Brigham Young & The Journal Of Discourses

[Doctor Steuss]

So what his point when he said men lived on the sun?

That he wasn't a scientist.

[wes]

Yet you still haven't proven that Young advocated or approved of murder.

You've got one hyperbolic statement that contradicts the rest of the sermon.

The sermon itself states that judgement isn't in our hands because our hands are dirty/sinful.

You can allege all day and all night that the sermon endorses murder, and accomplish nothing.

Prove it.

I don't want an "I think" or an "I feel" or a vague "It's just wrong".

Demonstrate where- specifically and with citations- Young's sermon advocates for murder as a practice, art form, and recreational pasttime.

Until then, you're just blowng smoke.

As Scottie said, the statement speaks for itself and it is clearly NOT a metaphor.

[Scottie]

Perhaps; but BSix's summaries and a fuller reading of the text don't support the idea that Young was actively condoning murder.

That's a charge that has been made, but never proven.

I agree. I don't see that he was condoning murder either.

When I think about some of these quotes, I think about My Cousin Vinnie. Right after Ralph Macchio gets arrested, they read the charge of shooting the sheriff, to which he replies "I shot the sheriff???"

Later in court, they presented this as a statement of confession rather than a question of the charge.

Without inflection, we are severely hampered from knowing how it was meant.

[wes]

That he wasn't a scientist.

Neither am I, but that's beside the point. Why would BY say such a thing?

[selek]

As Scottie said, the statement speaks for itself and it is clearly NOT a metaphor.

Not quite, wes.

The statement was surrounded by a context which specifically denounces the idea of murder and blood atonement.

The context as a whole does not support your allegation.

Stop leaning on Scottie to do your thinking for you and give me the specifics over which you're condemning Young and the Mormon Church.

A man fights his own battles rather than relying on strangers to do his thinking for him.

If you've read the discourse- and not just relied on the words of others- you should be able to back up your claims.

Stand up and be counted. Stop hiding behind Scottie's skirts and misappropriated comments from LOAP and Stuess.

[Scottie]

Yet you still haven't proven that Young advocated or approved of murder.

You've got one hyperbolic statement that contradicts the rest of the sermon.

The sermon itself states that judgement isn't in our hands because our hands are dirty/sinful.

You can allege all day and all night that the sermon endorses murder, and accomplish nothing.

Prove it.

I don't want an "I think" or an "I feel" or a vague "It's just wrong".

Wes:

Demonstrate where- specifically and with citations- Young's sermon advocates for murder as a practice, art form, and recreational pasttime.

Until then, you're just blowng smoke.

Okay, playing devils advocate here, and I know I'm going against what I just said....

BUT, it PLAINLY says that he would gladly kill any one of his wives!! We ASSUME that he didn't mean it literally, but from reading it, it most definitely condones murder, with the simple caveat that your hands be clean first. How can you say it DOESN'T condone murder??

[wes]

Okay, playing devils advocate here, and I know I'm going against what I just said....

BUT, it PLAINLY says that he would gladly kill any one of his wives!! We ASSUME that he didn't mean it literally, but from reading it, it most definitely condones murder, with the simple caveat that your hands be clean first. How can you say it DOESN'T condone murder??

Exactly.

[selek]

Okay, playing devils advocate here, and I know I'm going against what I just said....

BUT, it PLAINLY says that he would gladly kill any one of his wives!! We ASSUME that he didn't mean it literally, but from reading it, it most definitely condones murder, with the simple caveat that your hands be clean first. How can you say it DOESN'T condone murder??

Because the larger context of the discourse itself contradicts the isolated sentence you (and Wes) are leaning on as a pale, thin, reed. You're own example above shows that a single quote (and I can't believe you went to that movie) isn't sufficent.

And for the record, Scottie- you and I both have ex-wives. Do you really want to argue that no married (let alone divorced) man has never joked about the benefits of being a widower?

Wes is hiding behind your skirts like a timid little boy afraid the bullies will eat him.

He's content to throw rocks.

What say we see if he's man enough to go toe to toe without you there to feed him his lines.

[Agellius]

I therefore conclude you've culled a few inflammatory statements and ideas from the Internet and have come here to incite combat on what you perceive to be your terms while pretending to be an innocent investigator and can feign offense when we call the wolf in sheep's clothing a wolf. Prove me wrong and I'll apologize.

This is well expressed. I confess I have done as you describe, in the past.

However, calling him a wolf may be going a little far. In making that judgment, you are accusing him of intending to do harm, are you not? Perhaps that is not his intention. Though I often enjoyed arguing with Mormons, it was never my intention to harm them.

A lot of people like arguing on subjects in which they feel confident of victory. Wes probably did come here to provoke "combat", as you put it, feeling that confidence. So engage him in combat, and show him that victory is not quite so easy as he supposed, as I myself was shown at one time. Which you have been doing very well.

I would just suggest, giving him the benefit of the doubt as to his motives. At worst, maybe he seeks to boost his ego by defeating hapless Mormons in intellectual and spiritual combat; at best, maybe he hopes to save you from error and lead you to truth. In neither case is it likely that he intends any real harm.

[emeliza]

Exactly.

Scottie~ You have a fan.

As for the sun comment, I think it was more of a common thought during that era that there were 'men' on the moon and sun and such.

[wes]

Scottie~ You have a fan.

As for the sun comment, I think it was more of a common thought during that era that there were 'men' on the moon and sun and such.

I guess I would expect more from a supposed prophet of God. Anyone can have a "common thought" of the day. I thought prophets were supposed to have revelatory information? What about the racist statements by BY? There were countless numbers of people from that day who OPPOSED racism so the excuse that "everyone was racist back then" does not fly.

[selek]

A lot of people like arguing on subjects in which they feel confident of victory. Wes probably did come here to provoke "combat", as you put it, feeling that confidence. So engage him in combat, and show him that victory is not quite so easy as he supposed, as I myself was shown at one time. Which you have been doing very well.

Actually- wes has done little more than cower and cheerlead for Scottie (notably, only when Scottie is supporting him).

Otherwise, he's pretty much surrendered the field.

I would just suggest, giving him the benefit of the doubt as to his motives.

Tried that. About eighty posts worth.

At worst, maybe he seeks to boost his ego by defeating hapless Mormons in intellectual and spiritual combat;

Apparently he showed up on the green unarmed. He has yet to land a single blow of his own- or for that matter throw a punch. There's a lot of whiffing going on, but not much else.

at best, maybe he hopes to save you from error and lead you to truth.

What's the old adage about the blind leading the blind? If wes wants to educate us, he might at least do his homework first.

In neither case is it likely that he intends any real harm.

Intent or not, his showing is remarkably pathetic.

[Scottie]

Because the larger context of the discourse itself contradicts the isolated sentence you (and Wes) are leaning on as a pale, thin, reed. You're own example above shows that a single quote (and I can't believe you went to that movie) isn't sufficent.

Whaddya mean?? I LOVED that movie!!

The way I read it, we should love and pity those who are damned and suffering, but 1) Christs blood was not enough to pay for these sins and 2) it is good in the eyes of God to murder someone who is caught performing these acts. Please show me the exact statements where you think this message is undone?

And for the record, Scottie- you and I both have ex-wives. Do you really want to argue that no married (let alone divorced) man has never joked about the benefits of being a widower?

Sure, however, if I were to speak in public as a man of authority that I want my ex-wife dead, well, then I think that might carry a bit more weight, no?

Wes is hiding behind your skirts like a timid little boy afraid the bullies will eat him.

He's content to throw rocks.

What say we see if he's man enough to go toe to toe without you there to feed him his lines.

From what I have gathered, he is a confused teenage kid in a strange new land. No, I think I will stick around and help him out.

[wes]

This is well expressed. I confess I have done as you describe, in the past.

However, calling him a wolf may be going a little far. In making that judgment, you are accusing him of intending to do harm, are you not? Perhaps that is not his intention. Though I often enjoyed arguing with Mormons, it was never my intention to harm them.

A lot of people like arguing on subjects in which they feel confident of victory. Wes probably did come here to provoke "combat", as you put it, feeling that confidence. So engage him in combat, and show him that victory is not quite so easy as he supposed, as I myself was shown at one time. Which you have been doing very well.

I would just suggest, giving him the benefit of the doubt as to his motives. At worst, maybe he seeks to boost his ego by defeating hapless Mormons in intellectual and spiritual combat; at best, maybe he hopes to save you from error and lead you to truth. In neither case is it likely that he intends any real harm.

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt Agellius. I do not intend to harm. As I said earlier, I have been frustrated with my father who refuses to discuss any of these things and that's part of why I am here. I feel that Mormonism has been a huge obstacle to our relationship and that it does far more damage than good.

[Koneko]

I believe he is saying that to satisfy justice, righteousness and the laws of God, he would kill his own wife if God required it. There is no one, not even his wife that he loves more than he loves Heavenly Father and nothing he would not do to obey and uphold his laws. He goes on to say that it is not our role to pass judgement or to carry out sentence and that God does not require this of us. Also I believe he is making a statement that if his wife was not going to repent then it would be better for her if he would kill her before she had the chance to not repent. However, one does not have the knowledge of who will and won't repent and when. Additionally, only if he was completely clean (which only Christ is) could he execute that without being in the wrong himself.

[selek]

I guess I would expect more from a supposed prophet of God. Anyone can have a "common thought" of the day. I thought prophets were supposed to have revelatory information? What about the racist statements by BY? There were countless numbers of people from that day who OPPOSED racism so the excuse that "everyone was racist back then" does not fly.

Another whiff, another miss.

Wes, you're still firing blanks.

I begin to suspect the reason your father refuses to engage you isn't because he thinks you're brainwashed.

I begin to suspect the real reasons are shame and embarrassment.

Come on' boy! Give us some specifics.

Give us some meat.

Give us your own thoughts instead of spitting up the predigested pablum you got sucking hind teat at some anti-Mormon site.

Engage us like a man instead of a scared little boy throwing taunts on a playground.

I feel that Mormonism has been a huge obstacle to our relationship and that it does far more damage than good.

And your own refusal to read for yourself, think for yourself, engage in rationale dialogue or thought has been conducive to the relationship?

Spare me.

[Scottie]

Another whiff another miss.Wes, you're still firing blanks.I begin to suspect the reason your father refuses to engage you isn't because he thinks you're brainwashed.I begin to suspect the real reasons are shame and embarrassment.Come on' boy!Give us some specifics. Give us some meat.Give us your own thoughts instead of spitting up the predigested pablum you got sucking hind teat at some anti-Mormon site.Engage us like a man instead of a scared little boy throwing taunts on a playground.

And your own refusal to read for yourself, think for yourself, engage in rationale dialogue or thought has been conducive to the relationship?Spare me.

Okay, that was no better than Obiwans demeaning comments earlier.

[selek]

I believe he is saying that to satisfy justice, righteousness and the laws of God, he would kill his own wife if God required it. There is no one, not even his wife that he loves more than he loves Heavenly Father and nothing he would not do to obey and uphold his laws. He goes on to say that it is not our role to pass judgement or to carry out sentence and that God does not require this of us. Also I believe he is making a statement that if his wife was not going to repent then it would be better for her if he would kill her before she had the chance to not repent. However, one does not have the knowledge of who will and won't repent and when. Additionally, only if he was completely clean (which only Christ is) could he execute that without being in the wrong himself.

Hey Scottie,

Since Wes is hiding behind your skirts, can I hide behind Koneko's?

Pretty please?

[LifeOnaPlate]

So what his point when he said men lived on the sun?

I note you disregarded my suggested readings.

Anyway,

Criticism

Critics claim that Brigham Young taught that the moon and sun were inhabited, and that this is proof he was a false prophet.

Response

Brigham Young made the following statement in 1869:[1]

It has been observed here this morning that we are called fanatics. Bless me! That is nothing. Who has not been called a fanatic who has discovered anything new in philosophy or science? We have all read of Galileo the astronomer who, contrary to the system of astronomy that had been received for ages before his day, taught that the sun, and not the earth, was the centre of our planetary system? For this the learned astronomer was called "fanatic," and subjected to persecution and imprisonment of the most rigorous character. So it has been with others who have discovered and explained new truths in science and philosophy which have been in opposition to long-established theories; and the opposition they have encountered has endured until the truth of their discoveries has been demonstrated by time...

I will tell you who the real fanatics are: they are they who adopt false principles and ideas as facts, and try to establish a superstructure upon, a false foundation. They are the fanatics; and however ardent and zealous they may be, they may reason or argue on false premises till doomsday, and the result will be false. If our religion is of this character we want to know it; we would like to find a philosopher who can prove it to us.

The context for Brigham's remarks, then, are that new ideas and truths are often mocked or rejected by those who cling to older ideas. And, were he to have such an idea, he would want to know.

He then says:

We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows.

Brigham goes on to speak about inhabitants of the moon. In context, his point is clearly that no one;â??even expertsâ??knows very much about the universe. There are many things (such as whether the moon is inhabited) about which no one of his day could speak clearly.

It then becomes very clear that Brigham is expressing his personal views, not laying down divine truth from on high:

So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.

Brigham is obviously expressing his opinion, but his point remains that no one knows very much about such things. To reject a novel idea simply because it is newâ??such as Mormonismâ??is absurd. All true ideas were once new, and treated with suspicion.

Conclusion

Brigham is clearly expressing an opinion, and there is no evidence that he is making a prophetic declaration concerning extraterrestrials. He even goes out of his way to indicate that this is what he "rather think," and asks his congregation to consider what they think. He also says that he would want to know if an idea he has is falseâ??even including his religion. These are not the sentiments of a man convinced he must be right by divine gift of prophetic omniscience.

It is particularly ironic that Brigham's remarks were focused on the fact that no one knows much about anything, and so humility is appropriate on most questions. Critics have taken this wise stance, and have tried to invert Brigham's intentâ??changing him from an advocate of humility before the unknown into a doctrinaire know-nothing who is certain of absurdities. The critics might do well do follow Brigham's example.

Endnotes

[back] Brigham Young, "The Gospelâ??The One-Man Power," Journal of Discourses, reported by D.W. Evans and John Grimshaw, (24 July 1870), Vol. 13 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1871), 270â??{{{end}}}. off-site

Brigham Young also wasn't aware of nuclear physics. Some prophet...

[Bsix]

Excuse me...but Brigham Young was speaking in theory. He created an extreme 'what if' scenario...and then gave a theoretical 'what if' response...the instant killing of an unfaithful spouse...and then told the listeners that such a theoretical response would never be appropriate.

If you choose to have a beef with BY because he endorses the a pretend violent response as a reaction to a completely pretend situation...that is up to you. I read that section and understand the notion that BY is using a ludicrous hypothetical situation to express an theoretical theological point. Really...how many people would use a javalin on a spouse caught in the act? How many people have been killed with javalins? Was it a common weapon found in Mormon pioneer homes? Seriously...I think BY's use of a javalin in his story points to the metaphoric quality of his comments.

Now, the notion that endowed Mormons who commit serious are beyond the atonement may not be your doctrinal cup of tea -- fine. But the notion that God hold humans accountable for sin...that you can sin and abandon the atonement...and that God has commanded death for sin...are have some level of biblical endorsement. God clearly is a violent, diety that will upon his return dish out far more violent ends than an imaginary javalin through the heart.

I am also surprised by one of the doctrinal sub-points in this discussion -- the supposed heresy that there are some sins for which the atonement does not cover. It is clear from the Bible that people can forfiet the atonement, that there are sins that are not covered, and that we humans can fall from Grace. In fact, Calvinists preach a limited atonement. They teach that the Savior only suffered for the sins of those he intends to be saved. I will agree that the concept of additional personal suffering for sins after falling from Grace may not have a huge amount of biblical support...but it it is alluded to here and there.

Cheers,

Six

[wes]

Okay, that was no better than Obiwans demeaning comments earlier.

I have to say that both Obiwan and Selek (not to mention some others) seem way too demeaning, defensive and demanding. There have been some reasonable people here though thankfully.

[Scottie]

I believe he is saying that to satisfy justice, righteousness and the laws of God, he would kill his own wife if God required it. There is no one, not even his wife that he loves more than he loves Heavenly Father and nothing he would not do to obey and uphold his laws. He goes on to say that it is not our role to pass judgement or to carry out sentence and that God does not require this of us. Also I believe he is making a statement that if his wife was not going to repent then it would be better for her if he would kill her before she had the chance to not repent. However, one does not have the knowledge of who will and won't repent and when. Additionally, only if he was completely clean (which only Christ is) could he execute that without being in the wrong himself.

I see nothing in there that mentions if God required it.

He said, point blank, it would be fine with God.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I feel that Mormonism has been a huge obstacle to our relationship and that it does far more damage than good.

Maybe a more fruitful start from your side would involve not quote-mining for inhabitants of the son and blood atonement, but instead looking for the good that your loved ones still see in the Church and finding common ground in that regard, if possible.

If your conversations go anything like the one you've carried here I am assured the relationship problem is far from one-sided.

[selek]

Okay, that was no better than Obiwans demeaning comments earlier.

Sad part is- that was the revised and toned down version.

When I called Obiwan off, Wes was actually engaging.

Now he's just sulking in the corner like a pouty five-year-old in short pants who just had his balloon popped.

I for one am proud of my daughters because they have the fortitude to state what they believe, and the intellectual integrity to defend it themselves (however poorly).

I can't imagine how humiliated I'd be if one of my kids were a sad sack who knocked on other people's religions for the sheer bloody-minded cynicism of it- and didn't have the testicular fortitude to do his own dirty work.

But that's just me.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have to say that both Obiwan and Selek (not to mention some others) seem way too demeaning, defensive and demanding. There have been some reasonable people here though thankfully.

But have you done anything to lead to harsh responses? I'd be interested to see some personal responsibility-taking.