Mormon History Podcast – Gospel Tangents – Mormon History Podcast

Historian Dan Vogel breaks down the complex history of the Book of Abraham, beginning with the 1835 purchase of Egyptian mummies in Kirtland, Ohio. Rather than seeing the Kirtland Egyptian Papers as a failed attempt by scribes to understand Egyptian, Vogel argues they were Joseph Smith’s own working papers. He demonstrates how Smith used these documents to “brainstorm” a new theological framework, allowing him to introduce doctrines like the priesthood ban and the plurality of gods under the guise of an ancient text. This is a replay of my 2019 interview with Dan.

Don’t miss our other conversations with Dan: https://gospeltangents.com/people/dan-vogel

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

The story begins in July 1835, when Michael Chandler arrived in Kirtland with four mummies and several papyrus scrolls. Joseph Smith purchased the collection for $2,400 and quickly identified the records as the writings of the biblical patriarchs Abraham and Joseph. Vogel notes that while Smith identified these as ancient records, they were actually Egyptian funerary texts, specifically the “Book of Breathings” (belonging to a priest named Horus) and the “Book of the Dead” (belonging to Ta-Sherit-Min).

A central part of the discussion involves the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, which include “Alphabet” and a bound “Grammar” volume. Vogel disputes the apologetic theory that these documents were a failed attempt by scribes to reverse-engineer Smith’s translation. Instead, he argues they were Smith’s own working papers used to “brainstorm” theological concepts. According to Vogel, Smith used these documents to develop complex ideas—such as a priesthood lineage and an Egyptian-themed cosmology—before dictating the final text.

Vogel presents compelling evidence that the Book of Abraham was orally dictated. He points to manuscripts where scribes Frederick G. Williams and Warren Parrish wrote simultaneously, making the same in-line corrections as Smith changed his mind about specific wording. Furthermore, the scribes used phonetic spellings for names like “Alcanor” or “Elkenah,” which reflected Joseph Smith’s distinct New England non-rhotic accent (e.g., dropping/adding the “r” sound).

One of the most significant findings involves the lacunae, or missing portions of the papyrus. Vogel asserts that where the scroll was damaged, Smith invented characters to fill the gaps. These invented characters were then transcribed into the translation manuscripts and given lengthy English definitions that ended up in the Book of Abraham. This suggests that the surviving fragments—which match these characters—were indeed the source material Smith was using.

The Book of Abraham served as a tool to introduce new doctrines that Smith was building into the Church’s structure. Vogel explains how the cosmology of the stars (like Kolob) mirrored the ecclesiastical structure of the Kirtland Temple. The three ruling planets and twelve others corresponded to the three presidencies and the twelve members of the High Council. In this way, Smith projected his 19th-century priesthood concerns back onto an ancient patriarchal narrative0.

Finally, Vogel addresses the modern apologetic “Long Scroll Theory,” which posits that the Book of Abraham was on a portion of the papyrus that was destroyed in the 1871 Chicago Fire. Vogel argues this is a “fallacy of possible proof”. He maintains that the documentary evidence—specifically the way the characters in the margins of the translation manuscripts match the surviving fragments—proves that Smith was translating from the documents we still possess today.

Don’t miss our other conversations with Dan: https://gospeltangents.com/people/dan-vogel

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

We’re diving deep into the evolution of First VIsion accounts with Historian Dan Vogel. He offers a deep dive into the historical developments of early Mormonism, challenging both critics and believers to look closer at the documents. What if Joseph Smith was neither a simple con man nor a traditional prophet, but something more complex?

Don’t miss our other conversations on the First Vision: https://gospeltangents.com/mormon_history/first-vision/

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Vogel describes himself as a “moderate” critic who seeks the most charitable view of Joseph Smith that a non-believer can hold. He proposes the theory of “pious fraud,” viewing Smith as an “inspired pseudepigraphist”. In this framework, Smith believed he was genuinely called by God to teach true doctrine but used intentional deception—such as the physical gold plates—to provide “evidence” that would make it harder for others to reject his message.

Vogel compares this to a faith healer who uses suggestion or minor “tricks” to raise an audience’s faith level so that they are prepared to receive what they believe are real miracles. For Smith, the “greater good” was the salvation of his followers and the conversion of his own family.

One of the most significant points of Vogel’s research is the evolution of the First Vision narrative. He highlights that the earliest recorded account from 1832 is markedly different from the canonized 1838 version.

Vogel argues that the 1820 date for the revival is anachronistic, noting that historical records place the great Palmyra revival in 1824–25. He suggests Smith moved the event back in his history to transform a personal “born-again” experience into a foundational event for the entire Church.

Angelic ordinations were likely a later development. Vogel asserts that early on, authority was understood as a direct command from God through a seer stone or revelation, rather than the laying on of hands by angels. It wasn’t until around 1834–35 that detailed stories of John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John appeared in the records. Vogel posits these stories were introduced to solidify Joseph Smith’s authority against internal challengers and to create a formal “chain of ordinations” that was harder to break.

Vogel tracks a clear evolution in Smith’s theology regarding the nature of God:

We’ll dive deeper into all 4 First Vision narratives. Check it out!

Recently, I had the fascinating opportunity to delve into the beliefs practices, and Strangite priesthood views with Gary Weber of the Strangite Church, a lesser-known branch of Mormonism. This discussion sheds light on many intriguing aspects of their faith, highlighting both commonalities and distinct differences from the more widely known LDS (Latter-day Saint) Church.

One of the most significant distinctions discussed was the Strangite understanding of the priesthood and its associated “keys.” While the Melchizedek priesthood holds specific keys related to office, it does not encompass all keys. According to Gary Weber, the Melchizedek priesthood cannot evolve to ordain a prophet. Instead, they believe a prophet can only be ordained by an angel, as was the case for Moses, Joseph Smith, and James J. Strang. The fundamental principle here is that “the lesser cannot ordain the greater”.

This leads to a critical differentiation of priesthood keys:

Gary noted that many members of the LDS Church often don’t understand this distinction between the two types of keys.

The Strangite Church observes the sacrament once a month, rather than weekly like the LDS Church. Their reasoning is that frequent observance could make it “mundane” and cause it to “lose its specialness and sacredness”.

The elements used for the sacrament also have specific requirements:

The conversation also touched upon Beaver Island, a significant historical site for Strangites. Currently, there is very little physical evidence of the Strangite presence on the island; “you would never know that Mormons were ever there,” Gary remarked. There are hardly any paved roads, mostly dirt, and the island is primarily a tourist and vacation spot.

However, some historical markers remain, such as a gravel road still known as “King’s Highway,” named after King James Strang. Historically, Beaver Island was where important practices like baptism for the dead took place at “Font Lake”. James J. Strang and other elders also engaged in missionary work with the local Native Americans, who reportedly loved Strang and called him “father”. Unfortunately, much of the history from that period, including records of baptisms among the Indians, was lost when the Strangites were driven off the island.

In our next episode, I’ll give a tour of Beaver Island. What are your thoughts?

Interracial Marriage is critical to the reasons for a priesthood/temple ban on black LDS Church members. For many years, the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) was that “it is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction [on the priesthood for male members of African descent] began in the church.” However, historical research utilizing early records suggests that the origins of the ban are quite specific, pointing to a confluence of events involving race and interracial sexual relations (often called “amalgamation” or “miscegenation” at the time) that served as the primary catalyst.

This was my first attempt at Mormon history scholarship and was a presentation I gave in 2012 at Sunstone outlining when, why, and how the ban began. Marguerite Driessen, former faculty at BYU was the respondent. Were you aware of this?

Don’t miss our other conversations on the priesthood ban: https://gospeltangents.com/mormon_history/racial-priesthood-temple-ban/

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

0:00 Meet Stassi Cram

Contradicting later restrictions, evidence shows that Black men held the priesthood and participated in temple ordinances during the earliest decades of the Church.

Furthermore, marriage between Black and white members was not automatically prohibitive; John Teague, a white Irishman, joined the church in 1842 with his Black wife, Evelyn Wilbur, and John was ordained a priest and then an elder. These facts confirm that no formal priesthood restrictions existed before 1847.

The shift from granting the priesthood to prohibiting it appears to have been driven by the highly visible, controversial interracial relationships of two Black elders in 1846 and 1847.

When Brigham Young received Applebee’s report in October 1847, he responded strongly, stating that when Black and White people “mingle seed it is death to all” and that if they were far away from non-Mormons, they would “all be killed.” Following these cases, Brigham Young privately claimed that “black-white sexual relations were against the law of God and advocated death to all who participated.” This reaction was fueled by a desire to stop interracial marriage & led to the institutional restriction.

The ban was publicly affirmed on February 15, 1852, when Brigham Young addressed the Utah territorial legislature and espoused the Curse of Cain doctrine, stating that the mark of Cain “is seen in the face of every negro on the earth” and declaring that any man “having one drop of seed of Cain in him cannot hold the priesthood.”

While interracial relationships may have been the catalyst that triggered the ban, many argue that this analysis ignores the underlying issue: pre-existing racial prejudice. Marguerite Driessen notes, “interracial marriage can cause no problems and it can result in no bad consequences at all unless there’s already racial prejudice to begin with.”

The underlying racism allowed church leaders to:

Thus, the events of 1847-1852 did not create the prejudice, but rather offered a convenient, concrete focus for leaders to impose restrictions that many members and leaders were already culturally inclined to accept. The ban was the result of church policy, not doctrine, and was maintained because the congregation was unwilling to fully accept equality until the 1978 revelation ended the restriction.

Can women hold priesthood in LeBaron Mormon fundamentalism? Jacob Vidrine from Church of the Firstborn surprised me with his answer about women & priesthood! We also finish our conversation about the race ban in Brigham Young & Joseph Smith’s time. Check out our conversation, but it is only available to newsletter subscribers. Sign up at https://gospeltangents.com/newsletter!

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

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

The discussion explores the often-simplified views of Brigham Young’s stance on race and slavery. While Brigham Young did articulate strong, lineage-based priesthood restrictions and opposed interracial marriage, he did not support slavery in the Utah Territory. Historically, it is argued that Young wanted to enact a form of gradual emancipation, aligning with Joseph Smith’s earlier ideas about compensating slave owners by selling public lands. For fundamentalists, this nuanced view helps frame Young’s motivations for restricting the priesthood not as personal hatred or bigotry, but as a form of “benevolent racism,” rooted in a belief in lineage-based restrictions.

The conversation addresses the theological challenge presented by the Second Article of Faith (“men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression”) when discussing generational restrictions like Cain’s curse. This is often reconciled by fundamentalists who argue that the denial of priesthood is tied to actions in the pre-existence (citing Alma 13), or by noting that the Bible and Doctrine and Covenants contain references to both generational blessings and cursings (D&C 121). Ultimately, they view priesthood primarily as a responsibility conferred by God, rather than a right or privilege earned solely in mortality.

Perhaps the most unexpected element of LeBaronite theology is the authority granted to women. Contrary to many fundamentalist groups, the Church of the Firstborn tradition believes that women hold priesthood authority.

This authority stems from Nauvoo temple rituals, where Joseph Smith was seen as bringing women into the priesthood, often leading to the belief that the Relief Society was intended to be a parallel priesthood organization.

While men typically bless and pass the sacrament, women are authorized to bless by the laying on of hands (blessings of faith), a practice continued from early Mormonism. Furthermore, if circumstances require it (such as the death of a husband), a wife could administer the sacrament to her family. This entire structure emphasizes the patriarchal order as a family organization, requiring the full, active participation of both men and women.

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

When was Christ born? I held a livestream to tackle some of the most enduring mysteries surrounding the Christmas story, diving deep into scholarly debates concerning the timing of Christ’s birth, the nature of the Star of Bethlehem, and the identity and traditions surrounding the Wise Men. The discussion also included a giveaway of a free copy of Sand Tanner’s book, Lighthouse, authored by Ronald Huggins.

Don’t miss our other conversations about Christmas: https://gospeltangents.com/lds_theology/christmas/

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

The discussion began by addressing the fact that the calendar we use today, created by the 6th-century monk Dionysius Exiguus. He mistakenly placed Christ’s birth several years too late. There is no Year Zero. Modern scholars generally agree that Herod the Great died in 4 BC, a crucial historical marker, meaning Jesus could not have been born as late as 1 BC because Herod would have been dead for three or four years by then.

Dr. Jeffrey Chadwick proposes that December of 5 BC is the correct birth month. However, Dr. Thomas Wayment argues that biblical writers like Matthew and Luke were composing gospels, not history, and were unconcerned with precise details, suggesting that historical data only allows us to know the date within a year or two, and certainly not within a specific month. Adding to the complexity is the mention of a census in Luke 2, which is historically problematic, as the census conducted by Quirinius (Cyrenius) is typically placed around 6 AD, about 10 years after Herod’s death, creating a significant timeline contradiction.

The question of what caused the Star of Bethlehem led to an examination of several astronomical and scientific theories, particularly in the context of both the Bible (Matthew 2) and the Book of Mormon (3rd Nephi 1). Information comes from several sources, including the 2004 documentary called Mystery of the Three Kings by Questar Entertainment.

The Wise Men (Magi or Magoi) were likely astrologers, healers, and dream readers from the east, specifically the Parthian/Persian Empire (modern Iran/Iraq area.) Their arrival in Jerusalem would have been concerning to Herod, especially since they were Persians entering Roman-controlled territory. The word Magoi is the same word used for magician or sorcerer. They may have been followers of the Zoroastrian religion, which is monotheistic and shares beliefs with Judaism, such as a belief in resurrection and a coming savior. Zoroastrian astronomers may have recognized the confluence of Jupiter and Saturn in 7 BC as a sign of a new king in Israel.

The three traditional gifts carried profound meaning:

The Magi are celebrated in many traditions, particularly in Spanish-speaking countries, where January 6th is known as Three Kings Day24,25. On this day, which occurs 12 days after Christmas, presents are exchanged, left by the Three Kings rather than Santa Claus. Legends regarding the Magi’s relics and tombs are found across the globe, including claims in Sava, Iran (recorded by Marco Polo); Axum, Ethiopia; Milan, Italy, and the most famous location in the West, the Cologne Cathedral in Germany.

Don’t miss our other conversations about Christmas: https://gospeltangents.com/lds_theology/christmas/

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Many Mormon fundamentalists restrict blacks from joining despite the 1978 revelation that allowed black men to hold the priesthood. This is considered a landmark moment in LDS history, but many in Mormon fundamentalists believe this 1978 revelation marked the moment the mainstream Church lost its essential authority. This theological break, rooted in Brigham Young’s fiery declarations about race and priesthood lineage, is why most fundamentalist groups reject modern LDS temple work.

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

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

The 1978 revelation that allowed black men to hold the priesthood is considered a landmark moment in LDS history, but for many in Mormon fundamentalism, this decision marked the moment the mainstream Church lost its essential authority. This theological break, rooted in Brigham Young’s fiery declarations about race and priesthood lineage, is why most fundamentalist groups reject modern LDS temple work.

For groups like the Ross LeBaronites and others who separated from the LDS Church, the 1978 revelation essentially nullified the Church’s priesthood authority. This perspective relies heavily on an address given by Brigham Young in 1852 to the territorial legislature. In this discourse, Brigham Young articulated a powerful condition for maintaining the priesthood:

“If we were to… come and decide that it was right to mingle with the seed of Cain and make them partake of all the blessings that we have then on that day and hour the priesthood is taken from the church and God leaves us to our fate“.

Because of Brigham Young’s strong language, many fundamentalists are “very reticent to consider that Brigham could be wrong” about the priesthood ban. Therefore, they view the 1978 revelation as fulfilling the condition for the priesthood being withdrawn.

The rejection of the 1978 decision has direct implications for temple work. Most fundamentalist groups will not use the LDS Temple because they feel its authority is no longer valid.

This view is so central that it applies even to other fundamentalist splinter groups. The Missouri temple, for example, is noted as the only fundamentalist community that has rejected and lifted the racial teachings, but this decision causes most other fundamentalists to have “reservations about using their temple” for the “same reason” they reject the LDS temple. They view the temple authority as having been compromised.

While some historians argue that the priesthood ban was a pragmatic decision starting around 1847, possibly catalyzed by incidents involving black men like William McCary and Enoch Lewis—events that prompted Brigham Young to want to put this to a stop. Other evidence suggests the doctrine may have predated the Utah period.

For some, it is difficult to accept that Brigham Young “radically depart[ed] from Joseph Smith” and suddenly invented a racist doctrine. Jacob points to historical sources have fueled this debate:

This belief that the restriction was revealed in Nauvoo allows fundamentalists to reconcile the ban with Joseph Smith’s period while maintaining Brigham Young’s authority, even if they struggle with the theological implications. The key takeaway for them is that Brigham Young, whether right or wrong about the lineage-based restrictions, was not acting out of hatred or bigotry, but rather out of a form of “benevolent racism”—believing in a lineage-based restriction without personal malicious intent.

The result is a complex theological landscape where adherence to what is perceived as the divinely revealed structure of the early Church necessitates the rejection of the mainstream church’s post-1978 authority and its ordinances.

For more information regarding the beginnings of the ban, check out Dr Paul Reeve’s amazing research.

Here is a link to Jacob’s paper: TheOriginofthePriesthoodBan.

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

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

The path to LeBaronism began when the speaker gained a testimony of the Adam-God doctrine, then accepted principles like rebaptism, eventually leading to a testimony of the Law of Adoption and connection with the Church of the Firstborn.

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

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

The quest for pure priesthood authority and the full restoration of doctrines—from Adam-God to the Law of Adoption—led one believer away from the mainstream LDS church and into the unique world of the Ross LeBaronites and the Church of the Firstborn. This journey highlights the fundamental difference between this fundamentalist group and larger organizations: their focus is on patriarchal authority and the function of ordinances, regardless of location.

The path into the Church of the Firstborn often begins with an intense intellectual and spiritual curiosity about early Mormon theology. For some, this journey began by stumbling upon controversial doctrines, such as the Adam-God doctrine, which posits that God himself established the human family on Earth by leaving celestial glory to deal with mortality.

The search for deeper principles led to an online forum around 2014 where various fundamentalist voices converged. It was here that the writings and historical research of Fred Collier became especially influential. Collier was regarded as a key figure in the Church of the Firstborn, working alongside Ross LeBaron (the “religious innovator.”) While Ross established the “priesthood foundation”, Collier was the “systematizer”—sometimes referred to as a “Bruce R. McConkie of fundamentalism”—who used historical sources and revelations to articulate a coherent system, adding stability to LeBaron’s teachings. Collier’s materials, often shared as pamphlets and essays, presented a highly developed priesthood cosmology. Ultimately, this research and theology, especially the doctrine of the Law of Adoption, led to joining Fred Collier’s specific faction of the Church of the Firstborn.

Unlike the LDS Church, the structure established by Ross LeBaron does not utilize the standard structure of Apostles. Ross acted as the prophet, and the leadership centered on patriarchs. Ross’s major mission was to ordain these patriarchs and establish a patriarchal pattern.

When a man was set apart, Ross conferred upon him “all the keys, rights, power, and authority of the patriarchal order of priesthood”. This authority was not meant solely for missionary work away from headquarters (like an apostle) but for building a family organization and a patriarchal order. This included the authority to have wives sealed in plural marriage and to adopt sons and families via the Law of Adoption. Ross ordained at least 40 patriarchs during his lifetime, and today, hundreds of people trace their patriarchal authority back to Ross LeBaron.

One of the most unique aspects of the Church of the Firstborn today is its approach to temple ordinances in the absence of a dedicated temple structure.

Historically, Ross LeBaronites—including Tom Green’s and Fred Collier’s groups—performed temple ordinances in homes that were temporarily dedicated for that purpose. This practice takes a cue from Nauvoo, where Joseph Smith performed ordinances in the Red Brick Store and the Mansion House before the Nauvoo Temple was completed. The fundamental idea is that the authority to perform the ordinance is paramount, not the specific physical structure.

However, some groups now seek a dedicated, even if temporary, sacred space. The current approach involves setting up a temporary tabernacle in the mountains to perform the endowment ceremony and other temple ordinances. This method is favored over the home-based work, drawing inspiration from Brigham Young, who once gave endowments on Ensign Peak in 1849, citing comments that the poor could receive their endowments in the mountains.

While performing ordinances way up in the mountains presents logistical challenges, such as lacking running water and electricity, adherents find that having this dedicated space allows for a “really spiritual powerful temple experience”.

The movement is not without its difficulties. The fragmentation within the Church of the Firstborn, including the separation from Fred Collier’s group in 2019-2020, often stemmed from serious issues related to sexual abuse.

A major challenge within fundamentalism generally is a reluctance to report abuse to law enforcement, fueled by a defense mechanism mentality and distrust of a government perceived to be hostile toward their practice of polygamy. However, some families separate from these larger groups, seeing the importance of protecting their community and learning from “cautionary tales”—such as Ross’s doctrinal errors in old age or the issues of abuse in Fred’s group—to create a safer continuation of the Church of the Firstborn.

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

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Tom Green gained notoriety for appearing on television with his plural family, which led to Utah prosecuting him after discovering one wife was “very underage,” resulting in his conviction for child polygamy and welfare fraud, or child rape according to one account, and a prison sentence

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

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Tom Green, a controversial figure in Mormon fundamentalism, was a key claimant to the succession of Ross LeBaron, leader of the Church of the Firstborn. Green stuck with LeBaron until his death in 1996. On his deathbed, LeBaron reportedly did not name a clear successor but charged both Tom Green and Jerry Barlow to carry on his work. Green leveraged this instruction, claiming he had received higher temple ordinances from Ross, thereby being “anointed and appointed”.

Green briefly formed a group spanning the late 1990s into the early 2000s, attempting to unite Ross’s followers under his leadership. Green achieved notoriety by making numerous radio and television appearances about polygamy, frequently showcasing his plural family.

However, his public profile led to his downfall when it was discovered that one of his wives was underage. The state of Utah prosecuted him for child polygamy and welfare fraud, seemingly intending to “make an example of him,” particularly because of his media exposure.

Green was convicted in 2002 of child rape and served a prison sentence, which lasted five years. He was released on parole on August 7, 2007. After his incarceration, his group largely fell apart.

Tom Green sought community, particularly as his children grew and needed partners for marriage. He decided to join the Kingston Group, viewing them as a successful example of a united order and plural marriage, noting their economic success in business despite negative press. He maintained, however, that he never recanted the authority he had received from Ross LeBaron. Green remained on parole for at least 14 years before dying from COVID-19 at age 72 on February 28, 2021.

Green represents one of several factions that emerged after LeBaron’s death, alongside the independents and the group led by Fred Collier. LeBaron’s mission centered on ordaining patriarchs and establishing a patriarchal pattern, an effort that continues today through independent groups and men who trace their authority back to Ross and Tom Green. Fred Collier, another key figure who worked closely with Ross (the religious innovator) as the one who “wrote it up” and added stability through systematization, also claimed succession after separating from Ross in 1983.

Tom was one of the best known polygamists in the early 2000’s due to his quest for publicity. It is likely the reason that other fundamentalists avoid publicity, as they see that it often brings more trouble than it is worth.

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

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Fred Collier is one of the patriarchs of Ross LeBaron’s Church of the Firstborn. Fred tried to take over after Ross’s death and even converted Tom Green, an apostle in a rival group, “The Branch.” We’ll discuss more about how Fred’s group descends from Ross LeBaron. Check out our conversation…

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

While the core authority of the Utah-based Church of the Firstborn traced back through Ross Wesley LeBaron’s unique patriarchal lineage derived from Benjamin F. Johnson, the movement’s doctrines and missionary success were significantly shaped by one influential follower: Fred Collier.

Collier, who converted to fundamentalism in 1970, was described not as a professional historian but as a “self-trained historian” who dedicated his efforts to researching early Mormon history, ultimately providing the historical bedrock for Ross LeBaron’s claims.

Collier joined a core group of “historian followers” drawn to Ross LeBaron because they felt there was something “solid to his claims.” Ross’s ministry focused less on concentrating authority (like other fundamentalist groups) and more on disseminating a “patriarchal order of priesthood.”

Ross liked to “delve into the mysteries.” This included embracing doctrines like plural marriage and the Adam-God doctrine. Collier expanded on these ideas, even writing a lengthy paper, The Adam God Doctrine in the Bible, attempting to find support for the concept in both the Old and New Testaments.

Collier used his historical skills not just for study but for effective missionary work. He was instrumental in helping the Church of the Firstborn articulate its beliefs and authority, serving as a contrast to Ross’s own unorthodox methods:

Collier also gained notoriety in historical circles for publishing works like Unpublished Revelations, which was valued because it stuck strictly to historical facts without conflating them with fundamentalist folklore or bias.

One of Collier’s most significant historical discoveries that shaped the Church of the Firstborn was the concept of the Law of Adoption.

Collier found the principle, common during the early Nauvoo/Utah pioneer periods (where men and families would be “sealed to men” in father-son relationships to establish a celestial family structure on Earth), through the published diaries of John D. Lee.

When Collier presented this to Ross, Ross embraced it fully. Thereafter, the Law of Adoption became a core aspect of the Church of the Firstborn’s structure, requiring anyone receiving patriarchal priesthood to enter into adoption covenants. The LeBaron-ites were likely the first fundamentalists to practice adoption since Wilford Woodruff officially discontinued it in the LDS Church in 1894.

The partnership between Ross (the innovative prophet) and Collier (the systematizing historian/writer) eventually fractured over a crucial doctrinal difference in 1983.

Collier had received a vision which convinced him that the essential principle distinguishing a celestial person was “celestial love”—a selfless love for others and a “total commitment” characterized by losing oneself in service. Collier believed that the lower terrestrial kingdom was populated by people who were honorable but were motivated by seeking their “own reward and aggrandizement.”

Collier wanted Ross to adopt this principle of selfless love, believing that the movement under Ross felt too loose and individualistic. However, Ross disagreed vehemently, holding the perspective that competition was a big driving force of the universe. In the ensuing debate, Ross allegedly stated that Christ died for his “own glory” for his own exaltation, which Collier felt was blasphemy against the Atonement.

Less than a month later, Ross changed his priesthood teachings entirely, leading Collier to conclude that Ross had fallen into doctrinal apostasy.

Collier separated from Ross, going on to lead his own group (which peaked at several hundred followers in 1992.) Although Ross had never formally appointed a successor, he acknowledged that Collier was the most likely candidate, having “done more to build up our system and the work than anyone else.”

Collier continued his work as a prolific author, writing numerous pamphlets and books. His historical research, focusing on early temple doctrine, priesthood, and the Adam-God doctrine, has since “permeated fundamentalism,” with followers of different groups utilizing his historical scholarship.

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