Brigham Young?

[thatjimguy]

duplicated post

Edited February 6, 2014 by thatjimguy

[Calm]

When the ward teaching message was published, concerns were raised regarding how this statement would be interpreted. President George Albert Smith responded to a concern expressed by Dr. Raymond A. Cope of the First Unitarian Society

 

Pres. Smith said:

 

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. 

 

[escott3564]

This question has been on my mind for some time.

Not desiring to downplay Brother Brigham's significant achievements, especially regarding the exodus from Nauvoo and the settlement in the Salt Lake Valley and beyond; are BY's teachings devalued because of his doctrinal errors and practices?

 

For example:

 

1. Adam-God doctrine

2. Priesthood ban

3. Blood atonement

4. Plural marriage

5. Co-operative economics

 

There may be more, but it seems to me that the church has dropped all of these and, with some of them, gone out of it's way to repudiate them.

Therefore, how reliable are the rest of his teachings?

I know that some will say that he was human and not perfect; that is a given. But these things are major doctrines and policies which were at the core of the church in his day. They were not incidental, nor were they presented as personal opinions or speculations.

 

So is Brigham Young's tenure as president of the church devalued by this, and if so to what extent?

 

I recall reading that Brigham Young actually denied being a prophet on many occasions.  He took on the mantle as President of the Church, but always referred to Joseph Smith as the true prophet of God. 

[K-2]

From a dream that I had while on my visit to Logan a short time since, I know that spiritualism is the head and front, and the arm and breast and brain, and the eyes and the whole body of Young Joseph’s profession and operations. In my dream I saw the Prophet Joseph, and he tried for awhile to sustain the old dwelling, and meditated building around it; but he finally concluded to discard it, and swept the ground clean where it stood to put up an entirely new building. Although this is a matter I have not thought of, yet the dream is true, and expresses the true state of the case.

 

When Alexander Smith came here, we treated him kindly, and I plead with him to accompany us on our visit north. George A. Smith, his cousin, plead with him to accompany us, but to no purpose. Finally, Joseph F. Smith, who was from home, came back, and saw him, and met him in public in this city. Many of this congregation are acquainted with that circumstance. It was asked him what he thought of the endowment. He replied, “I do not mention it, for I do not wish to hear anything about the endowment.” “What do you think of the doctrine of polygamy?” It is his business to preach against polygamy, and his brother Joseph said that his father never introduced it. Several of the sisters testified to him that they were sealed to his father. Well, said he, “if he did have any such revelation, or teach any such doctrine, or practice it, he must have got out of the way,” or, in other words he must have been a fallen prophet, if he ever was a true prophet. That is the conclusion they come to when hard pressed with stern facts. Joseph Smith the Prophet taught the gathering; but this new sect deny the gathering.

 

If there are any Latter-day Saints who wish to be destroyed, run after that family, and I will promise you in the name of the God of Israel that you will be damned.

(The Essential Brigham Young, fwd. by Eugene E. Campbell, Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books 1992, pg. 189.)

 

[Alan]

This is just completely historically wrong.  And I would CFR from any reliable historical source or actual historian.

 

Actually, it is not wrong in my view.  

There is no, and I mean no, contemporary evidence of Joseph practicing anything other than plural sealings, which is not the same thing.

Any evidence implicating him in polygamy is some time after the fact, often a long time after; and of course he was dead so couldn't speak for himself.

However, we do have contemporary evidence that he flatly and publicly denied his involvement; and called all those who claimed he was involved liars.

That's good enough for me.

[iriemon]

Actually, it is not wrong in my view.  

There is no, and I mean no, contemporary evidence of Joseph practicing anything other than plural sealings, which is not the same thing.

Any evidence implicating him in polygamy is some time after the fact, often a long time after; and of course he was dead so couldn't speak for himself.

However, we do have contemporary evidence that he flatly and publicly denied his involvement; and called all those who claimed he was involved liars.

That's good enough for me.

 

Actually it IS the same thing. The only difference is, Joseph Smith lied and used his "Authority" to cooerce young women into thinking that they and their families would be damned, (He claimed he would be destroyed too, how convienient) if they didn't play along. It was simply not possible for JS to practice as they did openly in Utah, because of several reasons: Primarily, because it was ILLEGAL in the US. (So much for the 12th article of faith) and, he kept it a secret from not only his wife, but the public. (Lying openly in public about it as well....yes it's fully documented). Brigham Young on the other hand, isolated the church in Utah, and thus eliminated any outside influence. It's the reason it lasted as long as it did in Utah...isolation.

 

You understand that when he denied those allegations in public, he was secretly married to multiple women right?!

[JLHPROF]

Actually, it is not wrong in my view.  

There is no, and I mean no, contemporary evidence of Joseph practicing anything other than plural sealings, which is not the same thing.

Any evidence implicating him in polygamy is some time after the fact, often a long time after; and of course he was dead so couldn't speak for himself.

However, we do have contemporary evidence that he flatly and publicly denied his involvement; and called all those who claimed he was involved liars.

That's good enough for me.

 

And you have yet to explain what relationship these "sealings" created?  All temple sealings create a family relationship into the eternities.  Whether it's parent and child or husband and wife.  Sealing together is not just "being sealed", it creates a family bond.  There are only two (current) and three (past) sealing ceremonies, and at the conclusion of each you are told what family relationship you are now in.  I don't know what you imagine Joseph and these women covenanted to be to each other if not husband and wife.

[K-2]

Alan, have you read the journal of William Clayton? It has plenty of contemporary evidence. For example, when William Clayton's plural wife became pregnant, he went to Joseph Smith for advice and recorded what he said: “Just keep her at home and brook it and if they raise trouble about it and bring you before me I will give you an awful scourging and probably cut you off from the church and then I will baptize you and set you ahead as good as ever.”

[Alan]

And you have yet to explain what relationship these "sealings" created?  All temple sealings create a family relationship into the eternities.  Whether it's parent and child or husband and wife.  Sealing together is not just "being sealed", it creates a family bond.  There are only two (current) and three (past) sealing ceremonies, and at the conclusion of each you are told what family relationship you are now in.  I don't know what you imagine Joseph and these women covenanted to be to each other if not husband and wife.

 

I would have thought the difference was obvious.

Marriage is all about the here and now (relationships, sex, children etc), sealings are dynastical.

[ALarson]

Alan, have you read the journal of William Clayton? It has plenty of contemporary evidence. For example, when William Clayton's plural wife became pregnant, he went to Joseph Smith for advice and recorded what he said: “Just keep her at home and brook it and if they raise trouble about it and bring you before me I will give you an awful scourging and probably cut you off from the church and then I will baptize you and set you ahead as good as ever.”

There are other writings about Joseph's polygamy that we have during the time he lived polygamy.  Vilate Kimball's letters to Heber are another example (written while Joseph was still alive and was living and privately teaching polygamy).

[Alan]

Alan, have you read the journal of William Clayton? It has plenty of contemporary evidence. For example, when William Clayton's plural wife became pregnant, he went to Joseph Smith for advice and recorded what he said: “Just keep her at home and brook it and if they raise trouble about it and bring you before me I will give you an awful scourging and probably cut you off from the church and then I will baptize you and set you ahead as good as ever.”

 

This is not reliable contemporary evidence. I'm tempted to say "well he would say that wouldn't he".

Firstly, there are no witnesses to what Clayton is reporting. Nothing to co-oberate his statement.

The practice of back-writing diaries and journals in light of later developments in those days was rife. Many historians acknowledge this. Even the History Of The Church was back written by order of BY.

Therefore, I cannot see that this can be bona fide contemporary evidence. It is evidence I'll grant you, but it has several questions marks.

On the other hand there were many people who witnessed Joseph's public denial that he was involved with polygamy.

So for the me the weight of evidence is clear.

 

Note: I'm not talking about the amount of evidence, I'm talking about it's weight.

[David T]

If Alan is at all really curious and willing to challenge his former conclusions, he will pick up (either buy or through library loan system) Brian Hales' 3-volume book Joseph Smith's Polygamy which contains all the documentary evidence ever discovered presented, and with its weight, context, and reliability analysed and balanced. And then Alan will respond to it.

 

Otherwise, it gives the appearance of sticking fingers in ears and asserting information highly contrary to all the evidence simply because it is wished to be true. That's not a defense of Joseph Smith.

Edited February 6, 2014 by David T

[Alan]

There are other writings about Joseph's polygamy that we have during the time he lived polygamy.  Vilate Kimball's letters to Heber are another example (written while Joseph was still alive and was living and privately teaching polygamy).

 

But it has to be acknowledged (and in fact has been) that this relationship was dynastical.

[David T]

But it has to be acknowledged (and in fact has been) that this relationship was dynastical.

 

The two concepts are not always neatly mutually exclusive.

[Alan]

If Alan is at all really curious and willing to challenge his former conclusions, he will pick up (either buy or through library loan system) Brian Hales' 3-volume book Joseph Smith's Polygamy which contains all the documentary evidence ever discovered presented, and with its weight, context, and reliability analysed and balanced. And then Alan will respond to it.

 

Otherwise, it gives the appearance of sticking fingers in ears and asserting information highly contrary to all the evidence simply because it is wished to be true. That's not a defense of Joseph Smith.

 

Here we go again. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.

I have come to my conclusions after many years of looking at this issue, and studying various books, sources and articles. I used to believe the party line and defended Joseph's, and the church's, plural marriage doctrine and practice.

 

However, once I started to look at all of the evidence ie. including the evidence that he wasn't involved, it became obvious to me that something was wrong with the party line. If we only look at the evidence supporting one side of the argument we do ourselves a great disservice.

Following this exercise, I came to the conclusion that, in spite of what I originally believed to be the case, the weight of evidence pointed the other way. I know very few on here will agree with me but I can't do anything about that. People will usually believe what they want to and very few will take the time and trouble to check sources and seriously question the provenance of the evidence they review.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Alan

[David T]

Here we go again. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.

I have come to my conclusions after many years of looking at this issue, and studying various books, sources and articles. I used to believe the party line and defended Joseph's, and the church's, plural marriage doctrine and practice.

 

However, once I started to look at all of the evidence ie. including the evidence that he wasn't involved, it became obvious to me that something was wrong with the party line. If we only look at the evidence supporting one side of the argument we do ourselves a great disservice.

Following this exercise, I came to the conclusion that, in spite of what I originally believed to be the case, the weight of evidence pointed the other way. I know very few on here will agree with me but I can't do anything about that. People will usually believe what they want to and very few will take the time and trouble to check sources and seriously question the provenance of the evidence they review. That's just the way it is.

 

Just confirming, you have gone through through the entirety of the new Hales volumes, then? Just clarifying if this is the "T-Shirt" you're claiming you bought.

Edited February 6, 2014 by David T

[Alan]

Just confirming, you have gone through through the entirety of the new Hales volumes, then? Just clarifying if this is the "T-Shirt" you're claiming you bought.

 

No I haven't. But unless he has unearthed some previously unknown evidence, I'm not sure I need to. If he, as I suspect, has simply pulled all of the "Joseph was a polygamist" evidence into one volume, then I won't waste my money because I have already seen it all, many times. This study of mine has already cost me a fortune!

[K-2]

Alan, why don't YOU provide evidence for a change. Where is the evidence that William Clayton's journal was written later and made up?

[Alan]

Alan, why don't YOU provide evidence for a change. Where is the evidence that William Clayton's journal was written later and made up?

 

I'm not doing this again.

This was covered in a previous thread some months ago and it became obvious then that no one was really willing to let go of their beliefs on this subject, they just wanted to rubbish mine. I'm not going to waste my breath again. Pearls before swine and all that.

Besides, this thread (which I started, by the way) is about Brigham Young so I don't want to derail my own thread!

[ALarson]

Alan, why don't YOU provide evidence for a change. Where is the evidence that William Clayton's journal was written later and made up?

There is none.  Of course Alan is free to believe as he wishes but "they" (whoever "they" are) would have had to get their hands on every single journal, record and diary to alter all of them.  "They" also would have had to coerce all of Joseph's wives who swore under oath to lie about their relationships with Joseph.  This is a huge "conspiracy theory".

 

Alan, I would love to see any actual evidence that this all occurred.

Edited February 6, 2014 by ALarson

[David T]

No I haven't. But unless he has unearthed some previously unknown evidence, I'm not sure I need to. If he, as I suspect, has simply pulled all of the "Joseph was a polygamist" evidence into one volume, then I won't waste my money because I have already seen it all, many times. This study of mine has already cost me a fortune!

 

If you've read any of the reviews, you'd note that he DOES present material that was previously unpublished and generally unknown. Don Bradley, who posts here, was his research assistant, and also had some substantial contributions to new discoveries. It is the latest and most complete analyses. It also pulls all the Joseph Wasn't A Polygamist evidence and weighs it as well. It's exhaustive. It's necessary to be up to date on the discussion.

 

If you really are interested in learning the facts, you'd have an interest in this.

[K-2]

 Alan, CFR.

[JLHPROF]

I would have thought the difference was obvious.

Marriage is all about the here and now (relationships, sex, children etc), sealings are dynastical.

 

Oh Alan, I think you really need to review the words of the "sealing ceremony" which I would post here but am not allowed.  It is pretty clear that during the "sealing ceremony" the man and woman are pronounced husband and wife for time and all eternity.

How is that in anyway dynastical and not marriage?

IF the sealing ceremony used was the other ceremony used for parents and children then I suppose that would be dynastical but there is NO evidence these women were sealed as "children and heirs".  I don't think he considered them daughters.

 

The only two options for "sealing" are wife or child/daughter.  If it were the latter I am sure there would be a record to that effect.  There's no two ways to say this Alan, opinions aside, you are simply demonstrably wrong on this.

Edited February 6, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Alan]

  There's no two ways to say this Alan, opinions aside, you are simply demonstrably wrong on this.

 

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion about the subject at hand......... and me.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Alan

[Alan]

If you've read any of the reviews, you'd note that he DOES present material that was previously unpublished and generally unknown. Don Bradley, who posts here, was his research assistant, and also had some substantial contributions to new discoveries. It is the latest and most complete analyses. It also pulls all the Joseph Wasn't A Polygamist evidence and weighs it as well. It's exhaustive. It's necessary to be up to date on the discussion.

 

If you really are interested in learning the facts, you'd have an interest in this.

 

I'll definately look this up.

Thanks for the info.