Issues with Brigham Young

[Nathan6329]

I just want to say that I am an LDS Member so this isn't an anti-Mormon comment trying to drive people away from the religion.

The only problem I have is that something is out of place with the teachings of Brigham Young. Shortly after he took leadership he revoked all the priesthood blessings of the Black members in the church and he also revoked the temple rights for all the members. He also had taught against mixed marriages. What bothers me is that I have been a member of the LDS Church for 13 years and I still believe that Brigham Young failed as a prophet and there were also rumors that he was involved in a massacre.

I understand that a lot of what him and other prophets said could be considered questionable, but the fact is that he approved of the writings of the Journal of Disclosures and helped along with the sale of them once they were written.

What I think is that Brigham Young is at fault for many of the Anti-Mormons that are out there because he put the church through a period of corruptness which hadn't been brought back into balance until years later when polygamy was ended and then until we had not used race as a reason to deny someone the same blessings.

[MarginOfError]

I think you're being awfully critical of Young from a 21st century perspective. While we've come to learn that discriminatory practices are wrong, they were fairly normative at the time. That doesn't make it right, but it doesn't mean we get to evaluate his decisions independently of the era either.

Also, you have to try to weigh in political, social, and economic factors of the time. The Saints had been expelled from Missouri in part for their religious teachings, but also in large part for their political leanings. Missouri was admitted into the Union as a slave state as part of the Missouri Compromise in 1820. But most of the Saints came from the Northeast, New York, and Ohio--all areas with strong abolitionist leanings. A huge migration of abolitionists to Missouri didn't do much to temper the political climate of the time. Consider also that Missouri was so zealous of slavery that many people crossed the border into Kansas to throw elections, start skirmishes, and engage in a small war to try and establish Kansas as a slave state. It is plausible that as Young was moving the Saints west into Mexican and US territories, he felt that taking the Church's involvement in the slavery issue would provide them some protection.

I'm not sure what your criticisms against Young over polygamy are about, as you don't seem to criticize Joseph Smith for the same.

In any case, in each era of leadership, the Lord works with his prophets and the knowledge and wisdom that is available at the time. Slavery was common in ancient Israel because society just hadn't moved beyond it yet. The Lord seems to have tolerated it while people figured things out for themselves. I think it would be a mistake to evaluate the successes and failures of past leaders based on what we know and value in 2011.

[Nathan6329]

Okay I completely understand what you are saying.

However, assuming the Journal of Discourses is true to the word, would that change your opinion of the church any?

The church says that the Journal of Discourses had errors noted and is not an official publication of the church but what do you say to the protestors that say we just say that to deny the flaws of the early prophet teachings?

I accept the doctrines and many of the revelations of our church. However, I do not thing everything said by every leader since the beginning of the church was a revelation from the lord. I just remember that our church has the teaching of Christ but is led by humans which are imperfect.

[hordak]

i think the "mistakes" (depending on what particular thing you are referring to) of past Prophets are a way to teach current and future members the importance of personal revelation and confirmation by the Holy Ghost.

In fact Brigham Young "taught" this, it is in the Journals of discourse.

Don't have the direct quote but he mentions how he is afraid for the saints who would follow the leaders blindly and not seek the truth for themselves through the Holy Ghost.

[NeuroTypical]

I do not thing everything said by every leader since the beginning of the church was a revelation from the lord. I just remember that our church has the teaching of Christ but is led by humans which are imperfect.

Excellent perspective, Nathan. As far as I can tell, it's a perspective shared by the leaders of this church as well.

So, if that really is what you hold to, then why do you identify some of these things advocated by Brigham as 'a problem'? I mean, the promise in the scriptures is that the prophet will never lead the church astray. And here we are, not led astray, right?

A second question, if you have a problem with Brigham, how do you feel about the fallibility of the OT prophets? They had their stains and sins and dumb thoughts and actions too - preserved in scripture for us to see.

Welcome to the site,

Lm

[Gwen]

my mom has issues with pres brigham young and we have discussed him at length. it wasn't an easy conversation for me because i too have struggled with some of what is written about him. for me the important points become...

we weren't there. we don't know what "really" happened or by what tone/spirit it was done.

we can't judge ppl of that time by our standards.

the lord makes use of all kinds of ppl. he can use me to accomplish something good despite my flaws. the same is true for other ppl as well as other positions in the church. each prophet was called for his strengths and what the church needed at that time.

spring boarding off the last point (after a visit to nauvoo) i asked myself, "what did pres brigham young do compared to pres joseph smith?" pres smith was a very compassionate man. he felt the pain and trial of every person he came to know. his ability to have empathy and compassion was great. and was needed as the church was started. after his death the lord moved the members out west. it was a massive undertaking, it was destined to leave a trail of bodies that didn't make the journey. pres young from what i've read of him almost seemed to lack a certain empathy, which is why he is so heavily criticized. he was blunt, to the point, extremely confident in himself and his carrying out what the lord commanded. he had no reservations, he was told to do something he did it. he offered no apologies. it wasn't that he didn't feel for the ppl that struggled but he had a different view than many others. he could honestly say, "if we die before our journey is through all is well". pres young is the personality type that goes to a funeral and says "they are with god now, no more pain, it's ok, be happy." are those things true? yes. do they comfort the mourning? not really unless you are of the same personality. so those of us that are more worried about the pain of the ppl left behind that kind of reaction seems cold and callused. it's not, it's just a different kind of person. the very kind of person need to take the members out west. someone that could feel for them but not become consumed in the trials. someone that was prepared to plow through any obstacle without hesitation or looking back to carry out the lord's will. someone that could tell very poor ppl, "pack up one more time, leave all you own, make this journey that you or your children may not live though" without fear. someone that wouldn't hesitate to tell ppl with little "you made it here but you have brothers and sisters stuck in the cold, get off your butts, we go get them now" that kind of confidence accomplishes the impossible. it's the same personality great generals have to have. they can't feel every pain their soldiers do or they won't succeed. they have to have confidence and a firm belief in what they are doing and willingness to ask ppl to give all, even their lives if need be. you don't inspire ppl to follow that kind of directive if you second guess yourself. pres young did not second guess himself. he moved the church forward against all odds without apology or excuse. that's what the church needed at that time. the lord used him to accomplish great things in spite of the "flaws" of that personality type. did he make mistakes? of course. find me someone that hasn't.

personally i may have never been his best friend and i don't know that i would have followed him out west had i lived at that time. i think we would have clashed at every turn (but then had i been raised in that era i would have been a very different person lol). but that does not mean he doesn't have his place in church history, that he didn't do great things, and that he does not deserve our respect as a leader of our church.

all that said i would like to make a note as a mod. pres young was a prophet of our church and this thread needs to stay respectful of that or it will be closed in a heartbeat. also remember rule

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

infractions will be issued as seen fit.

[pam]

all that said i would like to make a note as a mod. pres young was a prophet of our church and this thread needs to stay respectful of that or it will be closed in a heartbeat. also remember rule

Quote:

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

infractions will be issued as seen fit.

Thank you Gwen for posting this. :)

[Nathan6329]

I did some research and found Brigham Young to be the grandfather of Archie Bunker.

P.S. (This is sarcasm by the way)

[Nathan6329]

Pam I understand what the rules are but I don't think I violated anything by asking questions on how legitimate the teachings of Brigham Young are.

[pam]

I didn't say you did. Gwen posted for future posts, to keep this respectable without bashing President Young in any way.

[Gwen]

nathan, unless you got an infraction or someone called you out specifically i suggest you don't make comments assuming someone is talking to you. my comment was pretty general and pam thanked it. that's all there was to it. your comment makes you look guilty, not a good way to stay under the radar.

[Nathan6329]

What I'm saying about Brigham Young is that I understand he had weaknesses just like us, but some of his success as one of our leaders can definitely be considered questionable consider his personal views got the best of him in his religious teachings which may have caused a lot of members relationship with the lord to be hindered. The problem is I am just up in the air about Brigham Young because it isn't only the fact that he believed what he did, it is the fact that he revoked many blessings of the black members of our church. We claim not to believe in original sin because we don't think we should be responsible for the actions of others, but yet he preached that blacks were responsible for the actions of Cain, if I'm not mistaken. I'm asking here because I am basically tired of having to have this conversation with everyone who is opposed to our religion.

[Nathan6329]

Gwen,

it is because we are online and frequently people's points could be mistaken because you can't read body language or voice tone through a forum so I was hoping that nothing I said came off as an insult because it was only a point I was making.

[Gwen]

nathan, have you ever attended a small branch? one where most the members were very religious before converting as adults?

i live in one. the neat thing about those kinds of units is the spirit is very different. in many ways more powerful. when the members teach and share their testimony their previous religious influences come out in their tone, their word choice, even sometimes misrepresenting doctrine. but you can't deny the faith they have. they may not understand it perfectly but they have a powerful testimony. we had one sister that was very easy to see her previous upbringing in her way of living the gospel. but she was there, if you needed something done she would do it, if anyone was bringing a friend to the meeting it was her. i used to laugh when she would forget it was a pot luck and instead of just brushing it off and enjoying she would run up to the store to buy something to contribute (she lived 30 min away, couldn't run home). at first when i moved here i couldn't understand it, break the sabbath for a pot luck? but then i got to know her. i don't think she was ever condemned for that. she lived the gospel with all her heart, the best she knew how.

my point is when i think of our early leaders, i think of this. we may know and understand and teach now that we don't believe in original sin. but it was a very commonly held christian belief. does not surprise me at all that the influence shows up in some early church teachings.

that's why we believe in a living church. we all grow together, every generation in theory should be more perfect than the last.

[Wingnut]

The church says that the Journal of Discourses had errors noted and is not an official publication of the church but what do you say to the protestors that say we just say that to deny the flaws of the early prophet teachings?

I say that's their problem.

I accept the doctrines and many of the revelations of our church. However, I do not thing everything said by every leader since the beginning of the church was a revelation from the lord. I just remember that our church has the teaching of Christ but is led by humans which are imperfect.

That's good. You should be seeking personal confirmation, and not just blindly following.

[Blackmarch]

I just want to say that I am an LDS Member so this isn't an anti-Mormon comment trying to drive people away from the religion.

The only problem I have is that something is out of place with the teachings of Brigham Young. Shortly after he took leadership he revoked all the priesthood blessings of the Black members in the church and he also revoked the temple rights for all the members. He also had taught against mixed marriages. What bothers me is that I have been a member of the LDS Church for 13 years and I still believe that Brigham Young failed as a prophet and there were also rumors that he was involved in a massacre.

I understand that a lot of what him and other prophets said could be considered questionable, but the fact is that he approved of the writings of the Journal of Disclosures and helped along with the sale of them once they were written.

What I think is that Brigham Young is at fault for many of the Anti-Mormons that are out there because he put the church through a period of corruptness which hadn't been brought back into balance until years later when polygamy was ended and then until we had not used race as a reason to deny someone the same blessings.

well for one prophets are not perfect, and tho they were given revelations they weren't given revelations about every little thing, and have to use their best judgement... Their judgement comes from what they know, their experiences, upbringing, and etc.

One reason why it's held as the revokation on the priesthood was revelation is because the Lord did not stop it or had it given back until quite some time later. Do we know why it was enacted? Ulitimately no, even tho there are good theories out there.

While some of what he said may be "questionsable" generally means we haven't had anything to confirm it.... but on the other hand we generally haven't had anything to deny it either... so a person who deccides such is ultimately absolutely right or absolutely wrong does so at their peril.

Like all prophets his teachings were to guide the church membership's behavior.

[Suzie]

I think Nathan's point is that even though we do understand and agree that the thoughts of President Young at that time were common in a historical perspective, when his thoughts and teachings affected others (such as the Black and the Priesthood) issue as he mentioned, then it is not longer about his personal opinion and understanding historical context. I think that's his main point. Maybe he can correct me if I am wrong.

[Vanhin]

Well, I think Brigham Young was awesome. He's one of my favorites.

I also think it is inaccurate to characterize the policy that banned blacks of African decent from the priesthood as a "mistake". It was a mistake for some to profess that the ban would not be lifted in this life time, and some of the reasons given for the ban were mere speculation, but there's no indication that the Church views the actual policy as a mistake.

The ban endured, despite the numerous prayers of the saints and their prophets for years. It wasn't until God, by revelation, approved the lifting of the ban that it was lifted. I accept Joseph Smith through Spencer W. Kimball as prophets of God. So, I cannot conclude anything else except that it was God's will that it endured as long as it did.

Regards,

Vanhin

[NeuroTypical]

he revoked many blessings of the black members of our church.

And what blessings would those be? Carefully think about this for a minute. "The blessing of going to the temple" doesn't really work for me as an answer. They had the same shot at getting into the celestial kingdom as you or I do.

For that matter, how do you account for Ezra 2:59-62 - where sons of priests are denied the priesthood because they couldn't prove their proper ancestry?

And I'm still waiting for your answer about Old Testament prophets and their acts of whoremongering, lying, selling prophecies for money, and quite possibly even murder. If you have a problem with Brigham, don't you also need to have a problem with those folks from the OT as well?

(not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand how the big picture fits in your mind. Maybe I'm just giving you good answers for the critics you're talking to.)

yet he preached that blacks were responsible for the actions of Cain, if I'm not mistaken.

I believe that yes indeed you, and the church critics who gave you this information, are both mistaken. He might have believed it, he might have been on record as talking about it, but no, I've never seen any source about how he preached it.

Have you? Or are you just taking church critic's word for it? I'd ask to see the sources, if I were you.

LM

Edited January 12, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Backroads]

Nathan,

Anyone who lives righteously is entitled to any and all blessings REGARDLESS of what happens on earth. There is a huge difference between the policy and procedure of ordinances, blessings, and principals and the ordiances, blessings, and principals themselves.

Can people be critical of what Brigham Young did? Certainly. I think I was not sent down in the times of the early church because I also have some issues with the leaders. Oh, I like to think that I would have recognized them as prophets, but I think personality wise we all would have conflicted. Even prophets can do all they want. Even if it's "church policy" doesn't mean it was a direct commandment from God.

Frankly, you are never going to find an answer that will please anyone who demands to know why because there just isn't one. If they don't like it, oh well, they'll just have to build a time machine and change history. Until then, they'll have to live or let live. And so will you.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Backroads

[Suzie]

I think it's a bit ludicrous to try to explain/justify what Brigham Young stated and whether or not he said it and whether or not he was just sharing his "opinion". Point blank is that he said it. That's a fact and that's part of the "freckles" in Church history Pres. Hinckley referred to (and we have many).

I discussed this issue ad nauseam with many members of the Church and with Darius Gray who sent me some copies of the DVD's he was producing with Margaret. I think they did a terrific job in trying to put things into perspective and a must see for those interested in the topic.

I think Elder Holland gives some interesting points in the PBS interview:

PBS: I've talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

Holland: One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

PBS: What is the folklore, quite specifically?

Holland: Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic.

The Mormons . Interviews . Jeffrey Holland | PBS

[Suzie]

I think it's easy for us to ask what blessings the early black members of the Church really lost or try to rationalize that they did not lose any (which is not true), however if you was Black and you were living at that time or even at the present time, the issue is very delicate and a very hard bone to chew.

[Backroads]

I think it's easy for us to ask what blessings the early black members of the Church really lost or try to rationalize that they did not lose any (which is not true), however if you was Black and you were living at that time or even at the present time, the issue is very delicate and a very hard bone to chew.

Not saying it's not, but what else can be done about it now?

To me, it's silly to try to pretend that there is something that can be done about it. It wasn't a good thing, I would daresay most people aren't happy with the history, but what can be done? If we try to justify reasons and blessings, we're not sensitive. If we don't try to justify, we're not sensitive.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Backroads
more info

[Suzie]

Not saying it's not, but what else can be done about it now?

Even though we cannot change history, I think what we can do is not perpetuate the "folcklore/myths" surrounding the topic that Pres. Holland spoke about even when it's coming from our past Prophets.

[Backroads]

Even though we cannot change history, I think what we can do is not perpetuate the "folcklore/myths" surrounding the topic that Pres. Holland spoke about even when it's coming from our past Prophets.

We certainly can stop the folklore, but it still doesn't make people happy. No point in worrying too much over it.