New Bio: Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet

[timbone1]

Had he done that, I would have very little to complain about.

But since only a few alterations are apparently necessary, RTR is hardly an example of "pandering."

[Rivers]

I read this book a few months ago and found it very engaging and informative. This book points more of BY's flaws than RSR did with Joseph Smith. I came away from this book seeing BY as more fallable than I previously supposed. Interpretor has an artice reviewing the book.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/new-light-and-old-shadows-john-g-turners-attempt-to-understand-brigham-young/

The author says in the article that Josh Turner focuses too much on the negative aspects of Brigham Young and not enough on the positive. He argues that Tuner doesn't provide enough reasons why BY was so beloved by the people,

I found Tuner's take on the Mountain Meadows Masacre interesting. He writes that Young probably didn't order the masacre but some of his policies and rhetoric helped create the environment in which the masacre took place. Turner also shows how Brigham Young covered up the masacre for the good of the church. What I found most shocking is the evidence he provides of Brigham Young condoning what happened at mountain meadows.

Another thing I found surpising was the Brigham Young's swearing. We all know J. Golden Kimball as the swearing apostle but Brigham Young apparently liked to use swear words as well.

There's lots of other good stuff in Pioneer Prophet. I highly recommend it. It is even approved by the church. I saw it on the shelf at Deseret Book the other day.

[Nevo]

There's lots of other good stuff in Pioneer Prophet. I highly recommend it. It is even approved by the church. I saw it on the shelf at Deseret Book the other day.

It is true that Deseret Book outlets are carrying Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet but that does not imply an endorsement of the book. (As I understand it, the only books officially approved by the Church are those that carry its logo.) However, the Church did grant the author, a non-Mormon, almost unprecedented access to Church-controlled archival materials, and the Church Historian and Assistant Historian were in attendance at his MHA presentation last week on violence in early Mormon Utah, so he's by no means a persona non grata.

[canard78]

I read this book a few months ago and found it very engaging and informative. This book points more of BY's flaws than RSR did with Joseph Smith. I came away from this book seeing BY as more fallable than I previously supposed. Interpretor has an artice reviewing the book.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/new-light-and-old-shadows-john-g-turners-attempt-to-understand-brigham-young/

The author says in the article that Josh Turner focuses too much on the negative aspects of Brigham Young and not enough on the positive. He argues that Tuner doesn't provide enough reasons why BY was so beloved by the people,

I found Tuner's take on the Mountain Meadows Masacre interesting. He writes that Young probably didn't order the masacre but some of his policies and rhetoric helped create the environment in which the masacre took place. Turner also shows how Brigham Young covered up the masacre for the good of the church. What I found most shocking is the evidence he provides of Brigham Young condoning what happened at mountain meadows.

Another thing I found surpising was the Brigham Young's swearing. We all know J. Golden Kimball as the swearing apostle but Brigham Young apparently liked to use swear words as well.

There's lots of other good stuff in Pioneer Prophet. I highly recommend it. It is even approved by the church. I saw it on the shelf at Deseret Book the other day.

I've been resisting reading too much of the 1850-90 history of Mormonism. I'm having enough of a struggle to reconcile the actions of Joseph Smith. From what I've read, Brigham Young seems a step further that I'm not keen to deal with.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm looking forward to this one too. Turner is a newcomer to LDS history but he seems like a quick study. I'm also eagerly awaiting Ronald Walker's Brigham Young biography. Exciting times we live in.

Walker is a gifted writer. At the recently concluded Mormon History Association Conference, he gave a fascinating presentation on the death of Brigham Young and the aftermath thereof. Here's my newspaper reportof the same.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

Walker is a gifted writer. At the recently concluded Mormon History Association Conference, he gave a fascinating presentation on the death of Brigham Young and the aftermath thereof. Here's my newspaper reportof the same.

I agree that Walker is wonderful. I attended that session too, as it happens. I guess we missed each other I was one of the unfortunate souls that didn't get a seat and was left standing at the back wall. Anyway, I hope Walker finishes his biography—he's aged a lot since I last saw him in 1999 (back when I was a Bushman summer fellow).

That was my first MHA conference by the way. I live near Vancouver, BC, Canada, so I don't have much opportunity to travel to these things. I had a wonderful time. At the opening plenary session I found myself sitting next to Lawrence Foster, and immediately behind Rick Turley and his wife and at the Friday luncheon I shared a table with Matthew Roper, George Mitton, Dana Pike, and David Holland. I was in seventh heaven.

[cinepro]

I read this book a few months ago and found it very engaging and informative. This book points more of BY's flaws than RSR did with Joseph Smith. I came away from this book seeing BY as more fallable than I previously supposed.

I've got one more chapter to go before I'm finished, but I've had pretty much the same impressions.

The most interesting part for me was about Brigham Young reorganizing the First Presidency. I never knew why he took several years to do it, but Turner explains it.

I wouldn't recommend that this be the only biography someone read about Brigham Young, but it should definitely be read by anyone interested in him, or that period of Utah or Church history.

[Avatar4321]

I've got one more chapter to go before I'm finished, but I've had pretty much the same impressions.

The most interesting part for me was about Brigham Young reorganizing the First Presidency. I never knew why he took several years to do it, but Turner explains it.

I wouldn't recommend that this be the only biography someone read about Brigham Young, but it should definitely be read by anyone interested in him, or that period of Utah or Church history.

So how did he explain why Brigham took so long to reorganize the First Presidency.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree that Walker is wonderful. I attended that session too, as it happens. I guess we missed each other I was one of the unfortunate souls that didn't get a seat and was left standing at the back wall.

I was the obnoxious pest with the camera in the front row.

That was my first MHA conference by the way. I live near Vancouver, BC, Canada, so I don't have much opportunity to travel to these things. I had a wonderful time.

As it happens, last year's conference was in Canada. But it was in Calgary, on the other side of the continent from where you are.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

So how did he explain why Brigham took so long to reorganize the First Presidency.

You'll have to read the book

[Tacenda]

You'll have to read the book

I just ordered it on Amazon, anything to get me away from the board for awhile.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is true that Deseret Book outlets are carrying Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet but that does not imply an endorsement of the book. (As I understand it, the only books officially approved by the Church are those that carry its logo.) However, the Church did grant the author, a non-Mormon, almost unprecedented access to Church-controlled archival materials, and the Church Historian and Assistant Historian were in attendance at his MHA presentation last week on violence in early Mormon Utah, so he's by no means a persona non grata.

That was a luncheon session attended pretty much by everybody at the conference (unless they were like me and preferred not to pay for a luncheon ticket; I came in late and stood at the back to hear the presentation).

The thing to understand about MHA is that it is very much a mixed bag with regard to participation, and there is a good deal of disagreement. The fact that there is heavy involvement from the Church History Department folks should not be taken as an implied endorsement by the Church leadership of everything that goes on under the auspices of MHA.

The Church Historian is a General Authority position, but the Assistant Church Historian, Richard Turley Jr., is a scholar, and a scholar can't afford to insulate himself from what other scholars say and write, though he might disagree with them.

[Nevo]

That was a luncheon session attended pretty much by everybody at the conference (unless they were like me and preferred not to pay for a luncheon ticket; I came in late and stood at the back to hear the presentation).

The thing to understand about MHA is that it is very much a mixed bag with regard to participation, and there is a good deal of disagreement. The fact that there is heavy involvement from the Church History Department folks should not be taken as an implied endorsement by the Church leadership of everything that goes on under the auspices of MHA.

The Church Historian is a General Authority position, but the Assistant Church Historian, Richard Turley Jr., is a scholar, and a scholar can't afford to insulate himself from what other scholars say and write, though he might disagree with them.

Hi Scott,

I recognize that the presence of the Church Historian and the Assistant Church Historian and other Church History department personnel at the MHA does not imply Church endorsement of everything that is said there. It seems to me that that goes without saying. But Elder Snow, as far as I could tell, showed up specifically for the luncheon and for the awards banquet Friday evening (where he received an award). Maybe he would have attended the luncheon no matter who was speaking, but it seems to me that he could have skipped it if he had strongly objected to the speaker. Anyway, I took his presence to suggest that he was interested in hearing what Professor Turner had to say and was willing to give him a respectful hearing. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I hope not.

(I was a bit worried that Elder Snow was related to Warren Stone Snow, who, you will recall, figured prominently in Turner's presentation, but I did some digging and learned that Elder Snow is a third-great-grandson of Erastus Snow—no relation to Warren.)

Anyway, I really liked Elder Snow's recent article in the New Era. I think he's doing a great job as Church Historian.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott,

I recognize that the presence of the Church Historian and the Assistant Church Historian and other Church History department personnel at the MHA does not imply Church endorsement of everything that is said there. It seems to me that that goes without saying. But Elder Snow, as far as I could tell, showed up specifically for the luncheon and for the awards banquet Friday evening (where he received an award). Maybe he would have attended the luncheon no matter who was speaking, but it seems to me that he could have skipped it if he had strongly objected to the speaker. Anyway, I took his presence to suggest that he was interested in hearing what Professor Turner had to say and was willing to give him a respectful hearing. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I hope not.

He was also at the Thursday night welcome session. I didn't see him at the Saturday night presidential banquet, but wasn't really looking for him.

Elder Marlin K. Jensen customarily took in as much of the MHA conferences as he could; I think Elder Snow is following that pattern.

Anyway, I really liked Elder Snow's recent article in the New Era. I think he's doing a great job as Church Historian.

He's an impressive and intelligent man. Seems to be less comfortable in the limelight than Elder Jensen, but that's just a difference in personality. Nothing wrong with that.

[cinepro]

I finally finished the book, and I've got to say I'm a little conflicted about it. I enjoyed much of it, and certainly learned a lot about areas of Church and Utah history I hadn't known much about, but in total, I still feel like there are big gaps in my knowledge of Brigham Young.

Turner has explained elsewhere that he didn't want to do a 600 or 800 page bio (the book is 400 pages), but I suspect that is what would be needed to truly do justice to the life of someone like Brigham Young.

Perhaps the ideal situation would be to read Arrington's "American Moses" as a companion book. I suspect Turner and Arrington both focus on different aspects of Brigham's life, and reading both would offer a more complete picture. But I would never recommend that Turner's book be the only book someone read about Brigham Young.