Brigham Young & The Journal Of Discourses

[Scottie]

Back to the original post...

I don't see any way that this section of the talk was taken out of context like apologists want everyone to believe. It very clearly spells out that BY thinks it is okay to murder someone who is having an affair, so long as your hands are clean. He makes no mention about what qualifies as clean hands, or whose hands are clean.

Now, does that mean this is how it was intended?? Possibly, but I don't believe so. As I said earlier, we don't have any inflection, so we don't know how it came across. We don't have any record of murders because of adultery that I know of, so obviously the saints that heard this didn't believe it was founded.

[captain-jack]

Back to the original post...

I don't see any way that this section of the talk was taken out of context like apologists want everyone to believe. It very clearly spells out that BY thinks it is okay to murder someone who is having an affair, so long as your hands are clean. He makes no mention about what qualifies as clean hands, or whose hands are clean.

Now, does that mean this is how it was intended?? Possibly, but I don't believe so. As I said earlier, we don't have any inflection, so we don't know how it came across. We don't have any record of murders because of adultery that I know of, so obviously the saints that heard this didn't believe it was founded.

Perhaps they understood the original intent of what he was trying to convey? It seems to me that killing wouldn't be the answer, but Brigham Young's scenario shows how serious a sin it is to commit adultery.

[wes]

I base my opinion on the following:

I believe that this implies that the previous stated situation the Lord did so order that they were caught in the act, and ordered them not to live. Although I grant it is poorly worded, and I can see why Wes is having a difficult time grappling with it. This is my personal interpretation, you may understand it differently, and that is for you work out through your own prayer and study. Wes, please don't let harsh responses deter you from asking about things that trouble you. You deserve answers, but we or your father may not always have them. So especially with your Father, try to understand that he may just not know how to answer you. If you truly do want an answer, or at least discussion, you must be willing to elaborate on precisely what bothers you. It may seem obvious to you, but as you can probably see from my interpretation, we all see things differently from our own points of view. As a reference, I would suggest speaking to your local mission president. They deal with alot of similar questions from converts such as myself.

Thanks for your thoughts Koneko. I think I'd have to disagree with your personal interpretation, especially in light of all the other data I have about BY and Mormonism, but I appreciate the way you responded which was far more charitable than many of the people on this board. Unfortunately, my father refuses to even exchange one word on any of these issues so he would not know whether or not he has the answers.

[Scottie]

I base my opinion on the following:

I believe that this implies that the previous stated situation the Lord did so order that they were caught in the act, and ordered them not to live.

Wow, I read that exactly the opposite.

Take this sentence. "If the Lord so order it that they are not caught in the act of their iniquity, it is pretty good proof that He is willing for them to live",

Lets reverse this. "If the Lord so order it that they ARE caught, it is pretty good proof that He is willing for them to die."

[Deborah]

The problem with threads like this is they start out as a supposedly innocent question by a sincere truth seeker. As explanations are given the questioner starts to steer the discussion to his real issue, which is to denounce the church and its leaders. Rarely does the questioner actually seem to respond to the evidence presented but continues on his own one-sided conversation to condemn and put down.

All of Brigham's statements as well as anyone else's need to be read in context. LOaP has had an excellent thread on this. Context isn't just reading the entire text of the quote but looking at the time, the place, the audience, and most important to me, understanding the context of LDS doctrine, which cannot be gleaned by a cursory reading of out of context quotes. When all these things are put together and in their proper perspective the things said make much more sense, even when spoken in the hyperbole of the day. Brigham's comments were pretty much always to LDS who were under the Covenant and could understand where he was coming from, much like the Lord's Parables where the true disciples had a different understanding than someone who was not.

[The Nehor]

I have not hidden the fact that I think both JS and BY were frauds. There are lengthy reasons as to why I think this that I would be happy to share.

By that I assume you mean copy and paste them?

When we ask for more information we get one-line responses and every bit of your views has to be dragged out after a number of excuses are given about how you don't feel comfortable sharing (which is odd as if you don't feel comfortable sharing your views on Mormonism you probably shouldn't come to a board where that is all people discuss) and then finally we get a few tidbits that your majesty feels free to grace us with so that we can misunderstand you again.

You did hide the fact at first. Read the first post. I believe the words you used were that it gives you 'reasonable doubt'. Where I come from people don't use the term 'reasonable doubt' when they are already convinced. You've been disingenuous from post one and we've dragged out what you've been hiding through nine pages where all the real discussion on this issue has been done by everyone EXCEPT you.

Man up and discuss and stop giving us the hurt little boy routine.

[Scottie]

The problem with threads like this is they start out as a supposedly innocent question by a sincere truth seeker. As explanations are given the questioner starts to steer the discussion to his real issue, which is to denounce the church and its leaders. Rarely does the questioner actually seem to respond to the evidence presented but continues on his own one-sided conversation to condemn and put down.

All of Brigham's statements as well as anyone else's need to be read in context. LOaP has had an excellent thread on this. Context isn't just reading the entire text of the quote but looking at the time, the place, the audience, and most important to me, understanding the context of LDS doctrine, which cannot be gleaned by a cursory reading of out of context quotes. When all these things are put together and in their proper perspective the things said make much more sense, even when spoken in the hyperbole of the day. Brigham's comments were pretty much always to LDS who were under the Covenant and could understand where he was coming from, much like the Lord's Parables where the true disciples had a different understanding than someone who was not.

Still...you have to admit it was a pretty stupid thing to say, no?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think I'd have to disagree with your personal interpretation, especially in light of all the other data I have about BY and Mormonism, but I appreciate the way you responded which was far more charitable than many of the people on this board. Unfortunately, my father refuses to even exchange one word on any of these issues so he would not know whether or not he has the answers.

In turn, I disagree with all of your assertions, especially in light of all the other data I have about BY and Mormonism.

Looks like we're even steven in that regard, and we have really gone nowhere.

[Deborah]

Still...you have to admit it was a pretty stupid thing to say, no?

If Brother Brigham had known how his statements would be taken out of context and used by those who don't understand the doctrine to try to condemn the church, he may not have said those things. But who at that time would have thought we would have such widespread availability to such things. And, yes a prophet's vision doesn't always foresee all those things that have nothing to do with his ministry of the church.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Still...you have to admit it was a pretty stupid thing to say, no?

From my stand-point it seems so. I can begin to understand it, but without being there I cannot know what the situation really was. Indeed, if wes suffers from anything it's an overtly presentist stance.

[The Nehor]

Still...you have to admit it was a pretty stupid thing to say, no?

I suspect that if Brigham saw what people were doing with some of the things he said, he would laugh hysterically. In fact, I think he does regularly and often.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If Brother Brigham had known how his statements would be taken out of context and used by those who don't understand the doctrine to try to condemn the church, he may not have said those things. But who at that time would have thought we would have such widespread availability to such things. And, yes a prophet's vision doesn't always foresee all those things that have nothing to do with his ministry of the church.

I think Brigham had a pretty good idea, though. Brigham was aware that newspapers in the eastern part of the United States had been printing articles regarding Brigham Young as an unruly tyrant, unwilling to concede power to the authority of the United States. Some of his comments could be construed to indicate such, but Brigham understood some of the implications of his words:

In my conversation, I shall talk and act as I please. Still I am always aware, when speaking in public, that there are those present who are disposed to find fault with this people, and to try to raise a prejudice against them; and they will pick up isolated words and sentences, and put them together to suit themselves, and send forth a garbled version to prejudice the world against us.

Such a course I never care anything about; for I have frequently said, spoken words are but wind, and when they are spoken are gone; consequently I take liberties in speaking which I do not allow when I commit my sentiments to writing (JD 2:179).

Spoken words may be like "wind," but they can blow around for years to come.

[Deborah]

I think Brigham had a pretty good idea, though. Brigham was aware that newspapers in the eastern part of the United States had been printing articles regarding Brigham Young as an unruly tyrant, unwilling to concede power to the authority of the United States.

That is probably true, but I wonder if he knew how far into the future his words would blow. I love Brigham. I actually think it's humorous how excited people get about him after all these years. I'm sure he's likewise bemused. Joseph did after all tell him his name would also be had for good and ill. These people don't realize it but they are just fulfilling prophecy.

[Bsix]

Back to the original post...

I don't see any way that this section of the talk was taken out of context like apologists want everyone to believe. It very clearly spells out that BY thinks it is okay to murder someone who is having an affair, so long as your hands are clean. He makes no mention about what qualifies as clean hands, or whose hands are clean.

Now, does that mean this is how it was intended?? Possibly, but I don't believe so. As I said earlier, we don't have any inflection, so we don't know how it came across. We don't have any record of murders because of adultery that I know of, so obviously the saints that heard this didn't believe it was founded.

I agree that BY endorsed a hyperbolic penalty for a hypothetical sin scenario. To say that BY endorsed murder for adultery...and by extention...blood atonement...is over reaching BY's what I believe was intended meaning.

Regards,

Six

[Scottie]

Hmm..I see them a very poor choice of words regardless of whether the anti's got ahold of them or not. There is nothing righteous or Christlike about what he said.

That is probably true, but I wonder if he knew how far into the future his words would blow. I love Brigham. I actually think it's humorous how excited people get about him after all these years. I'm sure he's likewise bemused. Joseph did after all tell him his name would also be had for good and ill. These people don't realize it but they are just fulfilling prophecy.

Can you name me a single person on this Earth whose name is not had for good and ill??I'm sorry, Deb, but this is one of the worst prophecies ever given!! Well, except that there will be wars and rumors of wars, and famines and disasters, etc...

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hmm..I see them a very poor choice of words regardless of whether the anti's got ahold of them or not. There is nothing righteous or Christlike about what he said.

We could level this accusation at Christ, as well. (Some contemporaries pretty much did.)

[Scottie]

We could level this accusation at Christ, as well. (Some contemporaries pretty much did.)

You mean about the way he talked to the Pharisees and Sadducees, and throwing moneychangers out, and killing the olive tree? Perhaps.

[wes]

Hmm..I see them a very poor choice of words regardless of whether the anti's got ahold of them or not. There is nothing righteous or Christlike about what he said.Can you name me a single person on this Earth whose name is not had for good and ill??I'm sorry, Deb, but this is one of the worst prophecies ever given!! Well, except that there will be wars and rumors of wars, and famines and disasters, etc...

I fully agree Scottie...nothing Christlike whatsoever. Why would a prophet of God who claims to be a follower of Christ ever say something so horrible under ANY circumstances?

But that's not all that Brigham said along those lines. Here's another equally disturbing portion of the JOD from 1857, not long before the Mountain Meadows Massacre took place (note that this was also preached as part of a sermon which begs the question that devout mormons like to ask: was he speaking as a prophet or merely a man?):

â??THIS IS LOVING OUR NEIGHBOR AS OURSELVES; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is NECESSARY TO SPILL HIS BLOOD on the earth in order that he may be saved, SPILL IT. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin REQUIRING THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood SHOULD BE SPILLED, that you might gain that salvation you desire. THAT IS THE WAY TO LOVE MANKIND.â? (Sermon by Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, Feb. 8, 1857, printed in the Deseret News, Feb. 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 219-220)

[Duncan]

Not to sound holier then thou but Brigham Young is one man I give the benefit of the doubt to. I can't even begin to imagine the stress he was under when he was Prophet, Seer and Revelator for 30 years. He had to get the Church to Utah and make it grow, a place he had never been to before. He had to get the European Saints over here, I think the PEF was a genius idea, he had to organize missionary activites all over the world which in his days was very hard and difficult, he had Johnston's army after them, build two Temples, coordinate the Twelve. All of this after what he already went through. I think it would take a prophet to do all of that and now Wes won't allow him to misspeak or make one false move ever of the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ is false.Sorry, or the Gospel of Jesus Christ rests and falls on Pres. Brigham's shoulders

[Deborah]

Can you name me a single person on this Earth whose name is not had for good and ill??

Keep in mind at the time, Brigham was pretty much in the background, very close to Joseph, and I think often left out of the fray on purpose. But we aren't talking about individual like's and dislikes; this was in reference to a historical perspective of a man who was faithful and loyal and who didn't make many waves until he was called to lead the church. And yes I suppose this could be used to describe anyone in the forefront of history, but at the time Joseph told Brigham this, Brigham had no idea how major his role would be in the history of the church or the nation.

[Duncan]

As Joseph Smith once said if people expect perfection from him, he should expect it from them.

[selek]

Would anybody really be surprised if I pointed out that Wes is cribbing his quotes from utlm and the Tanners?

[Scottie]

Would anybody really be surprised if I pointed out that Wes is cribbing his quotes from utlm and the Tanners?

Not really, no.

Doesn't make them any less disturbing.

BTW, HERE is the JoD he last referenced.

[selek]

Not really, no.

Doesn't make them any less disturbing.

Perhaps not- but it is one more shovelful of evidence against Wes either doing his own thinking or being a genuine questioner.

[wes]

Perhaps not- but it is one more shovelful of evidence against Wes either doing his own thinking or being a genuine questioner.

Regardless of where I get information I can still think for myself. The fact remains that these are extremely disturbing statements and it is reasonable for me to question the legitimacy of the man who made them. A person who does not think for themselves is one who simply stays in the church he was raised in without questioning it. That's not me. But thanks for trying to cast doubt on me and continuing the personal attacks Selek.