be a king and a priest”.

This authority was conferred through select temple ordinances and included the sealing power.

The authority claim for the Church of the Firstborn is therefore rooted in this secretive, independent, and higher-level authority that they believe Joseph Smith conferred outside of the church’s main organizational structure, passing from Joseph Smith to Benjamin F. Johnson, and eventually down to the LeBaron family.

https://gospeltangents.com/denominations/fundamentalim/

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.

Joseph Fielding Smith is the architect of controversial LDS orthodoxy. He has some controversial writings about Blacks and Ezra Taft Benson. We’ll also delve into his role with Lowell Bennion, a BYU professor who was fired. Was JFS responsible or was it someone else? Matthew Bowman answers. We’ll also dive into his role in shaping orthodoxy in the 20th century. Don’t forget to check out Matt’s amazing biography on Joseph Fielding Smith! Check out our conversation…

https://youtu.be/_aBWPp4i1OY

Don’t miss our other conversations with Matt: https://gospeltangents.com/people/matthew-bowman

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Joseph Fielding Smith described as a “lightning rod” due to some views considered politically incorrect today, particularly regarding race. Dr. Matt Bowman, author of “Joseph Fielding Smith, a Mormon Theologian,” sheds light on Smith’s impact on the church.

One of the most uncomfortable aspects of Smith’s legacy is his writings about Black individuals, especially concerning the priesthood. In his work, The Way to Perfection, Smith explicitly stated his subscription to the theory that people of African descent were less righteous in the pre-existence. He used language suggesting they were “not entitled to be born white.” Smith was a staunch “defender of the racial restrictions” in the Church and became a major exponent of the idea, which the source traces back to Orson Hyde, that Black people possessed souls less righteous in the pre-existence. This stance led to prominent public clashes, notably with church educator Lowell Bennion at a symposium in the early 1950s. Their argument over the ban contributed to Bennion’s eventual dismissal by Ernest Wilkinson, who was president of BYU and commissioner of church education. Wilkinson viewed Bennion as too liberal on race and saw Smith as an ally in this regard. While Wilkinson was the person who carried out the dismissal, the collision with Fielding Smith helped instigate the decision.

Smith also had complex relationships, even with those seen as ideologically sympathetic. Despite being viewed as a fellow conservative, Smith had significant disagreements with Ezra Taft Benson. A letter from Smith exists in which he hoped Benson’s “blood will be purified” upon his return from a mission in Europe in the 1960s. Smith was skeptical of the Church becoming heavily involved in American politics, viewing Benson’s fascination with politics as distasteful and inappropriate for an apostle. He considered it “unseemly” and “disreputable.” Smith also saw Benson as a conspiracy theorist, distinguishing standard conservative politics (like that of Dwight Eisenhower or David McKay) from conspiracy theory. Smith hoped Benson’s time away would rid him of these inclinations, allowing him to return as an apostle rather than an aspiring amateur politician. This highlights that “real deep divides” can exist even within the conservative camp.

Perhaps Smith’s most enduring theological contribution was his role in developing the idea of orthodoxy within the Latter-day Saint tradition. Orthodoxy, an older Protestant concept particularly associated with John Calvin, posits that being a faithful member requires believing certain things and that incorrect beliefs can jeopardize salvation. This was not a central idea in the early Christian Church’s first century. Smith, possibly influenced by Protestant fundamentalism, began insisting in the mid-20th century that belief is actually really important and that believing “the correct ideas” were crucial because incorrect beliefs could “ruin your salvation.” He defended this notion vigorously. Historically, while early Christianity saw debates over ideas like the Trinity, and Roman Catholicism emphasized sacraments and art for teaching, the strong push for average members to understand and adhere to correct doctrine emerged from the Reformed Protestant tradition.

Smith’s emphasis on orthodoxy gained significant traction in the church. When he became President, many members of the Quorum of the Twelve were individuals he had mentored and who shared his views, such as Harold B. Lee, Mark Peterson, and Marion G. Romney. These leaders became “movers and shakers” who believed in Smith’s ideas. There was an explicit push for institutions like BYU to teach Smith’s works, placing his ideas “at the center of what it meant to be a member of the church.” The correlation movement and curriculum standardization were built upon Smith’s ideas and writings, influencing the church through the late 20th century.

However, the source suggests a shift began in the 1990s, moving away from this retrenchment orthodox position towards devotionalism. This newer emphasis highlights that being a good member is about living a good life, being ethical, attending church, and studying scriptures. The focus shifted from basing lessons on doctrinal works like Bruce R. McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” to emphasizing ethical behavior and community building. The discontinuation of “Mormon Doctrine” is seen as symbolic of this fading emphasis ozn strict orthodoxy. Bishops today are often more concerned with community involvement and service than with members’ theological positions on topics like evolution.

While the emphasis on “Smith style orthodoxy” may be waning, “Smith style defensiveness” is taking on new manifestations. Recent events at BYU and disciplinary actions are cited as examples. These issues are often framed not as theological disputes, but as centering around issues of gender, practice, and how people live. While related to moral issues Smith and McConkie addressed, the current focus is more on social organization and conduct. This reflects a renewed sense of being understood siege mentality and a need to “put up a fight” against secularization, reminiscent of Joseph Fielding Smith’s defensiveness, though applied more to issues of practice than abstract belief.

Do you think JFS’s influence is waning 50 years after his death, especially with regards to race ban, defensiveness, and controversial LDS orthodoxy?

Don’t miss our other conversations with Matt: https://gospeltangents.com/people/matthew-bowman

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

A key figure who accelerated the historical crisis for both the Tanners (who left the group in 1962) and Pauline’s church was Wes Walters, a Presbyterian minister from Marissa, Illinois.

Walters was asked to write an article on Mormons for Christianity Today. His detailed research focused on testing Joseph Smith’s claims against tangible historical records, particularly those surrounding the First Vision. Walters reasoned that while you couldn’t prove whether Smith spoke to God, you could prove whether he was standing in a given place on a given day.

https://youtu.be/gPDG7CA9n-0

Don’t miss our other conversations with Sandra: https://gospeltangents.com/people/sandra-tanner

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Walters used his expertise in church history (specifically Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian records in the New York area) to investigate Joseph Smith’s claim that the First Vision was prompted by an intense local revival where ministers were fighting over converts.

Walters’ findings: the great revival and the subsequent fighting over converts among the denominations did not happen in 1820. Instead, significant church growth (hundreds of converts) occurred between 1823, 1824, and 1825. This discovery forced a complete recalibration of the chronology, as it meant the First Vision and the subsequent Moroni visits leading up to the plates could not logically fit the existing timeline.

Walters’ small pamphlet, New Light on Mormon Origins, caused such a disruption that it “threw the Mormon Church into a tizzy,” forcing LDS historians to travel back East to conduct their own major studies. Walters is credited by Sandra Tanner as being a key factor in pushing the LDS Church into serious historical scholarship.

While Walters’ dating research was shocking, his discovery of the 1826 trial documents cemented the crisis.

Pauline’s group, following David Whitmer, already accepted the story that Joseph Smith used a “rock” in his “hat” to translate the Book of Mormon, aligning with the “seer stone” narrative. However, the 1826 trial confirmed Joseph Smith’s involvement in money digging, associating the seer stone with divination and magic practices—the occult that the Christians in Pauline’s group firmly rejected.

The group found this connection irreconcilable:

The Church of Christ (Bible Book of Mormon), founded and led by Pauline Hancock, emerged as a unique splinter group focused on returning to what they believed was “1830 Mormonism”—a faith centered purely on the Bible and the Book of Mormon, devoid of later revelations (like the Doctrine and Covenants past 1830) and “Aaronic, Melchizedek Priesthood ideas”.

However, this small community, known for meeting in the “Basement church” in Independence, ultimately discovered that even their foundational scripture, the Book of Mormon, could not withstand intense historical scrutiny, leading to its dissolution years after Pauline Hancock’s death in 1962.

Faced with this overwhelming historical evidence, the Church of Christ had to make a choice regarding their “litmus test”—the Book of Mormon.

In 1972, approximately a decade after Pauline’s death (she died in the summer of 1962), the church took a formal vote on whether to retain the Book of Mormon as scripture.

The majority voted no, choosing to jettison the Book of Mormon.

The consequences were immediate:

The building, which had been the “Basement church,” was eventually purchased by another restoration group. Olive Wilcox, who led the group after Pauline, stated that she believed Pauline herself, had she lived to see the comprehensive research done by Walters, would also have chosen to give up the Book of Mormon.

What are your thoughts?

Don’t miss our other conversations with Sandra: https://gospeltangents.com/people/sandra-tanner

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Jerald and Sandra Tanner received an apostolic scolding by LeGrand Richards over the First Vision! By the early 1960s, Sandra and Jerald Tanner were deep into critical analysis of Mormon history, having transitioned from struggling Utah Mormons to committed followers of a Christ-focused faith centered on the Bible and the Book of Mormon. This new path led them to join Pauline Hancock’s “Basement Church” in Independence, Missouri, formally known as the Church of Christ (Bible & Book of Mormon).

https://youtu.be/uuMY1kq_k_M

0:00 Attending Pauline’s church

Don’t miss our other conversations with Sandra: https://gospeltangents.com/people/sandra-tanner

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

While Jerald had previously traveled to Independence and was baptized, Sandra eventually went by train to meet the group. She was baptized by Pauline in the summer of 1960, making a profession of faith in Christ and affirming her belief in the Book of Mormon. Pauline, described as a lovely woman, was very convinced of her position and served as the preacher for the group, though she never claimed the title of prophet.

This period of adherence to the “Whitmerite” view—rejecting revelations past 1830 and scrapping “Aaronic & Melchizedek priesthood ideas”—was short-lived as the Tanners’ historical questions mounted. Their quest soon took a dramatic turn, involving a top church leader and a disputed document.

In June 1960, just before moving from California to Salt Lake, Sandra sent a formal letter to all the apostles announcing that she was leaving the LDS Church. Her letter detailed several critical issues, including problems with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants changes, differences in the doctrine of God over time, and the evolving narrative of the First Vision. She noted that earlier references to the First Vision seemed to speak of an “angel” or “messenger”, not the Father and the Son, suggesting the latter was a later change.

Apostle LeGrand Richards responded to Sandra’s letter, attempting to prove her wrong. He claimed that his great-grandfather, Joseph Lee Robinson, wrote in his diary in 1841 that Joseph Smith had told him he saw the Father and the Son. Richards reasoned that such an early reference would undermine Sandra’s claim of a shifting narrative.

The Tanners arranged a meeting with Apostle Richards at the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City to see the original document. Richards was immediately “miffed” when Sandra brought Jerald, who he perceived as a “doubting Thomas.”

Instead of the original diary, Richards presented them with a typed extract containing the crucial two lines about the Father and Son. Jerald immediately pointed out that this was not the whole page and was not the actual diary. When Jerald asked to turn back the microfilm to check the date and context of the excerpt, Richards refused, accusing the Tanners of “questioning everything” he showed them.

The confrontation escalated dramatically in the genealogical building, where Richards had taken them to view the film. Richards seized the film from the reader, declaring to the staff: “These people are not to see this. If they come back in, you’re not to get this out to show it to them. They’re just troublemakers. They do not have authority to see this again.” Jerald and Richards stomped out of the room arguing, while everyone in the room watched the shocking spectacle of someone arguing with an apostle.

Richards’ efforts to suppress the film failed. After months of checking, Sandra eventually returned downtown. She filled out a call card using the film number she had previously written down. The girl at the desk noted the card had been pulled from the catalog but retrieved the film anyway, assuming Sandra was authorized since she had the number.

Sandra quickly turned to the relevant entry and discovered the truth: the document was not Joseph Lee Robinson’s 1841 diary, but rather his memoirs, written 40 years later in Utah in the 1880s. This discovery rendered the testimony unreliable as an early historical account, reinforcing the Tanners’ conclusion that the Church leadership was willing to suppress or misrepresent historical evidence to maintain the official narrative.

Meanwhile, the faith community that had baptized Sandra was facing its own crisis.

Pauline Hancock had suffered from breast cancer. During a trip to Salt Lake, she had shown Jerald and Sandra the open wound under her arm to ensure they would be witnesses that she truly had cancer. She was praying for healing, but prepared for either outcome, stating that if she didn’t get healed, it would be due to her own “lack of faith”, not a mark against God.

Around the same time, the Tanners concluded they could no longer accept the Book of Mormon, based on their intensive studies of its internal structure, archaeology, and chronology, deciding that “historically it just doesn’t make it.” They ultimately set the book aside.

When the Tanners sent their material questioning the Book of Mormon to the Church of Christ leadership (the Wilcoxes had taken over after Pauline died), they did not realize Pauline had already passed away.

Following Pauline’s death, her “Basement Church” dissolved. Some families who wanted to hold onto the Book of Mormon joined other splinter groups, while others decided to “follow Christ and stick with the Bible.”

Don’t miss our other conversations with Sandra: https://gospeltangents.com/people/sandra-tanner

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Sandra Tanner discusses one of the most intriguing episodes in Mormon history: her early inquiry into the missing 1832 First Vision account. (She didn’t know it was missing at the time. The account was allegedly ripped out of the Joseph Smith journal by Church Historian Joseph Fielding Smith. This pursuit led Sandra directly into correspondence with Joseph Fielding Smith, then Church Historian, concerning what she believed was the original, definitive record of Joseph Smith’s earliest spiritual experience.

https://youtu.be/1pDKtA4RfmE

Don’t miss our other conversations with Sandra: https://gospeltangents.com/people/sandra-tanner

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

0:00 Tanner’s Secret Polygamy

Sandra Tanner’s journey into questioning Mormon orthodoxy was significantly shaped by her mother, who was already deep into researching early Mormonism in the late 1950s. Sandra’s mother insisted on finding chapter and verse for religious claims, refusing to simply take the word of “the brethren” or rely solely on church manuals, often disrupting Sunday school classes with her inquisitive mind.

Sandra’s first met Jerald Tanner in the 1950s. He introduced her to David Whitmer’s thinking and the ideas of Pauline Hancock’s group, the Church of Christ-Bible & Book of Mormon). This set the stage for intense study.

A major focal point of this research was the nature of God and how the changing views of God affected the narrative of the First Vision. Sandra noted that the Book of Mormon, in its earliest form, presented a view of God that did not align with the current Mormon understanding of a separate Father and Son.

As Sandra, Jerald, and her mother poured over available documents, they focused on inconsistencies surrounding the First Vision:

Sandra and her associates reasoned that if the First Vision story was constantly evolving, they needed to see the genesis of the account.

In the early 1960s (circa 1961), Sandra, Jerald, and her mother formulated a letter outlining these historical questions to be sent to then-Church Historian, Joseph Fielding Smith. Sandra simply assumed that an initial written account must exist and requested a photocopy of the “original Joseph Smith handwritten account of the First Vision”.

Little did Sandra know that some people, like her friend Lamar Peterson, did know about a “strange account” (the 1832 version) that had been shown to him by Levi Edgar Young, who was sworn to secrecy by Joseph Fielding Smith.

Sandra’s request, though based on assumption, might have caused immediate alarm in the Church Historian’s Office. Sandra speculates that Joseph Fielding Smith had previously cut the 1832 account out of the ledger book because he realized it was problematic. When Smith received Sandra’s letter, he may have assumed she possessed insider knowledge. To get ahead of any arguments about hiding evidence, Smith subsequently taped the pages back into the ledger book.

“I think he cut it out back in the time of Levi Edgar Young. I mean, this is my assumption that at that time he cut it out because he realized it was problematic and he didn’t want anyone else coming across this.”

Joseph Fielding Smith did not send Sandra the document she requested. Instead, he wrote back to her bishop (Bishop Warren Kennedy). When the bishop read the response to Sandra, the letter was highly critical, asserting that if the “young woman would stop listening to the enemies of the church and seek for a testimony instead, she wouldn’t have these kind of questions“. Smith went on to call Sandra out for her “apostate spirit”.

Crucially, Smith ended the letter with a curious line: ” if I showed her such a thing would that even convince her”.

Sandra realized later that this specific wording was used because Smith knew that the 1832 account—which primarily details Christ appearing to Joseph (not the Father and Son)—would not convince her to return to the mainstream narrative but would actually reinforce her argument about the shifting view of God.

The controversy over the 1832 account, however, did eventually enter official channels. Joseph Fielding Smith utilized Paul Cheesman’s BYU thesis in 1965 as the official mode for publication, allowing the church to place the account on the record and refute arguments that they were hiding history.

What do you think of Sandra’s recounting?

Don’t miss our other conversations with Sandra: https://gospeltangents.com/people/sandra-tanner

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Will there be murderers in Celestial Kingdom? An Institute Teacher’s answer challenged Sandra Tanner’s faith back in the 1950s. We’ll talk about this unusual case and how it contributed to Sandra joining Pauline Hancock’s Basement Church (known as Church of Christ) in Independence Missouri. Check out our conversation…

https://youtu.be/4c6tu0SYs6

Don’t miss our other conversations with Sandra: https://gospeltangents.com/people/sandra-tanner

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

The history of early Mormonism and its subsequent splinter groups is complex, but few journeys into critical thinking are as personal and profound as that of Sandra Tanner. Raised defending the faith, her path to becoming a leading critic of Mormonism was catalyzed by several unexpected influences, including the work of a pioneering female Restoration leader and the startling discovery of historical documents.

Sandra Tanner’s husband, Jerald Tanner, was deeply influenced by an obscure Restoration group led by Pauline Hancock. Pauline was a head of her group, called the Church of Christ (Bible Book of Mormon), serving as its minister and preacher. Though she never claimed to be a prophet, she was considered a “deliverer of the message”.

Crucially, Pauline did claim to have a vision of Christ before the group started meeting as a church. This vision occurred during a transition when she was trying to sort out what she believed, focusing on the “original kernel of Mormonism”. She told Christ she couldn’t fulfill the calling to tell the world what she had learned because she was a woman, but Christ responded, “I was a man, and they didn’t listen to me. So, it doesn’t matter that you’re a woman. You are called to go out and tell what you’ve learned”.

Pauline’s group focused on studying the Book of Mormon outside of various splinter groups. Their theology centered on the “oneness idea of God,” a modalistic model (though they would not have used the term “modalism”). They aimed for a rejuvenation of the David Whitmer flavor of Mormonism, seeking to go “back to original Mormonism” using just the Bible and Book of Mormon.

Jerald Tanner became converted to Pauline’s message after two visits to Missouri. At age 20 (around 1957 or 1958), Jerald returned to Salt Lake and began holding little cottage meetings at his parents’ house. He would play reel-to-reel tapes of Pauline’s different sermons or teachings. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss early Mormonism and explain where the Church “went off the track”.

Sandra’s grandmother, a relative by marriage to the Brigham Young family, received an invitation to one of these meetings via a postcard. Sandra, visiting from Southern California during spring break, drove her grandmother to the meeting. Grandmother claimed it was “sort of like a Mormon fireside”. Jerald, whom she found “nice looking” and “cute,” impressed her with his studies on Mormonism’s problems and the group’s focus on returning to the Book of Mormon.

Sandra’s journey of doubt had already been seeded by others.

First, her mother and aunt began studying Mormon history in the 1950s after reading Fawn Brodie’s book, No Man Knows My History. They were pouring over “apostate literature” and photocopies. Sandra, then in high school, was busy defending the faith, while her mother and aunt were “going into apostasy”. Sandra noted that her mother became known as being “too inquisitive” in Sunday school classes, often disrupting the class with questions.

Sandra’s mother and aunt found James Wardle’s barbershop, possibly through Sam Weller’s bookstore (which stocked anti-Mormon and polygamy literature). James Wardle was the link that put Sandra’s mother in contact with Pauline Hancock’s group.

Second, Sandra recounts her first challenge in Mormonism occurring in 8th grade when a Christian girl questioned her about what Mormons believed about God. Sandra proudly quoted the popular saying from the 1950s: ” as man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” The girl called this “blasphemy” and walked away, leaving Sandra stunned.

Third, while attending the Institute of Religion in Southern California in the late 1950s, Sandra was troubled by a conversation with her Institute teacher about an acquaintence convicted of murder. The teacher said that the person could never be baptized, receive the temple ordinances (endowments/sealings,) or reach the celestial kingdom. This answer shocked Sandra, who questioned how this system fit the “gospel of Jesus” if the “good news” meant, “Unfortunately, you don’t qualify”. (It is noted that current 2025 church policy allows a person convicted of murder to be baptized and go to the temple after completing their sentence, with First Presidency approval, but the practical difficulties for a prisoner remained. If he was on death row, he would never qualify.) It is unknown what official Church policy was in 1958.

After meeting Jerald, their courtship centered on studying Mormon history. Sandra, who was raised to practically worship Brigham Young, told Jerald she was a “great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young”. Jerald challenged her to read his sermons.

Jerald brought copies of sermons addressing Adam-God theology, polygamy, and the Civil War. But the ultimate “real deal breaker” for Sandra was reading the blood atonement sermons. Specifically, she was horrified by the passage where Brigham Young discusses finding his brother in bed with his wife:

“I would immediately put a javelin through them both and this would save them… I would be justified and… this is loving your neighbor as yourself.”

This teaching, which claimed there were “certain sins you could commit [that] the blood of Christ won’t cover,” was entirely opposite to the benign image she had of Brigham Young. Sandra immediately rejected Brigham Young out of hand: “God did not tell Brigham Young to teach this sermon. This cannot be from God… That guy’s toast.”

After that moment, Sandra was ready to read anything Jerald had. She purchased a copy of the 1833 Book of Commandments and compared it against the current Doctrine and Covenants, confirming David Whitmer’s claim that Joseph Smith had changed revelations.

Despite her own mother’s severe worries that Sandra was being “sucked in” to a “fanatic cult group” in Missouri (even though her mother acknowledged church problems, she would not leave the role of a Mormon), Sandra and Jerald had a whirlwind romance and were married by a Protestant minister. Their partnership in critiquing Mormon history had begun.

Don’t miss our other conversations with Sandra: https://gospeltangents.com/people/sandra-tanner

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Before Stassi Cramm became the first woman to lead the Community of Christ, Pauline Hancock led the Church of Christ. Sandra Tanner was baptized in about 1960 into Pauline Hancock’s Church of Christ. We’ll discuss Pauline’s church, Sandra’s conversion and de-conversion, and more in this amazing conversation. Check it out!

https://youtu.be/3V-7stAyZ9w

Don’t miss our other conversations with Sandra: https://gospeltangents.com/people/sandra-tanner

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

0:00 Updating Sandra Tanner

Sandra Tanner is well-known today as a staunch critic and historian of Mormonism, chronicled recently in the biography Lighthouse: Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Despised and Beloved Mormon Critics of Mormonism. While Sandra is now enjoying life in a condominium in Sandy, Utah, having retired from the stresses of her old neighborhood in Salt Lake City, her journey as a critic began in the late 1950s alongside her husband, Jerald Tanner56.

This period of questioning led the newlywed Tanners to explore various splinter groups, resulting in Sandra becoming a temporary convert to a unique movement led by one of the earliest known female leaders in the Restoration: Pauline Hancock’s Church of Christ.

Before diving into her early faith experience, Sandra is careful to distinguish her identity. She notes that she is comfortable being labeled a “Mormon critic,” but strongly rejects the term “anti-Mormon.” This is because the “anti-Mormon” label often implies an animosity toward the people, which she does not feel. She condemns any violence against Mormon people. She sees herself as a critic of Mormonism—its doctrines and history—not its followers.

The Tanners’ joint investigation into Mormonism began around 1959. Jerald’s personal crisis was spurred around age 18 when his bishop suggested he go on a mission. Jerald began reading critical works, notably Fawn Brodie’s book (written in 1945), which was the standard critical source at the time.

His investigation led him to seek out local splinter groups, first visiting the Reorganized Church in Salt Lake City. There, he met a barber named James Wardle, who operated a shop that housed one of the largest collections of historic books on early Mormonism. Wardle provided Jerald with a key text that shaped his direction: David Whitmer’s pamphlet, An Address to All Believers in Christ (1887).

Whitmer’s position was that the Book of Mormon was the main thing and that Joseph Smith “got a big head, invented all this other stuff.” This idea became Jerald’s litmus test: if there was any truth to Mormonism, it had to be at the start, centered on the Book of Mormon. Jerald even took a trip to Independence, Missouri, to verify Whitmer’s claims that the revelations had been changed, specifically noting discrepancies between the current version of the Doctrine and Covenants and the early Book of Commandments.

James Wardle also informed Jerald about Pauline Hancock’s small Church of Christ group, noting that they aligned more closely with David Whitmer’s views than other splinter groups.

Pauline Hancock was raised in the Reorganized (RLDS) Church, where her father had served as a pastor in Salt Lake City. She became disillusioned with both the RLDS and the Temple Lot Church. She, her husband, and others who went through similar struggles were deeply impacted by Whitmer’s pamphlet.

This group, sometimes referred to as “the Luke-ites” because they first met in the home of a Mr. Luke, established their own theological foundation:

Jerald visited Pauline’s small group in Independence multiple times in the mid-1950s, staying for weeks at a time. He was deeply influenced by Pauline’s message that “all you really need is Jesus” and that they should scrap the institutional “stuff.” Jerald found a new personal relationship with Christ through reading the Bible and the Book of Mormon, moving away from institutional religion.

While Pauline’s church eventually folded, she was highly influential. The sources note that while she never claimed the title of prophet for her movement, she did claim to have had a vision of Christ before the group formally started meeting as a church.

Don’t miss our other conversations with Sandra: https://gospeltangents.com/people/sandra-tanner

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

This is a throwback episode from 2018. Sandra & Jerald Tanner were the first to identify a Hofmann forgery. They were the first to claim the Salamander Letter was a forgery but they didn’t know it was a Hofmann forgery. Even though they didn’t suspect Mark Hofmann was the forger, they were eventually proved correct. Sandra tells how her husband Jerald came to that conclusion, his later illness & death from dementia, and whether she thinks some books in the Bible could be classified as forgeries. Plus at the end of the video, I’ll give a preview of my next interview with Sandra! Check out our conversation…

https://youtu.be/SK_6orYOYro

Don’t miss our other conversations with Sandra: https://gospeltangents.com/people/sandra-tanner

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Sandra Tanner is a long-time critic and historian of Mormonism. She details her interactions with the notorious document forger and murderer, Mark Hofmann. The interviews reveal a profound paradox—what Sandra Tanner called the “man bite dog story”—where the very critics who might have benefited from anti-LDS documents were the ones who first proved them to be frauds.

Here is a breakdown of the shocking discoveries, clever manipulations, and institutional controversies surrounding Hofmann, as shared by Sandra Tanner:

——————————————————————————–

Mark Hofmann first approached Sandra Tanner and her husband, Jerald, in 1978 or 1979 after having read their book, Mormonism Shadow or Reality. At this time, Hofmann was an average-looking young man who did not stand out, which actually aided him in his forgery business.

Hofmann’s initial goal was to establish credibility for his future fakes. He visited the Tanners and handed Sandra a photocopy of a one-sheet document—a fraudulent Second Anointing Ceremony. This ritual is considered higher than celestial marriage and promises eternal life (short of murder) to select individuals.

Hofmann spun a detailed, manipulative story, claiming he found the document (purporting to be from the 1912 Salt Lake Temple period) while cleaning out his deceased grandfather’s attic. He insisted he couldn’t share his name because his family was prominent, thus giving the document an air of mystery and protected provenance.

Sandra Tanner realized that Hofmann was attempting to raise the document’s value by having her pass it around, creating a “trail of interest”. However, because the document lacked provenance, Sandra did not publish it, though she did give copies out to people who asked, cautioning them that she could not vouch for it. This established Hofmann’s pattern: planting evidence or information about documents, often having others “find” them (like Jeff Simmonds finding the Anthon transcript pasted in a Bible) to lend them credibility.

When the Salamander Letter (a document critical of Joseph Smith, linking him to magic and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in a magic setting) was rumored and surfaced, Jerald Tanner was skeptical. Jerald insisted on seeing the whole typescript of the letter to properly evaluate it.

Jerald’s forensic methodology was based on a prior experience: years earlier, he had successfully argued that a document attributed to Oliver Cowdery was a forgery because it contained phrases lifted directly from Cowdery’s known letters, demonstrating a contrived writing style.

Applying this content analysis to the Salamander Letter, Jerald became convinced it was a fraud. He noted that the wording contained phrases lifted from earlier critical texts, specifically Ed Howe’s Mormonism Unveiled and the Joseph Knight letters. Jerald argued that the similarities in phrasing were “too much” and “too pat”.

Sandra, playing “devil’s advocate,” suggested that the repetitive phrasing could simply be Martin Harris’s standard way of telling his story. But Jerald was “absolutely convinced” that the Salamander Letter was “a product of someone studying Martin Harris”.

Jerald published a pamphlet challenging the letter’s wording, risking defamation lawsuits. He was willing to risk everything because he knew the document was forged. This happened despite the fact that Church historians, including Dean Jessee, had accepted the document as authentic after Hofmann supplied them with fake Martin Harris handwriting samples to verify the signature.

Hofmann’s success in fooling the Church historians was compounded by two factors:

After Jerald published his concerns, Hofmann appeared at the Tanners’ store, accusing them of trying to hurt his business and stop him from acquiring crucial historical documents.

Hofmann tried to halt Jerald’s criticism by appealing to Sandra’s interest in Brigham Young’s commingled funds. Hofmann claimed he was in touch with a descendant of Thomas Bullock (Brigham Young’s secretary) who possessed the “Bullock collection,” which supposedly detailed Young’s misuse of Church money. Hofmann argued that if the Tanners continued challenging his work, the Bullock family would refuse to do business with him, and Sandra would “be the one that stops this acquiring of these important collection of Thomas Bullock”.

Jerald, upon hearing the story, was completely cynical and dismissed it as a lie: “I want to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn,” he responded.

Regarding the outcome of the Hofmann case, Sandra was disappointed that the prosecutors negotiated a plea bargain instead of taking the case to a full trial. She believes the prosecuting attorney, being a “good Mormon,” would have been reluctant to subpoena General Authorities (like Gordon B. Hinckley, who had personally done business with Hofmann) and reveal confidential Church finances in court—issues that would have arisen if they attempted to prove the financial motive behind the murder. Ultimately, the prosecution secured a settlement where Hofmann confessed to everything in exchange for a 15 years to life sentence (which became a life sentence when he attempted to hire a hitman to kill the parole board).

Don’t miss our other conversations with Sandra: https://gospeltangents.com/people/sandra-tanner

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

You can get a Kindle or paperback transcript here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1718038240

If you’re interested in winning a biography of Sandra and Jerald, I’m giving away an autographed copy. Sign up at https://gospeltangents.com/contest and you could win!