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 Friday 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 Friday 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 Friday at 02:37 PM by NeuroTypical

[jdf135]

To those who are having trouble with the text, so has everybody else who has ever read this document. It IS from the church-endorsed archives.  There are attempts to clarify the poor handwriting ( Brigham Young orders killing of Native Americans. | B. H. Roberts ) from the B.H. Roberts Foundation but I used the original to show that I had found the original source. Regardless of the difficulty, the words kill and extermination are very clear in the document.   

If this were the ONLY controversy it would all be easier to swallow. 

I am not leaving the church.  I'm just disturbed that not one, but SEVERAL prophets, seers, and revelators who claimed to be followers of Jesus Christ endorsed and proposed an "extermination" - a term familiar through Governor Boggs.  I am also disturbed that having spent over 60 years in the church I am just learning about this while the Mountain Meadows massacre has been addressed by the church over and over.  It seems that, again, the church is glossing over some very ugly historical events that are viewed with EXTREME negativity by church opponents.   I have searched for apologetics addressing this event but to no avail.  In my investigations I also stumbled upon several other questionable events regarding the natives as well as the Aiken Massacre which, if William Hickman can be believed (and he is a questionable source), was one of many murders requested by President Young.  

In regards to Brigham, if I could amount a list of radical - dare I say extremist - quotes from this man, it would fill up pages (please don't double dare me as it is unlikely that I will take that much time). I realize hyperbole was  common

among speakers of the day but it does not completely eliminate the gross, un-Christian verbalizations (don't get me started on the African American issue).   And yes, some sources have Brigham stating the Adam literally inseminated Mary the mother of Jesus. 

I am really not trying to be argumentative.  I am actually looking for apologetic information to help put this in a little better context from what I am reading online. If you are able to provide such sources I would be THRILLED to read them! 

THANK YOU. 

Edited Sunday at 04:19 AM by jdf135
Typos, clarification

[zil2]

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

[zil2]

9 hours ago, jdf135 said:

...I'm just disturbed that...

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.

On 5/23/2025 at 12:37 AM, 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?  

(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...

[estradling75]

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

 

 

Edited Monday at 03:03 AM by estradling75

[LDSGator]

10 hours ago, jdf135 said:

I am really not trying to be argumentative.

You aren’t. You are just an honest person with questions. 

[NeuroTypical]

12 hours ago, jdf135 said:

I am actually looking for apologetic information to help put this in a little better context from what I am reading online.

Are you sure?  I mean, I gave some, but I don't see any indication that you noticed.

 

 

12 hours ago, jdf135 said:

( Brigham Young orders killing of Native Americans. | B. H. Roberts )

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.

 

12 hours ago, jdf135 said:

I'm just disturbed that not one, but SEVERAL prophets, seers, and revelators who claimed to be followers of Jesus Christ endorsed and proposed an "extermination"

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?

 

12 hours ago, jdf135 said:

I am also disturbed that having spent over 60 years in the church I am just learning about this

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/

12 hours ago, jdf135 said:

 I have searched for apologetics addressing this event but to no avail. 

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.  

 

 

12 hours ago, jdf135 said:

It seems that, again, the church is glossing over some very ugly historical events that are viewed with EXTREME negativity by church opponents. 

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?

[zil2]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Do you know what it means when Higbee says "they cannot sustain themselves there"?  That means unless something changes, those saints will all die.

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.

[laronius]

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.

[jdf135]

10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

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?

 

[jdf135]

"spent in historical ignorance"  

I thought I maybe I shouldn't get back into this forum.  there are mean people here.  nasty insults for struggling people.  back to reddit I go.  

[NeuroTypical]

You take the phrase "historical ignorance" as a nasty insult?  I meant no offense.  You come here saying openly that are hearing things for the first time after 60 years in the church.   If you don't like the phrase I chose, what would you call it?

I mean, all of us are ignorant of things until we learn them, right?  Would it help if I gave a partial list of things of which I'm mostly ignorant?
- Most languages on earth except English.
- Math starting with algebra and anything more advanced.
- How to not insult a struggling Canadian while trying to help him, apparently.

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

Edited Monday at 03:30 PM by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

17 hours ago, laronius said:

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.

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".

[zil2]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

You take the phrase "historical ignorance" as a nasty insult?  I meant no offense.  You come here saying openly that are hearing things for the first time after 60 years in the church.   If you don't like the phrase I chose, what would you call it?

FWIW, it appears that in some subcultures in the US (and perhaps Canada?), "ignorant" is synonymous with stupid, "retarded" and other terms.  I had to deal with this at work when I used the word as it's intended - meaning "lacking knowledge" and someone took it as an insult.  It's frustrating, because "ignorant" is exactly the right word (and shorter than the phrase "lacking knowledge of ..."), but what are you going to do.

(I'm gonna go ask my Canadian FP friends - though most of them are in the East, so it may not be very informative...)

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s really remarkable how often Cluster B symptomology comes up in discussions about LDS culture/ teaching/ history.

Really?  Apparently I have Cluster Lives-Under-A-Rock-and-Never-Notices-These-Things symptomology...  (And Firefox has doesn't-know-symptomology-is-a-word symptomology, which I'm about to fix.)

[LDSGator]

13 hours ago, jdf135 said:

"spent in historical ignorance"  

I thought I maybe I shouldn't get back into this forum.  there are mean people here.  nasty insults for struggling people.  back to reddit I go.  

I’m sorry about this my friend. @NeuroTypical is one of the kindest people I’ve ever met-and I’ve had the joy of meeting him in person. I’m 100% certain that he didn’t mean it in a cruel way 

[mirkwood]

19 hours ago, jdf135 said:

"spent in historical ignorance"  

I thought I maybe I shouldn't get back into this forum.  there are mean people here.  nasty insults for struggling people.  back to reddit I go.  

 

lol...back to reddit...you mean where people really are mean and nasty?  Smh.

 

Honestly it sounds like you got push back you did not like so instead of further engagement to resolve it you went to name calling.  Ok, whatever.

 

[Still_Small_Voice]

To me, reading the history of this conflict it seems this tribe of Indians was attacking the saints and stealing their property.  If you steal all of someone's food out on the frontier they would starve.  Fighting back against hostiles stealing your food and attacking you is no sin in my mind.

[JohnsonJones]

Brigham Young is a...rather interesting individual.

He tried to press a view of our Father Adam, as well as Father Adam, and their relationship between each other and our lord, Jesus Christ.  

Some of his views he tried to get into canon, but was generally prevented by at least one solitary vote who did not agree with that view.

Thus, he never had unanimous support among the twelve for certain parts of the doctrine.

One portion that I've learned about later that is scientifically false, was his idea regarding Adam and Eve.  His thoughts were that since woman could not have any see of their own, (or, in our idea and language, she didn't provide any DNA to help create a baby, she was merely the place the baby grew), and only Adam had that ability, Eve was said to come from his Rib, but it really was from his loins.  She was literally his offspring in that manner, and than as she was that, she also made him complete.

A little confusing, but we know that's not how it works today.  We know that the DNA for a child needs both parents, otherwise you only have half the genetic material required to make a child (at least, naturally).  

He was a very stubborn man though, and tried to push through some of these views regardless.  He pushed them in some conferences.  He pushed them in some sermons.  He pushed them in the Temple, he pushed them at the churches.  

This, however, was the very reason he was Prophet.  The saints HAD to have Brigham Young to be their prophet.  He was the only one stubborn and strong enough to uproot them from their lands in the East, move them hundreds and over a thousand miles westward, to a desert land that seemed inhospital to human life in general, and then, with a willpower that really is remarkable, enable the Saints to form a thriving society.

The church today, exists, because Brigham Young's willpower and stubborness was strong enough to make it happen. We had to have him as prophet so we could be.

We can see this with other prophets sometimes.  They are prophet at a specific time and they are the best ones to serve as leadership.

The most recent is our Prophet President Russell M. Nelson.  Do you think it was mere coincidence that we had one of the world's greatest doctors leading our church during a time of great medical difficulties in the world?

I do not.  

This does not mean he is infallible, or perfect, or that he never makes mistakes or has misunderstandings.  It is that he is the Prophet of the Lord and called to be such.  As the Prophet he has missions that we know from the start, and missions that arise that were probably foreordained before the world was, but that he is called to serve in this capacity during their mortal ministry.  

I feel Brigham Young had some turbulent things he said and did, but when I see what he accomplished for the members and the church of the Lord against overwhelming odds that he would fail (and in fact, anyone else probably would have failed), there is no doubt that he was called to Lead the Church at the time he served as it's leader because he was the only one that could get the things done...completed as he did.  

[Omergideon]

18 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

This, however, was the very reason he was Prophet.  The saints HAD to have Brigham Young to be their prophet.  He was the only one stubborn and strong enough to uproot them from their lands in the East, move them hundreds and over a thousand miles westward, to a desert land that seemed inhospital to human life in general, and then, with a willpower that really is remarkable, enable the Saints to form a thriving society.

The church today, exists, because Brigham Young's willpower and stubborness was strong enough to make it happen. We had to have him as prophet so we could be.

 

 

I want to echo this sentiment. Brigham was by no means a perfect man, and I am sure he would be willing to agree to that at least. He was stubborn, dedicated, could hold a grudge but when he forgave it was complete, he could be fiery and blunt in his rhetoric and could organise a group as well as anyone ever. He was a complex man with many great qualities and, as with all of us, flaws to go along with it.

As for the specific incident itself, I personally do not feel troubled by it. Now I cannot say what should or should not trouble you. That is entirely a personal thing and some issues that do not even make my eyebrow twitch (say the variations in the 1st vision accounts) are devastating for others. And it is not wrong for them to feel that way. All I can do is explain why, or why not, something affects or comforts me.

 

As a general rule I have never expected the Church, especially in general church meetings or Sunday school, to provide even a remotely comprehensive overview of church history. I always expected what we got was a highlight reel so to speak. Now the Church DID have a habit of not widely discussing some quite negative things for a while (a mistake I feel, but an understandable one) in favour of faith promoting stories and lessons that highlight Gospel principles. I understand this, and the more..... affecting historical information was always available and discussed by some. But I would no more expect, say, a General Conference talk or an institute lesson on this event than I would expect a Catholic seminary to spend any time talking about the Cathars. It is not, IMO, the Church's job to teach me much about the history outside the immediate restoration.

That said, this is my own view. But it means I am not unhappy or upset if I find some reference in history that seems quite bad. I didn't expect everything to be shared, and if a story is not focused on teaching me to follow Christ or live the Gospel I see no reason to expect it to be brought up in any meeting.

 

But as for the specifics of this event. Based on what some others have said, but focusing on just the transcript, this decision was made at the tail end of a long series of raids by a particular group of Native Americans that had resulted in much stolen property (of the near irreplaceable kind that could result in death or starvation) and them promising to continue.

In this context Brigham has a duty of care to defend his people, and that includes armed resistance. Now if a group of 60 armed men are enough to stop the raids (as context implies) and at most 100 others are needed then it is unlikely a very large group. So it reads to me more like sending a local militia to deal with a violent criminal gang than an extermination as such.

But based just on the minimal context I have this seems to me like a final decision to stop a group of attackers by any means necessary, and so to exterminate them. Of course the transcript from the link is a small part of the discussion but such an order does not trouble me.

Basically if armed men are stealing from me, and have seemingly killed at least 2 of my people, then heading off to wipe out that group is justifiable. Harsh, but justifiable and in line with many older biblical commands to fight and kill other groups doing evil deeds. The first comparable event that springs to mind is Ammon and King Lamoni, where he killed a large number of raiders with seeming divine approval and I feel no qualms about that story.

 

This is not to say, again, anyone else needs to feel comfortable with the decision. Or to think it is an unpleasant event. But it is not one I would be ashamed to admit to being involved in based purely on the tidbits we have here. If more information changes that context then that is fair, but as is... well I am not disturbed for the above reasons.