Have we distanced ourselves from Brigham Young?

[ItsRoger]

It seems like at one point in history, LDS members embraced Young as "The Lion of the Lord", "Brother Brigham", and even "The American Moses". These days, it's difficult to have a discussion with a fellow member regarding Brigham Young. The more evolved we become in history, the more distant the Church seems to become when it comes to our 2nd Prophet.

In fact, as of 5 minutes ago, when I googled "Brigham Young LDS", the only Brigham Young article on LDS.Org went to an "Access Denied" screen and didn't let me view it. Perhaps that's a server issue, but it's pretty telling nonetheless.

What do you guys think?

[Just_A_Guy]

It seems like at one point in history, LDS members embraced Young as "The Lion of the Lord", "Brother Brigham", and even "The American Moses". These days, it's difficult to have a discussion with a fellow member regarding Brigham Young. The more evolved we become in history, the more distant the Church seems to become when it comes to our 2nd Prophet.

In fact, as of 5 minutes ago, when I googled "Brigham Young LDS", the only Brigham Young article on LDS.Org went to an "Access Denied" screen and didn't let me view it. Perhaps that's a server issue, but it's pretty telling nonetheless.

What do you guys think?

 

 

It's not the only Brigham Young article; it's simply the top Google hit result (a page which was working two days ago, per Google Cache).  Google hits number two and three also go to LDS.org-hosted sites, and they work just fine.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

I seriously doubt LDS.org is deleting or hiding or blocking things about Brigham Young. I haven't heard any talk of ostracizing him from our history or anything like that. 

 

Brigham Young WAS a hard man who spoke hard words. He did and said things people don't agree with. But he was called to lead the church during its most difficult years. He was essentially responsible to get the Saints to Zion. He couldn't afford to be soft and squishy. I don't think it likely that another man could have done what he was able to do during those times.

[Vort]

I think Brigham Young was the mightiest prophet of our dispensation,with the possible exception of Joseph Smith. I do not know that there is anyone in Church history, or any prophet in scripture save Jesus himself, whom I admire more.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Three words: Adam. God. Doctrine.
Brigham was definitely called to lead the church across the plains, and he was the man for the job. But he also had a lot of less than savory character flaws that spilled over into his teaching.

He's not my favorite prophet, and there a few corrections made to his instruction even while he was alive because of its.... questionable nature. Now I suppose that us complaining about Brigham's flaws is more or less the same as Aaron and Miriam complaining about Moses second (out of the covenant) wife.

I am not aware of any recent official or unofficial efforts by the church or any of its leaders to disavow Brigham or his teachings any more than was done during his lifetime. There may be members, like myself, who choose favorites and don't choose him.

[Blackmarch]

It seems like at one point in history, LDS members embraced Young as "The Lion of the Lord", "Brother Brigham", and even "The American Moses". These days, it's difficult to have a discussion with a fellow member regarding Brigham Young. The more evolved we become in history, the more distant the Church seems to become when it comes to our 2nd Prophet.

In fact, as of 5 minutes ago, when I googled "Brigham Young LDS", the only Brigham Young article on LDS.Org went to an "Access Denied" screen and didn't let me view it. Perhaps that's a server issue, but it's pretty telling nonetheless.

What do you guys think?

Some do some don't. Idon't feel that the church itself is taking any direction like. members on the other hand, that's a mixed bag. but I'd have to say that with those i've met it's more on the accepting/believing side.

[Str8Shooter]

I still embrace him as the Lion of the Lord, and most people I know feel the same way. Brigham Young is awesome. It's what the church needed at that time. Some of the things he said come off as brash, but I feel it certainly wasn't meant to be that way. It seems to me in his teachings that at times he was frustrated with the saints because he knew their potential and they weren't living up to it. Sometimes they needed to be told hard things.

An incredible prophet he was, to say the least.

I think if there is distancing from Brigham Young it's from members who do not understand polygamy, the period of time when blacks could not hold the priesthood, or they are just not strong in their testimonies.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Str8Shooter

[Palerider]

Brigham Young brought my ancestors into the church.

[The Folk Prophet]

Anyone who thinks we've distanced ourselves or are distancing ourselves from Brigham Young has been spending too much time playing with their "progressive" buddies.

 

As with most "progressive" theories...

 

Hooey!!

 

[bytebear]

From just a historic perspective, Brigham Young was probably one of the finest leaders of America.  He not only led the most massive migration in American history, but he established settlements throughout the West.  He avoided bloodshed in one of the most tense standoffs in history.  He was definitely the right man in the right place to further the church.  Doctrinally, I think he standardized temple worship. I think part of that comes the whole Adam-God theory, where he attempted to explain things in ways that were not well understood, and I think he is misunderstood and misinterpreted.  He is a main reason I embrace the LDS Church as the true church, and not other churches branching from Joseph Smith.

 

I think after the Joseph Smith papers are completed, the church may move to BY, and I do think Young is shortchanged in the realm of general American history, and, unfortunately the anti-Mormons have put all emphasis on characatures of polygamy, making any meaningful discussion of him impossible.

[pam]

If we distance ourselves from Brigham Young, we have to distance ourselves from most of the early church history.  He is a huge part of it.  Faults and all.

 

When I googled Brigham Young LDS, the top 3 hits were all from lds.org and they all worked.

[FunkyTown]

I've never heard of church members distancing themselves from Brigham Young.

 

Can you quote source?

 

Heck - I'm a convert and Brigham is one of my favourites.

[Blackmarch]

I've never heard of church members distancing themselves from Brigham Young.

 

Can you quote source?

 

Heck - I'm a convert and Brigham is one of my favourites.

mostly around the blacks and the priesthood issue. (Things like "well he was just human and that was something he did on his own, and God was just resecting his authority" sort of thing).

Elder packer has recieved quite a bit of like treatment as well. (altho probably not near as much)

 

Edited August 7, 2015 by Blackmarch

[Jane_Doe]

I have zero problem admitting ANY prophet has/had faults, including BY.  Let's see a person for the good and for the bad.

[Vort]

I have zero problem admitting ANY prophet has/had faults, including BY.  Let's see a person for the good and for the bad.

 

The problem with admitting faults, especially in prophets, lies in specifying what those faults were. No one here (and probably no living mortal at all) is capable of specifying Brother Brigham's faults correctly.

[Finrock]

Brigham Young was a great man of God and I love him. I don't shy away from him in any way.

 

I am in no position to judge another. Because I am flawed and because God has still worked with me I know that He will work with all persons, especially His prophets, no matter how flawed they are. It is no sin to be human; It is only a sin to stop trying to be divine.

 

-Finrock

[Finrock]

The problem with admitting faults, especially in prophets, lies in specifying what those faults were. No one here (and probably no living mortal at all) is capable of specifying Brother Brigham's faults correctly.

 

And yet it is important for us to know and to accept the fallibility of the prophets. Not to point them out but so that you do not judge them too harshly when they fail. We must have empathy and understanding, even towards our leaders. Also, knowing and accepting the fallibility of the prophets reminds us that the only absolute sure person to place our trust in is Jesus Christ, who will never falter nor fail us in any degree.

 

-Finrock

[Average Joe]

• Create Account
  

Have we distanced ourselves from Brigham Young? Yes.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

And yet it is important for us to know and to accept the fallibility of the prophets. Not to point them out but so that you do not judge them too harshly when they fail. We must have empathy and understanding, even towards our leaders. Also, knowing and accepting the fallibility of the prophets reminds us that the only absolute sure person to place our trust in is Jesus Christ, who will never falter nor fail us in any degree.

 

-Finrock

I think we (Mormons) do tend to put our general authorities on a pedestal. All that talk about "The Lord's servants cannot lead the church astray" kind of puts us into a mode of "The Lord's servants cannot go astray". 

 

The truth is that LDS general authorities, prophets and apostles included, can and sometimes do teach false doctrine. Sometimes over the pulpit at general conference. They're human and they're fallible, just like the rest of us. Which should actually give us all a great deal of optimism, since if the Lord determines that these men are worthy leaders of His church, then maybe all of us with our own faults aren't as hopeless as we sometimes feel. We shouldn't judge ourselves too harshly, either.

[David13]

I have a great deal of respect for Brigham Young. 

I wish I could have accomplished in my life one half of what he accomplished. 

I still wear a beard.  And I have no intention of shaving.

I think he was known as the American Moses outside the church.  I don't think they called him that in the church.

Wasn't it Horace Greeley or some newspaper writer back east that titled him the American Moses?

dc

[SpiritDragon]

If the church pushes to revert BYU Idaho back to Ricks college or even Ricks University or decides to rename the other schools bearing his name to some other than I would be more inclined to believe that the church was trying to distance itself from Brigham Young.

 

However I agree with TFP that it is the so called "progressives" who want to distance themselves from anything in church history that isn't warm and fuzzy. The church itself is actually striving to make our history more transparent than ever in my opinion in what I believe is an effort to squelch the idea that they've been hiding the truth. It has never been the church's responsibility to teach history, but to teach the gospel. If they choose to use heroic stories from church history to strengthen testimonies - power to them. Sunday school is not the place to be talking about the mountain meadow massacre or the adam god theory or how many women married whom at what age - or whatever else is supposedly being covered up. Now with the use of media such as the internet the church is making a better effort to make our history available. Will it be biased as told by the church? Of course because bias is inevitable, especially when the history will be largely gathered from journals of faithful members... but I think they are trying hard to limit the bias and it is certainly less biased than the anti-mormon pseudo-history.

[pam]

I think we (Mormons) do tend to put our general authorities on a pedestal. All that talk about "The Lord's servants cannot lead the church astray" kind of puts us into a mode of "The Lord's servants cannot go astray". 

 

The truth is that LDS general authorities, prophets and apostles included, can and sometimes do teach false doctrine. Sometimes over the pulpit at general conference. They're human and they're fallible, just like the rest of us. Which should actually give us all a great deal of optimism, since if the Lord determines that these men are worthy leaders of His church, then maybe all of us with our own faults aren't as hopeless as we sometimes feel. We shouldn't judge ourselves too harshly, either.

 

Can you give references to when GA's have taught false doctrine over the pulpit at General Conference?  

[Palerider]

Can you give references to when GA's have taught false doctrine over the pulpit at General Conference?

Not only GA's but Prophets too ... Curious when this false doctrine teaching took place

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Can you give references to when GA's have taught false doctrine over the pulpit at General Conference?  

How about the example I already gave?

 

The first recorded explanation of the "Adam–God" doctrine was by Brigham Young, who first taught the doctrine at the church's spring general conference on April 9, 1852. (JoD, v1, p. 46-53)

In 1976, church president Spencer W. Kimball stated "We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." (Conference Report, p. 115, October 1-3, 1976)

 

My point is not to debate the doctrines or to wrest the prophets, and I am definitely not trying to encourage people to doubt their faith or dissent from the church - so I will not make a list of such examples. My point is to highlight how our apostles and prophets are just as human and fallible as you and I. That can be very faith-building, as I've mentioned, just as it is faith-building to know that Jesus "was in all points tempted like as we are". I would say that anyone whose faith is shaken by this has put too much of their faith in the mortal leaders of the church and not enough faith in the Immortal whose church it is.

I will say this - reading this discussion and participating in it has definitely given me a greater appreciation for Brigham Young. He was God's servant and the right man for his time, in spite of his weakness. I've decided his life is worth further study. So thanks, Roger, for asking the question :)

[pam]

Okay so that was Brigham Young.  163 years ago.  Anything in the past 30 years?  You have made it sound as if it happens frequently.  Because if that is the only example...I'd think it pretty safe to say that false doctrine is not taught from the pulpit at General Conference.