Was Brigham Young a bit...unstable?

[jdf135]

I recently began reading about the Battle Creek Massacre and today read the minutes from the meeting where Brother Brigham encouraged the "extermination" of the Timpanogos Natives Church History Catalog | Asset viewer | Salt Lake City, 1850 January 3, 1850 February 10.  It was disturbing to read how prophets endorsed such violence.  The ensuing slaughter was sickening: beheadings, enslavement, starvation. 

The more I read about Brigham Young the more I become convinced that he had psychopathic tendencies ( Psychopathy - Wikipedia ).  Even putting all of his actions in historical context his Christianity could certainly be put in question and at times I think he was just a bit nuts (the Adam-God theory was just downright bizarre)!   Were he (and the other apostles) really the best the Lord had work with at the time?  Did the Lord just put up with him until he died?  

Any thoughts? 

Edited yesterday at 06:41 AM by jdf135

[Carborendum]

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.

Edited yesterday at 12:47 PM by Carborendum

[CV75]

6 hours ago, jdf135 said:

I recently began reading about the Battle Creek Massacre and today read the minutes from the meeting where Brother Brigham encouraged the "extermination" of the Timpanogos Natives Church History Catalog | Asset viewer | Salt Lake City, 1850 January 3, 1850 February 10.  It was disturbing to read how prophets endorsed such violence.  The ensuing slaughter was sickening: beheadings, enslavement, starvation. 

The more I read about Brigham Young the more I become convinced that he had psychopathic tendencies ( Psychopathy - Wikipedia ).  Even putting all of his actions in historical context his Christianity could certainly be put in question and at times I think he was just a bit nuts (the Adam-God theory was just downright bizarre)!   Were he (and the other apostles) really the best the Lord had work with at the time?  Did the Lord just put up with him until he died?  

Any thoughts? 

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. 

[zil2]

57 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

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.

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).

7 hours ago, jdf135 said:

the Adam-God theory was just downright bizarre

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.

7 hours ago, jdf135 said:

Were he (and the other apostles) really the best the Lord had work with at the time?  Did the Lord just put up with him until he died?

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.

[NeuroTypical]

7 hours ago, jdf135 said:

The more I read about Brigham Young the more I become convinced that he had psychopathic tendencies

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.

 

 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

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.

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.

 

Edited yesterday at 02:37 PM by NeuroTypical