Has anyone had any personal experience with Christ's Church: The Righteous Branch?

[rosenotes]

Has anyone had any personal experience with Christ's Church: The Righteous Branch? I've watched a few videos and find them a bit interesting. I was hoping to get the scoop on them and what they're about. 

[The Nehor]

Nope, spent my time with The Wicked Branch.

[rosenotes]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, spent my time with The Wicked Branch.

That would certainly explain your need for attention. 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, rosenotes said:

That would certainly explain your need for attention. 

No, that is explained mostly by my ADHD and anxiety and from seeking approval in all the wrong places.

[rosenotes]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, that is explained mostly by my ADHD and anxiety and from seeking approval in all the wrong places.

😉 

[Pyreaux]

Nope, but I had to look into it. With 300 members they believe themselves as the true, unadulterated continuation of the restoration started by Joseph Smith. They practice polygamy as a fundamental requirement for the highest level of glory. Unlike some other "Fundamentalist" groups, they prohibit sealing women under the age of 18 into plural marriages and wear modern clothing. Attempting to live a communal economic lifestyle where resources are shared to care for the poor. They reject any modern modifications made by the LDS, practicing only the version they believe was originally revealed.

My main problem is not even with their claims that those were originally thought or taught (more or less), rather it's the concept of trying to argue the Restoration was at any point complete or final. The Restoration was not a one-time event, but an ongoing dynamic process. New revelations are by nature new changes to the original. We're restoring old priestly offices but not the exact structure of the past, restoring old texts but also adding entirely new texts. Even having restored ancient scripture does not necessarily mean we must obey all ancient mandates. For example, polygamy violates the Book of Mormon's prophet Jacob's prohibition of polygamy for his people, that does not stop the modern prophet from commanding otherwise.

We believe apostasy is caused by the cessation of prophetic authority to receive new direct revelations from God. These groups have entered a state of apostasy for the same reason everyone else has, they place a closed canon or a fixed tradition above the possibility of a new, contrary revelation.

Read a few pages of Magaret Barker and she's constantly explaining how King Josiah’s Deuteronomic reform in the 600 BC was from discovering an old law book (Deuteronomy) Reforming the kingdom by its laws, purging the kingdom of disruptive prophet's Revelations. The law was the answer to all questions asked, forever, they locked the canon, and decided that God had finished speaking. From that moment on, if a prophet showed up with a new vision that contradicted the written text, the text won, and the prophet was stoned.

An Apostacy began then because Deuteronomic editors and reformers placed the old covenant law above the living voice of a prophet. They'd kill any prophet that contradicted the law of Moses. They prioritized adherence to a written tradition over receiving an unwritten, fresh word from God, effectively setting a trajectory that would eventually resist and kill new prophets. The later Jews built a dense body of tradition that became a barrier to accepting the new revelation of Jesus Christ that was contradicting the old law. They tried to kill Jesus multiple times over it.

Whether it's RLDS, FLDS, Righteous Branch, these breakaway groups commit the exact same error that necessitated the Restoration in the first place. Their modus operandi is to reject all changes as practiced by the main LDS Church in order to maintain a specific, frozen past doctrine. The early RLDS Church formed specifically to "purify" the Restoration by returning to what they saw as the original, uncorrupted doctrines of the 1830s and early 1840s, right before Joseph Smith's death. The FLDS and other groups are a mirror images of the RLDS in this way, they are just freezing at a later point in the main Church's history. You can't lock the Church into stasis.

Riddle me this: How does a religious movement claiming to maintain the continuity with its founder's teachings also remain truly open to a God who reserves the right to change those teachings in the future like he has in the past?

Edited June 26 by Pyreaux

[rosenotes]

12 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Nope, but I had to look into it. With 300 members they believe themselves as the true, unadulterated continuation of the restoration started by Joseph Smith. They practice polygamy as a fundamental requirement for the highest level of glory. Unlike some other "Fundamentalist" groups, they prohibit sealing women under the age of 18 into plural marriages and wear modern clothing. Attempting to live a communal economic lifestyle where resources are shared to care for the poor. They reject any modern modifications made by the LDS, practicing only the version they believe was originally revealed.

My main problem is not even with their claims that those were originally thought or taught (more or less), rather it's the concept of trying to argue the Restoration was at any point complete or final. The Restoration was not a one-time event, but an ongoing dynamic process. New revelations are by nature new changes to the original. We're restoring old priestly offices but not the exact structure of the past, restoring old texts but also adding entirely new texts. Even having restored ancient scripture does not necessarily mean we must obey all ancient mandates. For example, polygamy violates the Book of Mormon's prophet Jacob's prohibition of polygamy for his people, that does not stop the modern prophet from commanding otherwise.

We believe apostasy is caused by the cessation of prophetic authority to receive new direct revelations from God. These groups have entered a state of apostasy for the same reason everyone else has, they place a closed canon or a fixed tradition above the possibility of a new, contrary revelation.

Read a few pages of Magaret Barker and she's constantly explaining how King Josiah’s Deuteronomic reform in the 600 BC was from discovering an old law book (Deuteronomy) Reforming the kingdom by its laws, purging the kingdom of disruptive prophet's Revelations. The law was the answer to all questions asked, forever, they locked the canon, and decided that God had finished speaking. From that moment on, if a prophet showed up with a new vision that contradicted the written text, the text won, and the prophet was stoned.

An Apostacy began then because Deuteronomic editors and reformers placed the old covenant law above the living voice of a prophet. They'd kill any prophet that contradicted the law of Moses. They prioritized adherence to a written tradition over receiving an unwritten, fresh word from God, effectively setting a trajectory that would eventually resist and kill new prophets. The later Jews built a dense body of tradition that became a barrier to accepting the new revelation of Jesus Christ that was contradicting the old law. They tried to kill Jesus multiple times over it.

Whether it's RLDS, FLDS, Righteous Branch, these breakaway groups commit the exact same error that necessitated the Restoration in the first place. Their modus operandi is to reject all changes as practiced by the main LDS Church in order to maintain a specific, frozen past doctrine. The early RLDS Church formed specifically to "purify" the Restoration by returning to what they saw as the original, uncorrupted doctrines of the 1830s and early 1840s, right before Joseph Smith's death. The FLDS and other groups are a mirror images of the RLDS in this way, they are just freezing at a later point in the main Church's history. You can't lock the Church into stasis.

Riddle me this: How does a religious movement claiming to maintain the continuity with its founder's teachings also remain truly open to a God who reserves the right to change those teachings in the future like he has in the past?

Thank you again! I'm going to have to study the restoration more. I'm still very new to all of this, so I'm trying to get a better understanding of it in general. A few people have recommended that I reach out to the missionaries to learn more. This particular church also offered to give me a call. They seem more traditional on the outside. I'm considering speaking with their missionaries. I thought I'd here first if anyone had any experience with them. 

By the way, i've been reading The Unseen Realm and i'm completely fascinated! It's answered so many questions I've had over the years that most Christians refuse to discuss or acknowledge. I'm excited to read the one about Angels next. I forget the name at the moment. 

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, rosenotes said:

By the way, i've been reading The Unseen Realm and i'm completely fascinated! It's answered so many questions I've had over the years that most Christians refuse to discuss or acknowledge. I'm excited to read the one about Angels next. I forget the name at the moment. 

I have a lot of respect for his research, and honestly, I think he’s "orbiting" around the truth on a lot of this. For instance, I completely agree with his point that angels, demons, and even the human dead are all referred to as "elohim" in the Old Testament.

Where I object, though, is his conclusion that elohim is just a term denoting the "other realm" they occupy.

Take the Spirit of Samuel, for example. The Bible explicitly calls this human dead an elohim, but I don’t think it’s simply because he was residing in the spirit world. It’s because he was distinctly set apart from ordinary familiar spirits (obs). For anti-witch doubters, the text says, “it was Samuel” (1 Samuel 28:14), described by a witch to King Saul as no ordinary looking "ob" or ghost, she said she saw an elohim or a "god", and describes his features as an old man in a “coat", identified as a sacred robe in Jewish sources.

I'm saying other dead spirits of non-priests may not be wearing those robes and therefore wouldn't look or called a "god". When he appears, he is specifically noted as wearing a robe, that's bearing the image of God. Prophets and priests wear the white temple robes and sash because they are dressing the way the angels dress and as God dresses, imitating a god. So, I don't think all dead humans are gods, as per Dr Heiser, rather just some are.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, rosenotes said:

I'm going to have to study the restoration more. I'm still very new to all of this, so I'm trying to get a better understanding of it in general. A few people have recommended that I reach out to the missionaries to learn more. This particular church also offered to give me a call. They seem more traditional on the outside. I'm considering speaking with their missionaries. I thought I'd here first if anyone had any experience with them.  

I'm not saying to not contact the Righteous Branch, in fact, I'd be very curious to know what they would teach you, how they live, whether they're happy, if you'd keep us up to date. My cynical instincts are they'll gaslight you about what are authentic original doctrines with the Journal of Discourses. So, you know, it's not scripture, it's full of sermons by leaders, penned second hand by clerks. 10,000 talks by Brigham Young across 12 huge volumes, past the first volume, they were not reviewed or edited for correctness. And so they contain a few... anomalies I believe they'll home in on.

Edited June 26 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm not saying to not contact the Righteous Branch, in fact, I'd be very curious to know what they would teach you, how they live, whether they're happy, if you'd keep us up to date. My cynical instincts are they'll gaslight you about what are authentic original doctrines with the Journal of Discourses. So, you know, it's not scripture, it's full of sermons by leaders, penned second hand by clerks. 10,000 talks by Brigham Young across 12 huge volumes, past the first volume, they were not reviewed or edited for correctness. A few contain a few isolated anomalies.

Also, much of the Journal was based off of shorthand notes taken by George Watts.  I am spacing on her name, but a rare expert in this Pittman shorthand has been going back to the original shorthand and comparing the published text.  There are significant, sometimes very significant differences.  One reason appears to be George Watts decided to make Brigham sound more prophety, grander in speech than he really was.  My opinion is he filled in some gaps as well with his own stuff or speculations.

Brigham may or may not have cared as he cautioned about treating them as error free or finished.

LaJean Carruth…that’s her name.  Took a minute to percolate to the top.

I belong to FAIR.  Very proud we have got her to talk at our conferences.  I love her opening, if you aren’t in the mood to watch the whole thing, watch it for the limerick at the beginning that summarizes her findings.   

 

Edited June 26 by Calm

[rosenotes]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm not saying to not contact the Righteous Branch, in fact, I'd be very curious to know what they would teach you, how they live, whether they're happy, if you'd keep us up to date. My cynical instincts are they'll gaslight you about what are authentic original doctrines with the Journal of Discourses. So, you know, it's not scripture, it's full of sermons by leaders, penned second hand by clerks. 10,000 talks by Brigham Young across 12 huge volumes, past the first volume, they were not reviewed or edited for correctness. And so they contain a few... anomalies I believe they'll home in on.

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Also, much of the Journal was based off of shorthand notes taken by George Watts.  I am spacing on her name, but a rare expert in this Pittman shorthand has been going back to the original shorthand and comparing the published text.  There are significant, sometimes very significant differences.  One reason appears to be George Watts decided to make Brigham sound more prophety, grander in speech than he really was.  My opinion is he filled in some gaps as well with his own stuff or speculations.

Brigham may or may not have cared as he cautioned about treating them as error free or finished.

LaJean Carruth…that’s her name.  Took a minute to percolate to the top.

I belong to FAIR.  Very proud we have got her to talk at our conferences.  I love her opening, if you aren’t in the mood to watch the whole thing, watch it for the limerick at the beginning that summarizes her findings.   

 

I'm not sure how to tag people yet, so I just quoted you both. If either of you are curious. Here's a documentary by Peter Santenello that includes some of the members of that particular branch. They also have a website with other teachings and podcasts. Some of them have Benjamin Schaefer as a guest. I guess I spelled his last name right? I've only seen the documentary so far. I haven't looked into else yet really. I will when I have some more time. 

https://youtu.be/eIlcTsjXi-4?si=ZuCL1zVvYy6JFCjj

[ZealouslyStriving]

On 6/24/2026 at 10:10 PM, rosenotes said:

Has anyone had any personal experience with Christ's Church: The Righteous Branch? I've watched a few videos and find them a bit interesting. I was hoping to get the scoop on them and what they're about. 

Yes. I was a member for a few years. They are a wonderful sincere group of people.

Edited June 27 by ZealouslyStriving

[rosenotes]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yes. I was a member for a few years. They are a wonderful sincere group of people.

Thank you! What made you no longer want to be a member? If I may ask. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 hours ago, rosenotes said:

Thank you! What made you no longer want to be a member? If I may ask. 

Mostly it was unfortunate circumstances of my own doing, nothing nefarious on their part. 

Even though the circumstances of my departure were not ideal- in a way I feel fortunate that I departed as I now, once again, have a testimony that the authority to administer the Church and it's ordinances are in the "mainstream" Church.

I still do tend to lean "old-school" or semi-fundie (if you'd like) in my personal feelings/beliefs about some theological/doctrinal issues.

Are there any specific questions you have about the group? I am happy to answer according to the best of my knowledge.

[Stargazer]

On 6/26/2026 at 11:27 PM, rosenotes said:

 

I'm not sure how to tag people yet, so I just quoted you both. If either of you are curious.

Tagging people is done by typing the @ immediately followed by the initial letters of the screen name. The board software will provide you with a match-list to select from as you type. @ros <- Then click on the desired screen name using your mouse, or use the up/down arrow keys to highlight, then Enter to select.

[rosenotes]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Tagging people is done by typing the @ immediately followed by the initial letters of the screen name. The board software will provide you with a match-list to select from as you type. @ros <- Then click on the desired screen name using your mouse, or use the up/down arrow keys to highlight, then Enter to select.

@Stargazer Oh wow, I'm dumb! Thank you ❤️ I didn't realize Rose was so popular lol 

[The Nehor]

On 6/26/2026 at 2:49 PM, Pyreaux said:

I have a lot of respect for his research, and honestly, I think he’s "orbiting" around the truth on a lot of this. For instance, I completely agree with his point that angels, demons, and even the human dead are all referred to as "elohim" in the Old Testament.

Where I object, though, is his conclusion that elohim is just a term denoting the "other realm" they occupy.

Take the Spirit of Samuel, for example. The Bible explicitly calls this human dead an elohim, but I don’t think it’s simply because he was residing in the spirit world. It’s because he was distinctly set apart from ordinary familiar spirits (obs). For anti-witch doubters, the text says, “it was Samuel” (1 Samuel 28:14), described by a witch to King Saul as no ordinary looking "ob" or ghost, she said she saw an elohim or a "god", and describes his features as an old man in a “coat", identified as a sacred robe in Jewish sources.

I'm saying other dead spirits of non-priests may not be wearing those robes and therefore wouldn't look or called a "god". When he appears, he is specifically noted as wearing a robe, that's bearing the image of God. Prophets and priests wear the white temple robes and sash because they are dressing the way the angels dress and as God dresses, imitating a god. So, I don't think all dead humans are gods, as per Dr Heiser, rather just some are.

It is mostly down to King James and the anti-witch hysteria of the times that we think of the person Saul consulted with as a “witch”. King James in particular was a fully convinced believer that there was an international cabal of witches (mostly women) being coordinated by Satan as a final outrage before the Second Coming and King James wrote a book attempting to ‘prove’ the existence of witches. By witch I mean in this context a person (almost always a woman) who entered into a demonic pact usually believed to be sealed by participation in some kind of secret orgy with other witches and various demons and that these heretics were out to destroy all of Christendom. It was a full on moral panic. It also moved the magic user from being a sinner into being a heretic which was a big shift. Everyone is a sinner and the cure for sin was a healing matter. Heresy was much more serious and more likely to get people killed.

This conception of witchcraft didn’t exist at the time. The “witch” that Saul dealt with was more likely a ritual magic user and a necromancer. I am using the older definition of necromancer where it is a magic user that communes with the dead, almost always to forecast the future. Christians (and Jews) have to go through a lot of contortions to fit this story into a much later cosmology. Christians often retroactively turn these magic users into (witting or unwitting) servants of Satan. What the magic practitioner was doing was forbidden but it wasn’t some kind of especially egregious sin like it appears to later Christians. Sort of anyways. Depending on how the reforms of Josiah worked and the centralization of religious power in Jerusalem it caused it may be that these practices weren’t forbidden back then and that these laws came later as part of these reforms. Then the stories changed to backdate the laws so that Saul threw them all out of the land and then consulted with them. You can find similar disconnects in the story where the protagonists flout the Law and there is a kind of excuse or rationalization pasted on.

The most likely explanation for what the story is trying to convey is that this is just a ‘normal’ necromantic divination where the ritual magic user called up Samuel from Sheol (the generally believed in destiny of dead human spirits at the time) and Samuel’s spirit gave a prophecy. Trying to retroactively make it confirmation of LDS temple practice or read into it some kind of too early conception of the honored dead receiving something special in the afterlife.

[rosenotes]

On 6/28/2026 at 9:11 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Mostly it was unfortunate circumstances of my own doing, nothing nefarious on their part. 

Even though the circumstances of my departure were not ideal- in a way I feel fortunate that I departed as I now, once again, have a testimony that the authority to administer the Church and it's ordinances are in the "mainstream" Church.

I still do tend to lean "old-school" or semi-fundie (if you'd like) in my personal feelings/beliefs about some theological/doctrinal issues.

Are there any specific questions you have about the group? I am happy to answer according to the best of my knowledge.

Thank you 🩷 I'm mostly just learning about the LDS faith at the moment. It was suggested to me to speak with missionaries. I wanted a less mainstream church, that's how I found them. I just wanted to make sure they weren't a cult or anything lol 

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, rosenotes said:

Thank you 🩷 I'm mostly just learning about the LDS faith at the moment. It was suggested to me to speak with missionaries. I wanted a less mainstream church, that's how I found them. I just wanted to make sure they weren't a cult or anything lol 

They've one of the good groups.