Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

wes

Brigham Young & The Journal Of Discourses

Recommended Posts

Sorry...pet peeve of mine. It has been addressed, which is a far cry from being answered.

Yes.....but you're just wrong.

It's the default position. :P

Share this post


Link to post
It sounds like a big guilt trip to me. What do you think of it?

I believe you may have failed to read the entire sermon. The javelin portion occupies a minimal place in the overall scheme of the discourse. Brigham's discourses tended to be quite eclectic (or scattered) and this one was really no exception. Understanding Brigham Young is an extremely complex task in spite of and because of all the sources we have to work with. Would you like to learn more about the art of historical detection?

Share this post


Link to post
IIRC, and I may be mistaken, it also wasn't written by Young herself- but was largely ghost-written by prominent anti-Mormons of the time.[...]

I'm fairly certain she wrote the book. Nibley did a rather large (Large) review of her, and her book in Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass: The Art of Telling Tales about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. If memory serves me, 40 Ways to Look at Brigham Young (I think that's the title) has a few snippets that talk about the book as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes.....but you're just wrong.

It's the default position. :P

Wait....my ex posts under the name of Selek???? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
This quote from Brigham is not the only reason I doubt the legitimacy of Mormonism, however, it is definitely one of the more blatantly obvious ones. There are numerous other issues I have.

I feel that's unfortunate, given that such a talk was rather rare even for the Lion of the Lord so-called. "Preaching pitchforks from the pulpit" is something many early brethren were known to do.

You might also be interested in this and this.

Please let me know what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm fairly certain she wrote the book. Nibley did a rather large (Large) review of her, and her book in Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass: The Art of Telling Tales about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. If memory serves me, 40 Ways to Look at Brigham Young (I think that's the title) has a few snippets that talk about the book as well.

Yeah, I think Mormon Wife was the one with some what of a ghost writer and it isn't about a wife of BY.

However I do believe that Ann Eliza Young was the one that was upset that BY didn't do more for her or give her enough attention. As I recall he was faithful paying her alimony after the marriage ended. However she wrote the book and such to get attention and money. Her children wouldn't even associate with her after awhile.

I hope I am not mis-remembering here.

Share this post


Link to post

Notice that Wes.... hasn't once addressed anything LDS have actually said, and how such is false?

He simply keeps repeating, "this doesn't look right", "this doesn't bode well for mormonism", etc. etc.

He has no substance, no reasoning.... Therefore, he is a hollow brainless shill. Which by the way Wes is about the worst thing said about you so far. Most other comments about you is simply calling you what you are showing us by your responces. Just another anti-mo zombie regurgitating anti-mo degrading and false characterizations.

Share this post


Link to post
He has no substance, no reasoning.... Therefore, he is a hollow brainless shill. Which by the way Wes is about the worst thing said about you so far. Most other comments about you is simply calling you what you are showing us by your responces. Just another anti-mo zombie regurgitating anti-mo degrading and false characterizations.

This is way harsh. I would just guess that Wes is rather young and has taken many things as correct from anti sites. I would guess he personally has read little to anything from the Journal of Discourses and instead found quotes on sites disclaiming the LDS religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Yeah, I think Mormon Wife was the one with some what of a ghost writer and it isn't about a wife of BY.

However I do believe that Ann Eliza Young was the one that was upset that BY didn't do more for her or give her enough attention. As I recall he was faithful paying her alimony after the marriage ended. However she wrote the book and such to get attention and money. Her children wouldn't even associate with her after awhile.

I hope I am not mis-remembering here.

Dunno. It's possible (that you're right, not mis-remembering :P ).

It's been a long time since I read the book (or Nibley's review... which I think I read about a year before I read Young). My flawed memory/impression is that she shouldn't be wholly discounted. Her eye-witness stuff is probably sincere, and largely accurate (although potentially clouded with emotion). The hearsay stuff is probably sensationalism and bitterness manifesting itself as largely junk.

One thing I do seem to recall, though, is that she wasnâ??t wife no. 19. *shrugs*

[edited for addition of pendantic grammar, spelling and emoticon]

Share this post


Link to post
Notice that Wes.... hasn't once addressed anything LDS have actually said, and how such is false?

He simply keeps repeating, "this doesn't look right", "this doesn't bode well for mormonism", etc. etc.

He has no substance, no reasoning.... Therefore, he is a hollow brainless shill. Which by the way Wes is about the worst thing said about you so far. Most other comments about you is simply calling you what you are showing us by your responces. Just another anti-mo zombie regurgitating anti-mo degrading and false characterizations.

Too far Obi.

Way too far.

Share this post


Link to post
My main concern has been with being labeled an "Angry, anti-, ex- mormon out to destroy the church." That's how my dad described Ann Eliza Young (Brigham Young's 19th wife) without ever even reading her autobiography Wife No. 19. I had come across it in my investigation into Mormonism as a teenager and told him it contained things I had never known about the early church.

Your first problem as a teenager and now is believing everything you read.

He is convinced that I have been brainwashed by anti-mormons and anti-mormon literature and refuses to have any discussion whatsoever about the problems I have with Mormonism.

That's because you have been....

To give you more background, I was raised in a devout Mormon family who went to church every Sunday. I was always very inquisitive as a child and asked many questions that I never got very good answers for. This led me to be skeptical of Mormonism from the beginning. I was ordained as a deacon and have done baptisms for the dead but I stopped going to church as a teacher. I feel the church has been less than honest about its history because much of it is not pretty.

Do you really think your the first "teenager" to rebel from religion and their "church"?

I learned things about the Church as a teenager that I didn't like, and I left it. Furtunately, I was smart enough to realize that there are facts, and there are "danged lies". For I spend some time compared anti-mormon so-called scholarship and LDS scholarship. Know what I discovered? Every instance of anti-mormonism practically was a little truth used to tell great lies, or simply outright lies period.

So, learn not to believe everything you read in drive by anti-mo media. It's not the truth concerning this religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Notice that Wes.... hasn't once addressed anything LDS have actually said, and how such is false?

He simply keeps repeating, "this doesn't look right", "this doesn't bode well for mormonism", etc. etc.

He has no substance, no reasoning.... Therefore, he is a hollow brainless shill. Which by the way Wes is about the worst thing said about you so far. Most other comments about you is simply calling you what you are showing us by your responces. Just another anti-mo zombie regurgitating anti-mo degrading and false characterizations.

Uncalled for, Obiwan.

Share this post


Link to post
Too far Obi.

Way too far.

What.... I decided to give him exactly what he was accusing us of already. :P;)

Further, I'm sure he believes the same about us, though falsely of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Your first problem as a teenager and now is believing everything you read.

He is convinced that I have been brainwashed by anti-mormons and anti-mormon literature and refuses to have any discussion whatsoever about the problems I have with Mormonism.

That's because you have been....

Do you really think your the first "teenager" to rebel from religion and their "church"?

I learned things about the Church as a teenager that I didn't like, and I left it. Furtunately, I was smart enough to realize that there are facts, and there are "danged lies". For I spend some time compared anti-mormon so-called scholarship and LDS scholarship. Know what I discovered? Every instance of anti-mormonism practically was a little truth used to tell great lies, or simply outright lies period.

So, learn not to believe everything you read in drive by anti-mo media. It's not the truth concerning this religion.

OBIWAN!

HEEL!

SIT!

Either stay civil or find another thread to play in.

You're not helping this one.

Share this post


Link to post

Not to derail...but I was reading the discourse in question and was more disturbed by this than by the javelin comment (which, yes, is disturbing)

There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants. To what degree? Will they have to go to hell? They are in hell enough now. I do not wish them in a greater hell, when their consciences condemn them all the time. Let compassion reign in our bosoms. Try to comprehend how weak we are, how we are organized, how the spirit and the flesh are continually at war.

Really? The blood of Christ will never wipe it out? I mean, great that he wants us to be compassionate towards those who have no hope of receiving forgiveness, but how does this even REMOTELY fit in with the atonement??

I saw nothing in the rest of the talk where this is taken out of context. Perhaps someone else can?

Edited to add: Oh shoot...just re-read the OP and realized he put this in with the javelin comment.

Share this post


Link to post
One thing I do seem to recall, though, is that she wasnâ??t wife no. 19. *shrugs*
No she was like wife 52 or something crazy. She never had any children with BY as she was already divorced when she married BY. She divorced him after 5 years. I am not sure I was right on the alimony. It appears BY actually contested it because she requested too much and then later it was gotten rid of since she was not a 'legal' wife since it was polygamous.
She became estranged from her family, including her children (a grandson told biographer Irving Wallace that neither of her sons had contact with her after they reached early adulthood), and faded into obscurity. A 1907 article on the 30th anniversary of Young's death updated the public on his then surviving widows and stated that Ann Eliza was divorced again and living in Lansing, Michigan. In 1908, she published a revised version of Wife No. 19 entitled Life in Mormon Bondage. The book received little notice, and after its publication, she disappeared from the public eye and the historical record. Neither the date nor the location of her death or her burial place are known.Her story was the basis of Irving Wallace's 1962 biography, The Twenty-Seventh Wife, and of David Ebershoff's novel, The 19th Wife, which was published by Random House in August 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Eliza_Young
Really? The blood of Christ will never wipe it out? I mean, great that he wants us to be compassionate towards those who have no hope of receiving forgiveness, but how does this even REMOTELY fit in with the atonement??I saw nothing in the rest of the talk where this is taken out of context. Perhaps someone else can?
Yeah, it wasn't one of his shining moments.

Share this post


Link to post

As far as this statement by Young is concerned, I agree with Lifeonaplate who thinks it was wrong (thank you for being willing to acknowledge that even with your 21st century perspective), and Stuess who finds it hard to justify within Mormonism (thank you too for your honesty).

Share this post


Link to post
As far as this statement by Young is concerned, I agree with Lifeonaplate who thinks it was wrong (thank you for being willing to acknowledge that even with your 21st century perspective), and Stuess who finds it hard to justify within Mormonism (thank you too for your honesty).

:P

Care to tell us why Young's statement- in context- are wrong?

I'd very much like to hear your reasoning- and not someone else's.

Share this post


Link to post
As far as this statement by Young is concerned, I agree with Lifeonaplate who thinks it was wrong (thank you for being willing to acknowledge that even with your 21st century perspective), and Stuess who finds it hard to justify within Mormonism (thank you too for your honesty).

So, do you agree with LoaP and Steuss that it is wrong AND that it doesn't affect their testimony?? Or just that it is wrong??

Share this post


Link to post
:P

Care to tell us why Young's statement- in context- are wrong?

I'd very much like to hear your reasoning- and not someone else's.

My reasoning is that the statement is wrong in ANY context.

Share this post


Link to post
My reasoning is that the statement is wrong in ANY context.

But does a wrong statement make the church untrue or BY not a prophet?

Share this post


Link to post
My reasoning is that the statement is wrong in ANY context.

Why? What- specifically- is morally and doctrinally wrong with the Discourse?

Share this post


Link to post
But does a wrong statement make the church untrue or BY not a prophet?

This is an interesting dynamic.

Share this post


Link to post
So, do you agree with LoaP and Steuss that it is wrong AND that it doesn't affect their testimony?? Or just that it is wrong??

To me it is just flat out wrong under any circumstances. The fact that LOAP and Stuess can retain a testimony in light of it is their affair.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×