Leaderboard

How about the time BY snuck up on a passed out drunkard and chopped his head off. Oh wait, that was a different prophet. Or how about BY trying to slit his own son's throat because he thought God told him to. Oh wait, that was a different prophet as well. Perhaps that they were all prophets is the only context that matters. That of course won't fly with those outside the Church but with some things that's all there is because sometimes what God does (or wants done) flies in the face of all mortal reasoning. I can already hear the retort: "But God actually told them to do those things!" Well how can we know what God did and didn't tell BY to do? I don't think any of us is in a position to pass judgement on him. If you were simply looking for a way to explain such things to those not of our faith, I wish you well. But for those of our faith it really shouldn't require apologetics.

This was my primary thought. Back then, WalMart was a century away. There were no cops. There was no insurance company. GoFundMe was farther away than WalMart. Folks in Africa were never going to hear about it - let alone tomorrow morning on X. Stories like this one remind me that there are about a billion and one things for which I should be so grateful that I never have time to get off my knees for all the thanks I'm giving.

Are you sure? I mean, I gave some, but I don't see any indication that you noticed. Much better - thanks. I'm glad to see that the pros also found it impossible to give a good rendering of the text. So, it appears to be a war council trying to figure out how to keep the Saints from going extinct at the hands of their enemies. "J. Higbee the Indians r continually unfriendly killing our cattle & stealing horses we have lost between 50, 60 head. they cannot sustain themselves there. we drive our cattle down in the morning & bring them up at night. The Indians fired their guns at our boys & they found one [illeg] with 4 arrows another with a tomahawk in it they say the Mormons are no [illeg] they want to fight & will live on our cattle they say they mean to keep our cattle & got & get the other Indians to kill us." Do you know what it means when Higbee says "they cannot sustain themselves there"? That means unless something changes, those saints will all die. Why do you find this disturbing? Do you not see an endless tsunami of similar examples pouring forth from the old and new testaments? Not to mention any semi-serious reading of human history convinces us all that most human history is an endless cycle of conflict and war and bloodshed. Please - put your assumptions into words - why do you find it disturbing that BY talked about, even ordered, killing threats to the saints' existence? It's understandable that someone who is moving from a life spent in historical ignorance and assumption making, gets disturbed when confronted with uncomfortable truths and realities. It's quite common. It happens to everyone, actually. The lucky ones have it happen in early adulthood when they venture out into the world and begin interacting with different ideas and perspectives, and read more books. It's happening to you in the 3rd quarter century of your life, so it's easy to understand why you're disturbed. For contrast: I began learning all of this stuff 30 years ago in my mid-20's, as I ventured online to the early discussion forums and newsgroups. I sought out places where critic met apologist, and that's how I learned the seedier parts of our history, along with the apologetic defenses. If you'd like a similar experience, you can still go through the old FARMS Review of Books: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/ It's been many years since I read all these, and I don't remember exactly if those books address what looks to be your main troubling topic, but these essays do address (in varying degrees of completeness, accuracy, and persuasiveness), all of the criticisms leveled against our church and it's members that were being made from the '80s through the 2010's. It's got a very handy search function. I see another unquestioned baseless assumption that you've probably made across your whole life. It looks something like this: "Everything there is to know about the church and it's history, I will learn from the church." Look deeply into yourself my friend. Have you been believing this lie? For, like, your whole life? You want apologetics? I prescribe introspection. You've been ignorant your whole life, and now you're being blindsided by harsh realities you've never encountered before. Troubles and doubts are normal and healthy. They won't go away with a quoted paragraph here or a friendly post on an anonymous message board there. I just gave you a great source to have your troubles and doubts resolved. Will you spend a decade at it like I did?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trump-starmer-lucy-connolly-free-speech-b2757856.html I'm normally the last person to say "US good UK bad" (there's plenty of bad in both) but in this matter I'm right behind Trump. Starmer won the election last year on a protest vote, and he's turning our to be twice as bad as the people voters were protesting against. If Trump wants to give Starmer a "kick up the arse" that's fine by me! I'll probably be arrested now for "incitement to kick the Prime Minister up the arse" - even though I've crossed it out already!

People are protesting, but the politicians who are behind everything aren't listening. It's easier for them to, say, declare that everyone who wants an investigation into the rape gangs hiding out in the Pakistani enclaves is a "racist" than it is to actually conduct those investigations... and no, I'm not kidding, a politician actually accused a fellow politician of racism for demanding those investigations. What we're seeing now is part of an effort to ensure that people can't legally protest or call for those reforms in the first place.

I keep hearing events in the UK that to an American (one who actually believes in really free speech1) are terrifying: getting arrested just for saying something online; trials for said folk happening faster than trials for violent criminals; criminals being let out of jails to make room for said folk; making it a crime to pray in your own home if it's too close to an abortion clinic; and other insanity. I do not know why the British people aren't protesting this vocally and demanding free speech protections be codified in such a way as to make them impossible to remove. You all are letting those who hate the very foundations of your country take it over - it's terrifying. At least, that's how it looks from over here. 1I'm generally in favor of letting people say whatever offensive, ugly, violent, hateful thing they want, because restricting it is far worse than not. My only exceptions are the whole "fire in a crowded theater" thing (i.e. it will cause immediate, physical harm before anyone has a chance to counter it); and pornography, which ought to be destroyed - it is, in essence a very slow-burning fire in the theater of mankind, guaranteed to destroy without doing anyone an ounce of good.

I was also thinking of this from 1st Samuel: 1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord. 2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. It kind of always amazes me when people call any sort of violence "un-Christian".

I have some thoughts, but they are nothing more than my own thoughts and therefore not worth much. So at least for now, I have some questions: Do you know why this is disturbing you? It has to be more than the brutality of past centuries, as there are far more brutal things described in the Bible and in history, but you didn't start a thread about those. It has to be more than learning some negative thing you never knew before, because as I'm sure you know, there's a whole lot more from the foundation of the world until this morning, that impacted far more people, that no one has informed you about (yet). I'm just thinking that you know full well, none of us were there. None of us can see or feel or experience the events the people described saw or felt or experienced. We can neither justify nor excuse their words and actions. I would hope you know that once a physical battle begins, no man is responsible for any other man's actions - some will go wild and some will maintain restraint to do only what they must. Etc. (Please read the following with the understanding that I am experiencing a genuine desire and curiosity to understand your "why" and your needs from this discussion. These questions are not intended to be derogatory, though they're often used that way. I just don't know how else to ask them.) Do you expect us to be able to answer the above questions? I'm assuming not. I'm assuming they're rhetorical. Do you want us to speak ill of Brigham Young? Do you want us to say you're right? Do you want us to be upset or to do something? What is it, exactly, that you're looking for? (Again, I'm sincerely trying to understand your deeper motivation, wishes, needs from the discussion, because until we can understand what's underneath the OP, we can't begin to have a conversation with you that might be satisfying to either party.) It appears from your reply that you believe someone should have known all this sooner and told you all about it at some prior point in your life. Do you know why you believe this? Have you considered who should have known? And whose responsibility it was to tell you, specifically? (By positions if not names.) I'm not trying to question your assumptions - I'm trying to get you to question your own assumptions - is it reasonable that there should always be someone who is entirely aware of all the meeting notes from the Church's history - I'm guessing there are thousands of them? Is it reasonable that they should be publicly proclaiming all the details in such a way as to ensure you, specifically, learn about them as early in your life as possible? Is this realistically possible? Is it actually important or urgent that this happen? I'm sorry if any of that came across as dismissive or derogatory. I don't mean it that way. From my perspective, the events described in your second link are in the past, and therefore, they are not something I can impact. It isn't useful for me to be upset over them, and judging them is not my job - it's God's. I understand that not everyone sees such things the way I do, hence the above questions hoping to draw out some replies that will help me understand. I may still not have any reply that can satisfy you, but the answers may still be useful...

At the very least, knowing which section to work on would help. I don't have time to decipher that whole page (and I'm pretty good at cursive, even old cursive - but dude wrote so small and "slurred" his writing). The version people talk about, maybe. When I went and read some of the documents I had (just common Church history volumes in a digital library), it seemed to me he was just using an expanded definition of "god", not claiming Adam and God the Father were one and the same person (which is what a lot of people say this theory claims, but I wasn't finding that - not that I care either way). Anywho, I don't believe we're capable of understanding the context - knowing some things about it, sure - understanding it? Not without revelation from God putting you into the mind of someone who lived it. Let God worry about brother Brigham. For me, there's only two ways to look at it: 1. God chose Brigham Young. In this case, any problems are God's to solve. 2. God didn't choose Brigham Young. In this case, we're in the wrong church. I know we're in the right Church, so I'm gonna let God figure out the past while I try to figure out how to live my covenants.

Before I respond, it would be helpful if there was a readable text to those minutes you linked to in the Church History Catalog. Even when we enlarge it to maximum magnification, the script is difficult to read. ******************************************************************* Yes, he probably was. But no more than any of us. And I'll show below how he probably had more stability, patience, and forgiveness than most of those around him. How many times have you seen a single news story or heard a single account from a friend or relative and got all up in arms about what should be done? It's a very human thing to do. We certainly do that with many of the stories of what appear to be murder, execution, and genocide in the Bible. But we need to remember that we don't have all the circumstances that led up to those events. You've shown that you're willing to call a Prophet "unstable" because you read a single account with very few details. So, let me fill in some details. There was quite a period of lead up to that military exchange. And Brigham did a LOT to calm the Saints' anger. And the Timpanogos Chief did much to calm the people of his tribe. But after a long train of abuses (on both sides) there was little peaceable sentiment between the two parties. And eventually, several LDS leaders made efforts to convince Brigham to essentially wage war. Brigham had tolerated many deadly exchanges trying to calm the Saints and prevent war. But only after many of his "senior staff" entreated him (as governor of the territory, not necessarily as prophet) he acceded to their demands. Let me say this again. He prevented war until all of his closest advisors were all but demanding it. Does that seem unstable to you? Yes, the horrible things (which tend to happen in a war) happened during this attack. But don't take things like this out of context. And don't defame a respected historical figure without understanding all the circumstances leading up to an event.

Like I'd ever resort to violence!

I’m an ethnic Englishman as well, but thank God my grandmother took that plane across the pond and landed in the good ole US of A.

I agree pornography ought to be destroyed, but I don't agree that the government, courts and police should be the ones to do it. It's the people "using" it (and I've been as guilty as anyone in this respect!) who need to wake up, see what damage it's doing to them, and do the destroying themselves. A tyrant who tyrranizes other people "for their own good" is still a tyrant. Whatever Mr Starmer and people like him might say, that doesn't apply to Lucy. She made that comment directly after the murders and long before the riots had even started. The judges stuck their fingers in their ears and went "lalalalala" when that was pointed out. They didn't care about facts. All they cared about was having Lucy Connolly's head on a stick. I am by no means ashamed to be British, but right now Britain has a goggly-eyed stupid-haired silly-faced problem living in No. 10 Downing Street.

The suggestion of BY as a “psychopath” led me down an interesting and (perhaps) timely route learning about Cluster B personality disorders generally. It’s really remarkable how often Cluster B symptomology comes up in discussions about LDS culture/ teaching/ history.

Was Brigham Young Unstable? I would not assume so but why would it matter? Where in the scripture does it say God calls prophets from the cream of the crop? It does not. In fact it often says he calls the weak and unlearned and the foolish. If you get your apologetic answers then great... But if you don't.... if you only find more and more negative things about Brigham Young what are you going to do? Will you get to a point that you decide that you know better then God whom he should call? Because that is Pride which is a very deadly sin. Perhaps instead of looking through the history books and making judgements on how wicked and evil people where and question how God could possibly work with them... maybe instead we should all look in a mirror and say "Thank you God for being willing to work with such and evil and wicked person as I am." Of course those are just my thoughts on the subject and I am some random guy on the internet. Take what works for you (if anything) and discard the rest

@jdf135, just realized I forgot to say welcome! Welcome to ThirdHour!

Psychoanalyzing historical figures through historical records gets tricky fast. It's easy to be an armchair shrink, but it's even easier to judge unrighteously by filling in any missing context with our modern cultural contexts and understandings. Brigham and all historical figures faced many influences from their culture and society, and looking only at their diaries usually ignores the bigger picture of their experiences and decisions. Another way to put it: To us fat lazy 21st century 1st world elites, 1800's frontier Americans all look like crazy savages. We have lost all clues of how much effort those people had to put into just surviving the winter, much less the threats of extinction from other human sources. Here's a fun little slice of how things were back then: My wife is a descendant of the Native American slave trade. When the Mormons hit the valley, the various Ute tribes saw increased opportunities for trade. And raiding other villages for captive women and children became a new booming industry, because the good hearted LDS folks would buy slaves from them, especially if the slave traders mistreated their captives in front of the Mormons or threatened to kill them if they weren't sold. I wonder how accurate we can be with our attempts to psychoanalyze the chiefs of the various Sanpete and Timpanogos and other Ute tribes for thinking such things were a perfectly normal way to conduct a trading relationship with the newcomers. Yep. Even when I download the large filesize copy and drill down to max magnification, it's still nigh impossible to read. @jdf135, unless I miss my guess, you're going off of someone's text here. Care to post it? If it's an anti source, don't post the link to the source, but we can't really respond to your claims until we see upon what they are based.

Assuming the worst about him (which is an unstable foundation for anyone to use), the keys of the kingdom were still intact and exercised by the First Presidency and Twelve. The covenants were still in place and active in the saints' lives. It's not a matter of being the best the Lord has to work with at the time, it is a matter of whom the Lord chooses to work through at the time for His own purposes. Should your line of thinking extend to Church leaders and officers (typically local units) committing crimes, the same thing holds true. The Lord atoned for all our sins and if He did not, we would not have the agency to commit them.

When Christ comes again, and the truth is known, you're welcome to smack me upside the head with the nearest 2"x4" if I'm wrong.

I can sing the National Anthem, but if I did so in public it would cause everyone around me to immediately question their patriotism and embrace communism.