Child Prophet: The Curious Case Of John Willard Young, A Mormon Apostle

[Storm Rider]

If you believe the sole measure of a discussion's value is whether it brings "any of us closer to Christ...", I suggest an Internet message board may not be for you.

 

How cute and all-knowing.  Thank you for your kind recommendation.  Welcome to the carnival of the inanity.  Let's begin with the question, I will go slow so you grasp it, "What is the purpose?"  Simple question; don't know why the trio of the banal cannot answer the question.  

[cinepro]

I love when these rather arcane stories are bandied about as of if they have some value to one's testimony of Jesus Christ or his leaders.  

 

I long ago concluded that Jesus was my judge and my intermediary to the Father.  I believe that he fulfills that same role for every child of God that has ever lived.  If one of us has done something wrong they face the judgment seat in the same manner as I will.  Leaders of the Church are not perfect and never have taught as if they should be perceived as perfect individuals.  They will have their judgement day the same as each of us.  Why would anyone think they would not?  

Brigham will be no different than you or me; he will stand in the same position as each of us.  I hope that he repented of his sins in the same manner that I hope that each of us repent of our sins.  

 

Now, for these little known factoids of silliness that get bandied about so often; what is their purpose?  Does it bring any of us closer to Christ or make us better disciples?  If you are attempting to convince me that prophets are human then you have missed the boat; it sailed a long time ago.   

 

If that's the case, this article might be more to your liking:

 

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/prophets-and-apostles-last-dispensation/first-counselors-first-presidency/5-john-willard

 

While yet a boy, John was ordained an apostle by his father. This ordination was confirmed by President Young when the young man was nineteen, and although John never became a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, he honored this sacred calling while serving as president of the Salt Lake Stake, as a missionary in England, and as counselor to his prophet-father in the First Presidency. For fourteen years after Brigham Young’s passing, Daniel H. Wells, who had served as second counselor to President Young, and John W. Young were sustained as “counselors to the Twelve.”

 

During the last thirty years of his life, John pursued his far-flung business concerns and was characterized as “a cultivated gentleman of distinction for his knowledge of men, of the arts, and of the world in which he lived.” [3] Concerning his strong faith, it was further observed at his passing that “he was an undoubting Christian believer, lover and student of the Scriptures with a testimony that Joseph Smith and his own father were prophets of God.” [4

Edited September 30, 2015 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

If that's the case, this article might be more to your liking:

 

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/prophets-and-apostles-last-dispensation/first-counselors-first-presidency/5-john-willard

 

That page needs updating. The latest counselors are not there.

[PeterPear]

It was a conspiracy of Brigham Young - to prevent the Saints from enrolling at OPU (Orson Pratt University).

[ttribe]

How cute and all-knowing.  Thank you for your kind recommendation.  Welcome to the carnival of the inanity.  Let's begin with the question, I will go slow so you grasp it, "What is the purpose?"  Simple question; don't know why the trio of the banal cannot answer the question.  

 

Other than it being and interesting and unusual factoid from Church history, why does there need to be a purpose?

 

Oh, and you can stow the "I will go slow so you can grasp it" nonsense.  I'm quite sure my intellect can keep up just fine.

[webbles]

It seems that the endowments of kids happened just prior to the trek west, so maybe they did it because who knew when they would get another chance to get endowed?

My ancestor was endowed in Salt Lake. So it didn't happen prior to the trek west. They weren't even members till after the trek west.

[Duncan]

My ancestor was endowed in Salt Lake. So it didn't happen prior to the trek west. They weren't even members till after the trek west.

 

you mean to tell me that your ancestors walked all the way to Utah and they weren't even members yet? now, that's commitment

[webbles]

you mean to tell me that your ancestors walked all the way to Utah and they weren't even members yet? now, that's commitment

Actually, that is kind of true

 

They were heading to Oregon.  Their wagon broke down and the nearest place to stop was Salt Lake.  They were terrified of the Mormons at that time and tried to keep to themselves while waiting for their wagon to get fixed.  But the Mormons turned out to be fairly nice and they converted instead.  They never made it to Oregon.

[cinepro]

Actually, that is kind of true

 

They were heading to Oregon.  Their wagon broke down and the nearest place to stop was Salt Lake.  They were terrified of the Mormons at that time and tried to keep to themselves while waiting for their wagon to get fixed.  But the Mormons turned out to be fairly nice and they converted instead.  They never made it to Oregon.

 

That's the second most interesting story in this thread.  Hard to top the grandson of a Prophet murdering a hooker in New York City.

Edited September 30, 2015 by cinepro

[CMZ]

Lorenzo Snow made a slight but dramatic change to the way apostolic succession would be determined (which continues to be the standard to this day).  Snow claimed that apostolic seniority was to be based exclusively on date of entrance into the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and that date of apostolic ordination was no longer to be considered.[

 

I have to say that I believe this to be correct and that it was correct even before Lorenzo Snow was the President of the Church but that up until that time it had never been an issue and therefore didn't need any pointing out.

[cinepro]

I have to say that I believe this to be correct and that it was correct even before Lorenzo Snow was the President of the Church but that up until that time it had never been an issue and therefore didn't need any pointing out.

 

Well, you can read this article if you want to see how the sausage was made:

 

http://67.20.122.117/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V35N04_125.pdf

 

(page 127 of this article directly addresses the issue of Apostolic Seniority)

 

 

 

On March 31, 1900, the aging President Lorenzo Snow and his counselors, George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith, had a private discussion, in which they agreed that the previous policy of apostolic seniority by date of ordination, which Brigham Young had implemented, was incorrect, and that seniority should be gauged by date of entrance into the Quorum. Although Joseph F. Smith had ranked below Brigham Young, Jr., in Quorum rankings, succession sequence, and solemn public sustainings in conference, Snow told Smith that Brigham Young, Jr., would now rank below him in seniority. There is no escaping the fact that this was a straightforward change in policy; nevertheless, it was also an entirely reasonable and sensible change. However, there remained the difficult problem of informing Brigham Jr. that neither he (nor John Willard) would be the next president of the church.

 

Also this one...

 

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/view/6926/6575

Edited September 30, 2015 by cinepro

[CMZ]

Thanks.

[CMZ]

This is just like I also believe it was correct for the early Church to first organize the Quorum of the Twelve by age but then to thereafter base seniority on date of ordination. But that when there is a time when two or more apostles called to the Quorum of the Twelve that it once again becomes proper to set them apart by order of age.

[Avatar4321]

Could Brigham been trying to ensure his descendants were the prophet when there was no establishment policy on succession?

Edited September 30, 2015 by Avatar4321

[jkwilliams]

This is a dodge;

No, this is a Dodge:

 

 

what is the purpose was the question?

You said you loved it when such stories are " bandied about as of if they have some value to one's testimony of Jesus Christ or his leaders." So, you're the one asserting that there's some purpose, positive or negative, to posting the story. As ttribe said, sometimes the purpose is just to share an interesting story, and even you have to admit that's a heck of an interesting story.  

Why is asking a question an "attack".

I'm not sure who you're asking, as I never said your question was an attack.

Why isn't just asking a question asking a question.

I was not so much interested in your question as I was in your suggestions that the OP was an attempt to affect people's testimonies or point out human failings in church leaders. As for me, I thought it was interesting that this little factoid of silliness, as you put it, had a major (and permanent) effect on succession in the presidency of the church.

[Duncan]

Well, you can read this article if you want to see how the sausage was made:

 

http://67.20.122.117/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V35N04_125.pdf

 

(page 127 of this article directly addresses the issue of Apostolic Seniority)

 

 

 

 

Also this one...

 

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/view/6926/6575

 

It would be interesting to know what Elder Young's reaction to all this was. He seems to be one of the many apostles that have just faded from history and you don't hear much about him or quotations from him or anything of the sort

[Tacenda]

I feel sorry for him, a lot of pressure at such a young age to have been endowed and made an apostle, to have to follow his dad's footsteps. It probably messed with his mind and he didn't feel good enough and set out to prove it. It messed up his life, his son's life and a prostitutes.

[jkwilliams]

I feel sorry for him, a lot of pressure at such a young age to have been endowed and made an apostle, to have to follow his dad's footsteps. It probably messed with his mind and he didn't feel good enough and set out to prove it. It messed up his life, his son's life and a prostitutes.

Yes, kids who are raised to be entitled tend to be pretty messed up.

[Storm Rider]

If that's the case, this article might be more to your liking:

 

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/prophets-and-apostles-last-dispensation/first-counselors-first-presidency/5-john-willard

 

Yeah, not so much.  Never have been a fan of any form or type of whitewashing.  

 

The issue for me is just be factual and respecting the benefits of not trying to write in the style of the National Enquirer.  I don't think that is so hard to understand, but obviously there are advocates of the latter style of writing.

 

JWB is an example of a man that could have done much in life and ended up doing very little of any good.  He certainly did not live up to the expectations of his father, Brigham Young.  Whose fault is that?  Is it Brigham's or is it John's himself?  Also, I can easily see the value of never having heard of JWB and lack the understanding of why his example has value to me today.  Guess I am just too thick to see value in it.

 

Then we have the pitiful story of Hooper, according to the blog, a well known morphine and gambling addict.  What are we supposed to learn from this?  That a prophet's grandson can choose badly?  That sin is common in the world?  What is the earth shaking lesson we are to learn?  How many similarly poor examples can we find in the OT?  Some of us choose badly and some of us don't choose as badly.  

 

Learning that a prophet had a son that did not meet his religious expectations is not new and is as old as the story of man.  Learning that a prophet's grandson would be found to be a drug addict and murderer is just as old.  Am I missing something?

[HappyJackWagon]

I do not think I agree at all that what John received was a stipend at all. But even if it was why based on what he was doing and how he was living should have tithe $$ been used for that?   I think there are other obvious conclusions here but they are far to uncomfortable for most her to admit.

The entire issue of tithing in the early church is fascinating when we see that bishops and stake presidents were able to keep a percentage of the donations. So I imagine the prophet and apostles also had their cut so I wonder if Brigham was sending money to his son out of his (stipend/cut) or if it was separate. Arguably, most of Brigham's wealth could be attributed to the church, whether it was from tithing or charging $$ for sealings and divorces. I'm not sure that him sending money to his son is any different than the rest of this stuff, which in today's church would be inappropriate.

[jkwilliams]

Yeah, not so much.  Never have been a fan of any form or type of whitewashing.  

 

The issue for me is just be factual and respecting the benefits of not trying to write in the style of the National Enquirer.  I don't think that is so hard to understand, but obviously there are advocates of the latter style of writing.

 

JWB is an example of a man that could have done much in life and ended up doing very little of any good.  He certainly did not live up to the expectations of his father, Brigham Young.  Whose fault is that?  Is it Brigham's or is it John's himself?  Also, I can easily see the value of never having heard of JWB and lack the understanding of why his example has value to me today.  Guess I am just too thick to see value in it.

 

Then we have the pitiful story of Hooper, according to the blog, a well known morphine and gambling addict.  What are we supposed to learn from this?  That a prophet's grandson can choose badly?  That sin is common in the world?  What is the earth shaking lesson we are to learn?  How many similarly poor examples can we find in the OT?  Some of us choose badly and some of us don't choose as badly.  

 

Learning that a prophet had a son that did not meet his religious expectations is not new and is as old as the story of man.  Learning that a prophet's grandson would be found to be a drug addict and murderer is just as old.  Am I missing something?

Did you know about the change to seniority in the quorum of 12? I didn't, so I'm glad I read about it, and the reasons for it make sense only when you consider the history of John W. Young. It may not be pretty, but there is something to be learned.

[Tacenda]

wrong topic, deleted

Edited September 30, 2015 by Tacenda

[ALarson]

Many referred to John Willard as Brigham's "apostate son" from what I have been reading.  Here's an article about him from 1877 that was in the New York Times:

 

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9904E2D9133FE63BBC4A52DFBE66838C669FDE

[ERayR]

Do you have an alternate theory for ordaining his 11 year old son to the apostleship and keeping it secret from the quorum and his presidency?

 

Why was John the Baptist ordained at 8 days old?  It does not appear that Zacharias was building a dynasty.

[JulieM]

ALarson, that was so interesting to read. If true, it seems John was in and out of the church over the years and did the same with living polygamy. This would have been written right before Brigham's death, so it sounds like John was back in at that time (?).