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

[jkwilliams]

I think comparing 8 year olds, who are still finding out how to read and write, with prophets who are trying to work our the proper route of prophetic succession makes my point a lot more than yours.

I don't understand why people find it strange or out of character for early church leaders to have put their relatives in leadership positions. Joseph Smith certainly did that, and by the end of the 19th century, the Young, Kimball, Cannon, Smith, Woodruff, Richards, and Taylor families were well-represented in the leading quorums and auxiliaries of the church. That's just the way it was.

[CA Steve]

I don't understand why people find it strange or out of character for early church leaders to have put their relatives in leadership positions. Joseph Smith certainly did that, and by the end of the 19th century, the Young, Kimball, Cannon, Smith, Woodruff, Richards, and Taylor families were well-represented in the leading quorums and auxiliaries of the church. That's just the way it was.

That's the thing. The way some are approaching it, as if it was just a lack of communication between God and his prophet, carries with it the understanding it was a mistake or it was something that should not have been done. How do we know know it was a mistake? Maybe different isn't wrong? The way they did it back then was right, the way we are doing it now is right, and in a hundred years the way the prophetess decides to do it will be right also.

[jkwilliams]

That's the thing. The way some are approaching it, as if it was just a lack of communication between God and his prophet, carries with it the understanding it was a mistake or it was something that should not have been done. How do we know know it was a mistake? Maybe different isn't wrong? The way they did it back then was right, the way we are doing it now is right, and in a hundred years the way the prophetess decides to do it will be right also.

According to the article, J.W. Young received $16,000 a year from the church while Brigham was still alive. According to one inflation calendar I checked, $16,000 in 1880 would be the equivalent of $387,000 in 2014. That's a heck of a stipend!

[Teancum]

I don't understand why people find it strange or out of character for early church leaders to have put their relatives in leadership positions. Joseph Smith certainly did that, and by the end of the 19th century, the Young, Kimball, Cannon, Smith, Woodruff, Richards, and Taylor families were well-represented in the leading quorums and auxiliaries of the church. That's just the way it was.

 

 

Well it does not foster a confidence that God was telling them what to do. Rather it fosters confidence that they were working to shore up their own power and that of their families.

[Teancum]

According to the article, J.W. Young received $16,000 a year from the church while Brigham was still alive. According to one inflation calendar I checked, $16,000 in 1880 would be the equivalent of $387,000 in 2014. That's a heck of a stipend!

 

 

$16k per year back then was VERY LUCRATIVE!  

[ALarson]

According to the article, J.W. Young received $16,000 a year from the church while Brigham was still alive. According to one inflation calendar I checked, $16,000 in 1880 would be the equivalent of $387,000 in 2014. That's a heck of a stipend!

Why was Brigham supporting him?  How old was J.W. Young when he started receiving the money and at what age did it stop (or was it until Brigham died), do you know?

 

I thought that John was a successful businessman, so why did he need money from the church?  

Edited September 30, 2015 by ALarson

[ttribe]

Why was Brigham supporting him?  How old was J.W. Young when he started receiving the money and at what age did it stop (or was it until Brigham died), do you know?

 

I thought that John was a successful businessman, so why did he need money from the church?  

 

The article states he wasn't always successful.  In other words, sometimes his business losses exceeded his business gains.

[KevinG]

I don't understand why people find it strange or out of character for early church leaders to have put their relatives in leadership positions. Joseph Smith certainly did that, and by the end of the 19th century, the Young, Kimball, Cannon, Smith, Woodruff, Richards, and Taylor families were well-represented in the leading quorums and auxiliaries of the church. That's just the way it was.

 

It is very consistent with my belief that the early sealings and family ties that Joseph started and Brigham continued were about forming a dynastic family at the head of the dispensation.

[jkwilliams]

The article states he wasn't always successful.  In other words, sometimes his business losses exceeded his business gains.

Yes. Here's the relevant part:

From 1864 on, John Willard spent most of his time living the high life in New York City, where his lavish tastes earned him (and cost him) a great deal. John Willard’s wild business ventures, combined with his grandiose personality, wit and charm, yielded terrific financial success from time to time. His expensive tastes, luxurious lifestyle and unbridled avarice, however, produced even more debt. When his business ventures eventually failed, John Willard found himself immersed in so much debt that his only recourse was to turn to his powerful father for aid.

Apparently, the $16,000 per year came from the tithing office, but he also routinely asked for more money from church members:

Once ordained an apostle, John Willard regularly petitioned church membership for additional funds to “assist with construction of the railroad,” which he promised would eventually be of great benefit to the Saints in the west. In fact, John Willard used the idea of constructing a railroad to the west as the primary justification for his lavish expenses and wanton disregard for financial prudence. To placate his father, John Willard would appeal to the supposed need for him to maintain a high standing in the eyes of those in power, so they would be more inclined to take him seriously. On one occasion, John Willard wrote to Brigham Young, who was greatly troubled by his son’s expenditures, that staying in the best of hotels while traveling was justified because of his family ties: “As it was generally known that I was your son, I felt I could do no less than stop at the finest hotel.”

[jkwilliams]

It is very consistent with my belief that the early sealings and family ties that Joseph started and Brigham continued were about forming a dynastic family at the head of the dispensation.

IOW, it doesn't have to be seen necessarily as nepotism designed to enrich and empower the families of church leaders. That was precisely my point. It was how things were in the church, for whatever reason.

[KevinG]

IOW, it doesn't have to be seen necessarily as nepotism designed to enrich and empower the families of church leaders. That was precisely my point. It was how things were in the church, for whatever reason.

 

Just ask Levi, Aaron and Moses.  Or Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph...  or...  nevermind you get the idea.

[ALarson]

Thanks for the replies, ttribe and jkwilliams.

 

I also searched for some information on this and found that even Joseph F. Smith accused John W. of using the church's money unethically to maintain his wealthy lifestyle.

 

From what I've read, Joseph F. Smith didn't care much for John W. Young!

[Teancum]

IOW, it doesn't have to be seen necessarily as nepotism designed to enrich and empower the families of church leaders. That was precisely my point. It was how things were in the church, for whatever reason.

 

You are being kind.  Let's call it for what it is. Either God wanted these powerful leaders of this tiny 19th century sect to control, run the show and benefit their families and that is the way it was. Or they used their power as powerful people always do. It seems to me that kleptocracy has always been a prime human motivator and condition.  Why should I give a pass to the early LDS leaders on this?

[Teancum]

Just ask Levi, Aaron and Moses.  Or Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph...  or...  nevermind you get the idea.

 

Sure.  Kleptocracy was alive and well thousands of years ago as well. 

[KevinG]

Why should I give a pass to the early LDS leaders on this?

 

You shouldn't.  Be true to yourself.

 

[ttribe]

You shouldn't.  Be true to yourself.
 

 

^^^Your (mis)use of the term "butthurt" now requires this response:

 

Edited September 30, 2015 by ttribe

[KevinG]

I think butthurt is a good description of the bitterness and anger demonstrated by many of his comments.  I'll stand by it.

[ttribe]

I think butthurt is a good description of the bitterness and anger demonstrated by many of his comments.  I'll stand by it.

 

I can't believe we are having this conversation on this board: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/butthurt

 

The correct use of the word applies to someone responding to a perceived personal insult; usually one that is rather petty or minor issue.

[CA Steve]

It is very consistent with my belief that the early sealings and family ties that Joseph started and Brigham continued were about forming a dynastic family at the head of the dispensation.

That is my understanding of what was going on as well. In my opinion, the evolution of prophetic succession, church leadership,  and apostolic power was heavenly influenced by which bloodlines reached the role of prophet. I think one area where this is very evident is the diminished role (and the unfilled office now that Eldred  G.Smith passed away) and prestige of the office of the Presiding Patriarch. If you have not read it, I recommend Lost Legacy, The Mormon Office of Presiding Patriarch by Irene M. Bates and E Gary Smith.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Legacy-MORMON-PRESIDING-PATRIARCH/dp/0252071158/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1443648070&sr=8-1&keywords=Lost+legacy+Irene+bates

[jkwilliams]

I think butthurt is a good description of the bitterness and anger demonstrated by many of his comments.  I'll stand by it.

Huh. I've never thought he was bitter, and I've known him since he was an active, believing church leader. My sense is that he sometimes gets frustrated with answers that don't work and yet still keep coming.

[KevinG]

I can't believe we are having this conversation on this board: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/butthurt

 

The correct use of the word applies to someone responding to a perceived personal insult; usually one that is rather petty or minor issue.

 

If you don't think Teancum is taking these discussions, and his status as former Mormon personally, you haven't been paying attention.

 

Claiming current church leaders have thrown previous prophets "under the bus" is a bitter statement.  Or at least a good imitation of one.  

 

The derision fairly drips from many of the comments here.  And he isn't the only one.

 

In fairness he was pretty good at polemics when he was an apologist too.

Edited September 30, 2015 by KevinG

[jkwilliams]

If you don't think Teancum is taking these discussions, and his status as former Mormon personally, you haven't been paying attention.

Since when is he a former Mormon?

[KevinG]

Since when is he a former Mormon?

 

Is he still a member?  In that case he's not former, he's just a faithful critic.

 

But the derision is still there either way.

[ttribe]

If you don't think Teancum is taking these discussions, and his status as former Mormon personally, you haven't been paying attention.

 

Claiming current church leaders have thrown previous prophets "under the bus" is a bitter statement.  Or at least a good imitation of one.  

 

The derision fairly drips from many of the comments here.  And he isn't the only one.

 

In fairness he was pretty good at polemics when he was an apologist too.

 

Be that as it may (and I still don't think it fits the definition), I think it inappropriate to suggest that someone is "butthurt" (which implies the issue is petty and small) over the loss of one's own faith (which is pretty major).

[Ares]

Stop the personal comments and stick to the topic.