Is It Kosher To Thinkg By Was A Jerk But Still A Prophet?

[Deborah]

P. Monson's primary message is crystal clear for us right now. It's no accident that his service and love to his ward's widows, as a Bishop, was a preparation for what is coming.

That's almost exactly what my DIL said when he became prophet. Kind of scary when you think about it.

[Sevenbak]

That's almost exactly what my DIL said when he became prophet. Kind of scary when you think about it.

The theme keeps popping up in Conference more and more too. Even more so and more direct in Regional Conferences.

[ERayR]

It takes a special kind of man to be an empire builder. Brigham had a vision and for him to accomplish it he had to be strong and resolute. To take that strength and to couple it with compassion when needed is nothing short of greatness. I don't know of any historical figure that did it as well as Brother Brigham.

[Kevin Christensen]

God expects his prophets to be jerks. They are the ones who deliver the message of hell fire to the people. This message is harsh, sometimes unpopular, but it is one that God's prophets are sent to preach to the people.

SNIP

For another helpful bit of perspective, from a Mike Parker essay on FAIR, note 4:

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_Brigham_Young_Say_He_Would_Kill_an_Adulterous_Wife_with_a_Javelin.html

Many of the harsher sermons of Brigham Young and other leaders on such things as blood atonement appear during the two year period of the reformation, 1856-1857. Brigham determined that this method wasn't working, and he then discontinued this method of preaching. In 1861 he said "People are not to be driven, and you can put into a gnat's eye all the souls of the children of men that are driven into heaven by preaching hell-fire." (JD 9:124).

[jadams_4242]

Whether BY was a jerk or not, I can't tell. That's not important to me. The Lord calls all sorts of personalities to do his work. Remember what Christ said to those who questioned his tactics and said that they didn't like him for doing things a certain way, but then again, they didn't like John the Baptist for doing it differently.

One thing that we have to remember and I don't know if this plays into the equation of determining if BY was a jerk or not, is that the way people communicated and interacted with each other back in his days is different than how we do it today and I have found out that some of the things the people of BY's days considered to be normal, especially in the way they debated and discussed differences, would be considered to be highly offensive and take on an air of great arrogance and snobbery today.

[jadams_4242]

Hey William,

My three would be Bringham Young, Joseph Smith, and Ronald Reagan.

We can all only hope!

Peace,

Ceeboo

doesnt john f kennedy fit in there somewhere?

[ERayR]

doesnt john f kennedy fit in there somewhere?

Not even close.

[Lightbearer]

The more I read about BY the more of a bad taste in my mouth I get from him. At times he comes off as callous, arrogant, and rude. At the same time I respect a lot of what he did. It seems people either hate him or love him, but I am kinda in both camps.

It would really be hard to judge a persons personality unless you actually met him, so I would not call Brother Brigham a jerk just from historical accounts and especially from his enemies. In fact I met a lot of people who were jerks, who were callous, arrogant and rude but none of them have been prophets of God. I know BY was a prophet of God, just as much as I know Joseph Smith Jr. was and I don't think either were jerks, on the contrary, I find that quite a few of their modern day enemies to be callous, arrogant, rude jerks...

Of course it seems that prophets (as Mudcat so skillfully pointed out) always tend to be hated by those who hate the truth. In fact Jesus said:

(Matthew 13:57) "And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house."

[epiginosko]

Yeah, some of the things BY has been reported to say and has written can be fairly offensive. And as much as he can test the faith of any true believer, there is still a certain quality about him that one has to admire: he knew how to get to work and get stuff done. He reminds me of my callous old granpda; fought in two wars, raised during the Depression, barely had an education, full of predjudices, and almost completely void in empathy. But, he was the grandpa you went to when you needed to get something done. You might not like his answers, or agree with his worldview, but you respected his experience and dogged determination. I can see why the Lord would want a guy like that at a pretty volatile time in church history.

[Questing Beast]

The more I read about BY the more of a bad taste in my mouth I get from him. At times he comes off as callous, arrogant, and rude. At the same time I respect a lot of what he did. It seems people either hate him or love him, but I am kinda in both camps.

He was arrogant to the point of rudeness. He was great to the point of legendary greatness. He knew that as a "prophet" he did not hold a candle to the prophet Joseph Smith. After the Mountain Meadows Massacre, B. Young walked "softly". He went into a depression that lasted for most of a year, and when he emerged he was a changed man: gone was the bombast, the bragging "Lion of the Lord" who challenged the Federal Gov't, etc. In its place was the crafty, the dissembling Brigham Young. Later, he even donated to the building of the Cathedral of the Madeline in Salt Lake city.

I like B. Young as a historical personality. But I suspect that in his presence I would have found him more disliked than likeable. He committed great wrongs against some individuals (e.g. Henry Jacobs), but he was equally great at promoting the welfare of tens of thousands. Without B. Young and the Mormonism that he led with a strong hand, Utah territory today would be a mere handful of puny towns in an undeveloped wilderness....

[Jeff K.]

Well said. I would only add that he was always crafty, and he wouldn't be the first prophet in need of being humbled by his own hubris. One wonders how much we would have been offended by Jeremiah, or Isaiah.

[Deborah]

Brigham Young was a remarkable man and a faithful prophet, whatever his human weaknesses, and his life is summarized here: Brigham Young

From those who stood beside him during his years as prophet:

Perhaps the leadership given by President Young has been best described by the Apostles who were serving at the time of his death: “During the thirty three years that he has presided over the Church, since the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph, his knees have never trembled, his hands have never shook; he has never faltered or quailed. However threatening the surroundings or prospects may have been, he has never been dismayed; but at those times he has exhibited such serene confidence and faith, and uttered such words of encouragement, as to comfort and sustain all the people, and to call forth their love and admiration. The Lord, however, not only blessed him with valor, but He endowed him with great wisdom. His counsels, when obeyed, have been attended with salvation, and as an organizer and administrator he has no superior. …

I think that much of the negative response he gets from modern day readers is that they were not there, they didn't understand the time or place, nor did they understand the challenges he and his people faced. Presentism, people. Context. Viewing him not with modern wimpy-afraid-to-offend sensibilities but with the rough and hardened sensibilities of a frontier people who had suffered and sacrificed much and finally found peace and prosperity through this dynamic yet humble man, who may have come across as arrogant at times but only because he wanted so much to make his people a holy people.

[Calm]

Brigham Young was a remarkable man and a faithful prophet, whatever his human weaknesses, and his life is summarized here: Brigham Young

From those who stood beside him during his years as prophet:

I think that much of the negative response he gets from modern day readers is that they were not there, they didn't understand the time or place, nor did they understand the challenges he and his people faced. Presentism, people. Context.

This certainly played into my view of him when I was a kid.

[Pahoran]

He was arrogant to the point of rudeness.

He was humbler and more polite than you are.

He was great to the point of legendary greatness. He knew that as a "prophet" he did not hold a candle to the prophet Joseph Smith. After the Mountain Meadows Massacre, B. Young walked "softly". He went into a depression that lasted for most of a year, and when he emerged he was a changed man: gone was the bombast, the bragging "Lion of the Lord" who challenged the Federal Gov't, etc. In its place was the crafty, the dissembling Brigham Young.

Call for references, please. Note that anything ghostwritten by J. H. Beadle doesn't count.

And speaking of crafty...

Later, he even donated to the building of the Cathedral of the Madeline in Salt Lake city.

And what does that have to do with your nasty accusation? You have slyly juxtaposed the fact with the accusation, as if the one supports the other, but of course it doesn't.

I like B. Young as a historical personality. But I suspect that in his presence I would have found him more disliked than likeable. He committed great wrongs against some individuals (e.g. Henry Jacobs), but he was equally great at promoting the welfare of tens of thousands. Without B. Young and the Mormonism that he led with a strong hand, Utah territory today would be a mere handful of puny towns in an undeveloped wilderness....

But you can take comfort in the knowledge that there would still be room for self-important nobodies who would imagine that their dimwitted, half-formed opinions were "larger" than revealed truth.

Regards,

Pahoran

[MelvinCJohnson]

And in fact we know from family and close associates he was the kindest and most compassionate of men. Let's not forget it was BY who when hearing of the suffering handcart companies stood up in church and immediately called for volunteers to go out and rescue them and not wait another minute.

David Roberts http://www.aml-online.org/Reviews/Review.aspx?id=4499 and Tom Rea http://www.aml-online.org/Reviews/Review.aspx?id=4337 have provided informed narratives of that season's tragic events.

[Pahoran]

David Roberts http://www.aml-online.org/Reviews/Review.aspx?id=4499 and Tom Rea http://www.aml-online.org/Reviews/Review.aspx?id=4337 have provided informed narratives of that season's tragic events.

The reviewer of the first item smugly wrote: "What sets his book apart from devotional works about Devils Gate and Martin’s Cove is that he fingers Brigham Young as the prime cause for the hundreds of pioneer deaths in those handcart companies."

It's true that this vicious old libel "sets his book apart from devotional works about Devils Gate and Martin’s Cove." It also fully aligns the book with the Beadle-written 19th century hatchet jobs that blamed absolutely everything on Brigham.

That, you see, is the other side of the story that the attackers prefer to ignore, if not outright suppress. When posing as the Courageous Discoverers of Hitherto Unexplored TRVTH, the fact that they are merely tarting up old slanders to make them look respectable is something they'd prefer we didn't know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Deborah]

David Roberts http://www.aml-online.org/Reviews/Review.aspx?id=4499 and Tom Rea http://www.aml-online.org/Reviews/Review.aspx?id=4337 have provided informed narratives of that season's tragic events.

The problem with relying on such sources for information is that you don't really know the whole story.

In the first place 10 handcart companies went west and only the two we are familiar with had such tragedy. Brigham Young had nothing to do with sending these two companies out when they came. The saints in these companies were eager to join the body of the Church in the Rocky Mountains and began their journey being warned that it was late in the year and that bad weather was a possibility. Furthermore bad weather hit earlier than anticipated. The survivors of these two companies do not fault the prophet and in fact talked about the great spiritual experiences they had along the way in spite of great tragedy.

“A teacher, conducting a class, said it was unwise ever to attempt, even to permit them [the Martin handcart company] to come across the plains under such conditions.”

Then President McKay quoted an observer who was present in that class: “Some sharp criticism of the Church and its leaders was being indulged in for permitting any company of converts to venture across the plains with no more supplies or protection than a handcart caravan afforded.

“An old man in the corner … sat silent and listened as long as he could stand it, then he arose and said things that no person who heard him will ever forget. His face was white with emotion, yet he spoke calmly, deliberately, but with great earnestness and sincerity.

“In substance [he] said, ‘I ask you to stop this criticism. You are discussing a matter you know nothing about. Cold historic facts mean nothing here, for they give no proper interpretation of the questions involved. Mistake to send the Handcart Company out so late in the season? Yes. But I was in that company and my wife was in it and Sister Nellie Unthank whom you have cited was there, too. We suffered beyond anything you can imagine and many died of exposure and starvation, but did you ever hear a survivor of that company utter a word of criticism? …

“‘I have pulled my handcart when I was so weak and weary from illness and lack of food that I could hardly put one foot ahead of the other. I have looked ahead and seen a patch of sand or a hill slope and I have said, I can go only that far and there I must give up, for I cannot pull the load through it.’”

He continues: “‘I have gone on to that sand and when I reached it, the cart began pushing me. I have looked back many times to see who was pushing my cart, but my eyes saw no one. I knew then that the angels of God were there.

“‘Was I sorry that I chose to come by handcart? No. Neither then nor any minute of my life since. The price we paid to become acquainted with God was a privilege to pay, and I am thankful that I was privileged to come in the Martin Handcart Company.’”

Refined in our trials

[Questing Beast]

...

I think that much of the negative response he gets from modern day readers is that they were not there, they didn't understand the time or place, nor did they understand the challenges he and his people faced. Presentism, people. Context. Viewing him not with modern wimpy-afraid-to-offend sensibilities but with the rough and hardened sensibilities of a frontier people who had suffered and sacrificed much and finally found peace and prosperity through this dynamic yet humble man, who may have come across as arrogant at times but only because he wanted so much to make his people a holy people.

I used to think/hope that I would have been one of the faithful to stand beside Joseph Smith and then Brigham Young. And had my knowledge of Joseph Smith not undergone an alteration, I still believe that I would have done so. I don't let human weakness determine my attitude toward a person: everyone has their annoying qualities. Offense is too easily used as an excuse for my own weakness: my own failure to be strong enough in my convictions to stay the course. So I would have allowed B. Young his faults, especially since the man was constantly confessing them in public and repenting of them. That he could be mistaken and not repent of something that I found objectionable is probably a given. But also I would have to weigh in the balance my testimony and the facts. And had I discovered (or had revealed to me to my satisfaction of their truth) the facts surrounding Joseph Smith's polyandry, I would have broken with the Church as surely as I have now. While I would not take so drastic a step as to move away and renounce my membership (family, after all, being first), I would not allow B. Young, et al. the priesthood leaders to dictate to me. It wouldn't be anything personal as regarding "brother Brigham": I just wouldn't allow that his authority extended as "prophet" into my personal or spiritual affairs. There wouldn't be anything about my public or private life that "brother Brigham" would find objectionable and we would get along swimmingly as long as he didn't assume authority where none exists....

[Bob Crockett]

David Roberts http://www.aml-online.org/Reviews/Review.aspx?id=4499 and Tom Rea http://www.aml-online.org/Reviews/Review.aspx?id=4337 have provided informed narratives of that season's tragic events.

I haven't read Rea's work but I have Roberts'. My amazon review is out there somewhere.

What strikes me about Roberts' account is that while he seems hell-bent to attack Brigham Young, he certainly documents the many "back-outs" in the Martin company who, when seeing the facts as presented, weighed the risks and decided not to go then. Seems folks had their freedom of will to gamble with their lives.

In terms of mortality rates, the handcart excursions were not unusual if seen as a whole.

I think Franklin D. Richards was partly to blame for the Martin fiasco, and he was rightly criticized for it.

[Bob Crockett]

I used to think/hope that I would have been one of the faithful to stand beside Joseph Smith and then Brigham Young. And had my knowledge of Joseph Smith not undergone an alteration, I still believe that I would have done so. I don't let human weakness determine my attitude toward a person: everyone has their annoying qualities. Offense is too easily used as an excuse for my own weakness: my own failure to be strong enough in my convictions to stay the course. So I would have allowed B. Young his faults, especially since the man was constantly confessing them in public and repenting of them. That he could be mistaken and not repent of something that I found objectionable is probably a given. But also I would have to weigh in the balance my testimony and the facts. And had I discovered (or had revealed to me to my satisfaction of their truth) the facts surrounding Joseph Smith's polyandry, I would have broken with the Church as surely as I have now. While I would not take so drastic a step as to move away and renounce my membership (family, after all, being first), I would not allow B. Young, et al. the priesthood leaders to dictate to me. It wouldn't be anything personal as regarding "brother Brigham": I just wouldn't allow that his authority extended as "prophet" into my personal or spiritual affairs. There wouldn't be anything about my public or private life that "brother Brigham" would find objectionable and we would get along swimmingly as long as he didn't assume authority where none exists....

Your statement reads just like the statements of the Godbeites, who were certainly much closer to knowing Brigham Young and Joseph Smith than any of us here. They left under the same kinds of complaints to set up their own religion. Too bad they dissolved in the seances and table-rapping.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The more I read about BY the more of a bad taste in my mouth I get from him. At times he comes off as callous, arrogant, and rude. At the same time I respect a lot of what he did. It seems people either hate him or love him, but I am kinda in both camps.

BY was a simple old fashioned outspoken farmer and carpenter. You knew where you stood “with him”, and you knew “where he stood”.

[Deborah]

BY was a simple old fashioned outspoken farmer and carpenter. You knew where you stood “with him”, and you knew “where he stood”.

And that's why I love him and small children.

[ELF1024]

BY was not so much different than US Marines, emotionally honest. One of the reasons I have alot of respect for Marines.

[MelvinCJohnson]

I understand fully that some, and why, disagree about BY's role in the hand cart companies. That's fine. Testimonies and unsupported assertions without authentication are not satisfactory shields to well documented and researched narratives. The smugness comes in throwing off statements without support.

[Jeff K.]

One can have a testimony and unsupported assertion against Brigham Young even with documentation. AP history classes have DBQ's in which documentation is provided, and yet, with that documentation the student has multiple choices or points of view to choose from. It seems to me we are dealing with something similar here. There were cut outs that allowed local leadership to turn back, and there was pressure to go.

To write an opinion piece while ignoring some of the other salient facts, and then to presume your opinion is the only objectively sound one, is not something students in high school are taught to practice. Maybe we adults could use some of that same discipline?

If you believe the preponderance of the evidence points in one direction versus another, then perhaps it should be columnized with opposing views next to each other and supporting documentation. That would sound better and more justified than the mere dismissal of a different opinion as testimony.

Think about it.