John Long's records are a treasure. I hope someone more responsible than Will Bagley will acquire and evaluate them. I was grateful that Ron Barney rescued a program that had plunged down the slippery slope of character assasination. Will Bagley is so often given a platform from which to cast his aspersions without sufficient challenge. It happened again this evening with Doug Fabrisio redeeming himself in the last few minutes by introducing Mr. Barney's voice of reason. In the guise of "family tradition" many unfair accusations were launched over the airwaves against Brigham Young. Just because things are repeated over generations does not make them true.
As an example, I am currently representing the Brigham Young Family in a project with the Joseph Smith Jr. Family to root out "family traditions" from both our families that are not true and have caused enmity between us for a century and a half. But the task seems overwhelming as there is always someone at the ready to drive in a wedge and slice open a gapping wound with a sharp tongue, and to what possible purpose. Why are such people given free reign with so little thought of the resulting harm? I appreciate having the opportunity here to express my feelings, but not many will ever see it. Mary Ellen Elggren, President-elect of the Brigham Young Family
As a "student" of history for the past 45 years, it's always amusing to hear Will Bagley referred to (usually by himself) as a Historian. Real historians don't have an agenda.
I/we were disappointed to hear how easily he drew 'solid' conclusions from inference or even sheer suppositions.
We hope these records will be vetted and compared with the context of the times, with the bigger context of the lives of the people they mention.
When and where will they be published?
While I agree that the Long collection is significant and that it will take years to truly understand the historical context to Utah's history, I take issue with Mr. Barney's defensive position down playing Long's importance.
As a member of the LDS Church he has his own bias and is under the Packer directive to make LDS history "faith promoting." If that is not an agenda I do not know what is. The late Juanita Brookes aptly said that Mormon historians today sound more like lawyers defending a client rather then going where the information leads them. To be fair however Mormons can hardly be critical of their eclesiastical leaders as a point of doctrine. Criticism of church leaders can lead to church censure. It is no wonder that Barney sounded so timid and cautious in his interview.
Brigham Young combined the roles of God and Caesar in the 19th Century West. Fact. He felt that he was the ultimate authority religiously and spiritually of a kingdom being a true personification of Priest-King. Fact.
Blood Atonement in church history was used as a threat- as a type of theocratic capital punishment.
Young was ruthless in maintaining his tenuous claim to leadership to Joseph Smith's church over claims of the majority of the Smith family. How ruthless depends on one's point of view. He was not well regarded by all. Especially the Emma Smith family.
I doubt it will be mentioned in any family book on Young about the murder of a Hodge brother, (who was incensed over lack of church intervention in the hanging of his brothers), near the front gate of Young's Nauvoo home. Nor will be the church ordered whipping of young men during the Mormon exodus, or that he surrounded himself with fugitive felons wanted for the murder of Col Davenport, or that he threatened the lives of dissidents over the pulpit, said slavery was approved of by God, did not investigate the eclesiastical murder of the Parish Family of Springville, the slaughter of the Morrisites at Weber Canyon, that he always supported his Bishop's decisions right or wrong over the lives of the Saints, or that he was indicted for the conspiracy in murder of Richard Yate.
The program also didn't have time to dwell on Long's involement with Spiritualism but it is a fact that two prominent Saints Arnold and Drown were assassinated during a seance in 1859.
At the very least Long's papers should be kept out of the church's vault.
Barney is kind of hypocritical when laments other historian's research when they don't have the same access to documents that he does.
If there's nothing to hide then open the vaults but then as a GA once said not all history is edifying.
Brigham Young made a good living for himself as head of the LDS Church but to portray him as simply a church leader like Gordon B Hinckley is today is pure rubbish.
In reply to Mr. Williams's comment, Mr. Barney was being cautious and wise because he can't read Pitman Shorthand (in which, apparently, the vast majority of the diaries and notepads in the Long collection are written). Mr. Sanders and Mr. Bagley can't read Pitman, either, but that hasn't stopped them from wholesale conjuring and hyperventilating about contrived conspiracies. On the KTVX program last week Bagley and Sanders were hinting and crowing about how they just "know" Long was murdered and that these papers would finally reveal "where all the bodies are buried" (apparently referring to supposed Danite murders planned and directed personally by Beelzebub Brigham). I got a good laugh out of all the backpeddling that Bagley and Sanders are now engaged in. All of a sudden their tune has changed in mid-music and they now say there aren't any "smoking guns" in these papers. Do these two have any credibility left? Mr. Barney simply suggested what any seasoned and responsible historian would and should--that until someone can transcribe the Pitman Shorthand documents into English that we can all read, it would be wise to not speculate on what we hope they do or don't say. Regarding your sniping comment about President Packer's influence on Church historians, may I ask if you've bothered to read the article written by Richard E. Turley, Jr. about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in the September issue of the Ensign? I didn't find it "faith-promoting" at all, but it is probably about as close to the truth as we are going to get in this life. I'm glad to see the Church acknowledge that some of its members, including prominent local priesthood leaders, let hatred take over their otherwise good sense and that extreme evil and ugliness resulted from their stupidity. As for Brigham Young being a tyrant, I'd suggest that you find about 60,000 people who claim they believe you're a prophet and then lead them 1,200 miles to some remote desert and set up a civilization from nothing but what you brought in your knapsacks and covered wagons. It would also be both interesting and entertaining to see how you treated the always-present segment of the population who are indecisive and/or spineless or who are prima donnas, whiners, backstabbers, treasonists, bellyachers, obstructionists, pessimists, etc. Along with those problems let us also throw into the mix the other end of the spectrum--the overzealous and unbalanced like Isaac Haight, John D. Lee, and others. And no lithium pills in sight. Sounds like a great time was had by all. Oh, and let's not forget that Bro. Brigham had to make a daily tally of all the sparrows that fell throughout Utah Territory. Give the guy a break! As for all the murders you listed, why don't you write a book about them all so we can check your footnotes--and not your speculations.
DDJones wrote:
As for Brigham Young being a tyrant, I'd suggest that you find about 60,000 people who claim they believe you're a prophet and then lead them 1,200 miles to some remote desert and set up a civilization from nothing but what you brought in your knapsacks and covered wagons.
My understanding from Religion and History classes that I took at BYU, on the undergraduate and graduate school level, that only about 1/2 of the Mormons that lived in Nauvoo, moved to Winter Quarters, the rest just drifted off and some later joined the RLDS church.
Of those that moved to Winter Quarters, only about 1/2 of them traveled on to Salt Lake, some moved back east and others dropped off along the way or continued to California.
The number of people that chose not to follow Brigham Yong is a large vote of non-confidence, that most members are unaware of.
Most members assume that the extermination order was real and not just a bully tactic. When I was in grad school a fellow in my class found about 15 families maybe more that continued to live in Jackson county or the adjoining counties. Some for as may as 10 years after the extermination order.
My ancestors are among those people, Sanford Porter, baptized in 1830, the town that Porterville Utah (near Mormgan) is named after.
So are Missourians tyrants? To some they were and to others they were not.
Was Brigham Young a tyrant? To some, not at all, to others at times yes, and to some he was always a tyrant.
Two of ancestors risked their lives in attempting to rescue Mormons stranded at Martin's cove. I grew up 6 miles from Fort Bridger, and had endless respect for Brigham Young. Every time I would hear someone be self righteous about Sunday observance, I would think of Brigham Young stopping in the middle of General Conference and organizing a rescue party to retrieve the saints from the winter blizzard. Paraphrasing "meeting and prays will do little when Meat and Potatoes is what is needed" or something along those very pragmatic lines.
Brigham Yong was my hero of heroes, and over the years I had learned unflattering and troubling facts about him. One of my GGGreat Aunts was one of his plural wifes, that lived in Minersville Utah and he has promised to "fetch" her to SLC and take care of her. She at lest assumed that she would share in the great wealth that the Yong dynasty has accumulated.
There is the also well documented statement that Brigham told the Indians that they could take the horsed and cattle of the Fancer-Baker wagon train. Is it not implied that Mormons could do the same? Look at what the did do?
Even so, when I learned that Brigham Young at the same time the my ancestors were risking their lives rescuing emigrants on the wind swept plains where I grew up, (I know how cold it can get) he sent a another small party out to retrieve a steam engine that he had purchased, so that it could get safely to the valley to help build his kingdoms.
That was the final straw for that man and he fell from grace.
I no longer accord Brigham Young the excuses for his bad behavior that I once did.
Did I put Brigham Young above other great men like John Taylor or Orson Pratt, and way above any modern prophet? Yes.
I as very attracted to his pragmatism, he appeared to put people first above old traditions of keeping he Sabbath day holy.
For me, that Brigham Young would divert even one small company of men retrieve a metal engine, from bad weather at the same time, shows me that even though Brigham cared more about people than religious traditions, he cared more about power, speculation of future money and his financial investment than the new converts freezing to death some miles past the steam engine in Martin's Cove.
I no longer follow the tradition of picking people at the top of the heap as my heroes, but those that suffered in Minersville, and Portersville and risked their lives for Principals rather then Profits.
The Victors write the history. You go with the majority and indulge in hero worship of those at the top.
Some day you may grow to appreciate whom the REAL Latter-day Saints are.....
For plporter: According to the statistics published by the U.S. Census Bureau (you can check its official website yourself), there were 11,380 people in Utah in 1850; 40,273, in 1860; 86,786, in 1870; and 143,963 in 1880. Brigham Young died in 1877 when Utah Territory's population was probably well over 100,000. The U.S. government disincorporated both the LDS Church and its Perpetual Emigrating Fund (P.E.F.) in 1887 as part of the Edmunds-Tucker Act. The P.E.F. alone had helped about 30,000 immigrants to get to Utah to establish themselves and carve out their meager existence in the desert (and in Porterville). The LDS Church's Mormon Pioneer Overland Travel database (you can also access this via the Internet) states that "about 60,000" people crossed the plains to Utah between 1847 and 1868 (while Brigham Young was serving as president of the Church). So while there were significant numbers of New York, Missouri, Ohio, and Illinois-era Mormons who, for whatever reason, didn't come to Utah, there were obviously very large numbers who did. Nauvoo's population in 1846 is only estimated to have been about 10,000-15,000. You do the math. As for the large vote of "no confidence" in Brigham Young, by the same standard what can we conclude about Abraham Lincoln? Half the nation thumbed their nose at him and spent several years trying to kill the Northerners to prove their point. Does this mean Lincoln was a failure? To me it indicated he stood his ground for what he knew was right and didn't let popular opinion or backsliders influence his decisions--some of which were good, some were mediocre, and some weren't so good. I'd be very careful about believing and swallowing every family legend you hear. Nearly all of the ones I've put to the test in my family have shown me that tales get enhanced with each retelling, and oftentimes they get contorted and twisted by the personality/agenda of the one telling them. For example, I have a great grandfather who was excommunicated in Utah in 1883. The family story recounts that his only sin was that he was a businessman who simply owned property in a nearby town that had a saloon operating on it and he couldn't do anything about the situation. Succeeding generations of family members told and colored the story with their own indignant attitude that great grandpa was the "poor picked-on underdog that was persecuted by the mean old self-righteous Church people." I decided when I was a history student in college to try and either prove or disprove the story. Guess what? After a few years of digging, I found the truth. County property records, published directories, and local newspapers that I searched revealed that great grandpa didn't own land in a nearby town that hosted a saloon. Rather, he co-owned a notorious saloon in the same town he actually lived in. His bishop's diary, housed in a local archives, included entries talking about warnings the bishop gave to great grandpa that he needed to make a choice between either running a saloon or being excommunicated for action unbecoming a member of the Church. You see, an occupation that profitted off helping to get men drunk so they kept their families in poverty or went home and beat their wives and children isn't exactly what the Lord thinks is acceptable behavior. So great grandpa made his choice, and that unwise choice brought a quick and severe consequence. He was "cut off" in 1883, and his excommunication notice was published in the local newspaper (of which I have a photocopy). Interestingly, even though he was an ex-communicant for many years, his wife served as a Relief Society president and three of his four sons served LDS missions. Great grandpa finally disposed of his saloon, swallowed his pride (and arrogance), and was rebaptized in 1919, about thirty-six years after thumbing his nose at the Church. That's the real story here--great grandpa realizing he was wrong and correcting himself, even though it took many years. Even though I have documentary proof of what I just described, I have cousins who prefer and perpetuate the more colorful version, primarily because they're estranged from the Church and have their own self-righteous agendas. They revel in "getting back" at the Church whenever possible, even if it means repeating old wives' tales that aren't true. I learned through this experience to be exceptionally wary and careful of family traditions, legends, and stories--even those told to me while being bounced on grandma's knee. ++Last topic++ I am totally unfamiliar with the story you tell about Brigham Young sending out a rescue party to bring in a "metal engine" in the dead of winter. Are you talking 1856 here? If you are, it couldn't have been a railroad engine, because the railroad wasn't even close to Utah until 1867-1869, about eleven to twelve years later than the Willey and Martin handcart rescue. I'd love to hear some facts about this story rather than allegations and suppositions. Since you stated that you have done graduate-level work, I presume you know how to follow through with solid research and footnotes. I'd love to know more about the truth of this story.
For plporter: According to the statistics published by the U.S. Census Bureau (you can check its official website yourself), there were 11,380 people in Utah in 1850;
I don't know if anyone has split hairs over the this research before, but I would dare say that 90% or more of the Nauvoo Saints that had met and knew Brigham Young were in the valley without 5 years. Thus most of the Saints filling the valley after 1852 were converts from England, that had never met Brigham Young, till they got to Utah.
Again DDJones wrote:
As for Brigham Young being a tyrant, I'd suggest that you find about 60,000 people who claim they believe you're a prophet and then lead them 1,200 miles to some remote desert and set up a civilization from nothing but what you brought in your knapsacks and covered wagons.
Your assertion being that Brigham Young could not be a tyrant, just look a the number of followers......
That assertion is problematic, as we can find a number of historical figures, with huge followings, what most people outside that cult, political party or religion would say the leader was a tyrant, while those in the fold were very loyal.
Are you ready to back of that assertion?
Or do we have to name names? (KKK, Hitler, Mussolini, Black Panthers, the list could be really long)
I think your statistics bolster the fact that the Mormons that knew Brigham Young and the quagmire of polygamy in Nauvoo, that there were a significant number of members that did not move West.
Plus chances are great that many converts were more attached to the missionaries that converted them than they were to Brigham Young, much like converts today.
You take very poor people in Europe and you pay part of their way to the land of the free and the home of the brave, and you travel all the way to Utah, and are even more poor at that point and in debt to the church, you are obligated to stick around and pay off your debt.
While the analogy is harsh, it is true that many Germans were not fond of the Natzi party, where were not unhappy enough to move out either.
The assertion that because a large number of people moved to Utah with Brigham Young's help, that they didn't quietly feel that at times Brigham was a tyrant, just the same that you can't assume that most Germans supported Hitler because they didn't quietly move out.
Germans, in general didn't know what was going on behind closed doors and converts didn't know what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were doing behind closed doors either. I am not saying that the activities behind closed doors were similar, I am saying, that the assertion of converts moving to America, and Utah, with church help, is not an automatic vote of confidence.
DDJones wrote: Edmunds-Tucker Act. The P.E.F. alone had helped about 30,000 immigrants to get to Utah to establish themselves and carve out their meager existence in the desert (and in Porterville).
Which brings up a point, how inspired was Brigham Young? If they have pushed on California and the San Joaquin Valley, they could have had the same agrarian society, with a longer growing cycle, and less harsh winters. Mormons were among those that first found Gold in California. Imagine what that P.E.F. would have been like if even a small group of immigrants would have setup claims early on, and had a huge jump on the 49ers. The P.E.F. may not have ended financially bankrupt the way it did.
Look at just a few things that Wiki says about San Joaquin Valley
-----------
Agriculture
Historian Kevin Starr has referred to the San Joaquin Valley as "the most productive unnatural environment on Earth." By some estimates, fully 25% of the United States' agricultural production (as measured by dollar value) comes from California, and the vast majority of that is in the San Joaquin Valley. Grapes table, raisin, and to a lesser extent wine are perhaps the valley's highest-profile product, but equally (if not more) important are cotton, nuts (especially almonds and pistachios), citrus, and vegetables. The Boswell farm in Kings County is the largest single cotton farm in the world, occupying over 40,000 acres (162 km ). Certain places are identified quite strongly with a given crop: Stockton produces the majority of the asparagus consumed in the United States, and Fresno is credited as the birthplace of the raisin.
Cattle and sheep ranching are also vitally important to the valley's economy. During recent years, dairy farming has greatly expanded in importance.
-----------
Now don't go off on some Sunday school tangent about how it was part of God's plan to stay isolated in Utah, and that is the only way that the church could have survived, because that does not put much faith in the Mormon church being true and leads opens up claims of being a cult, because cults tend to thrive in isolation. Don't put too much stock in the faith promoting this is the place monument, as research has shown that Californian was still considered a destination for quite some time after 1847. (hopefully I have avoided a little back forth waste of cyber space.)
DDJones wrote:
The LDS Church's Mormon Pioneer Overland Travel database (you can also access this via the Internet) states that "about 60,000" people crossed the plains to Utah between 1847 and 1868 (while Brigham Young was serving as president of the Church). So while there were significant numbers of New York, Missouri, Ohio, and Illinois-era Mormons who, for whatever reason, didn't come to Utah, there were obviously very large numbers who did. Nauvoo's population in 1846 is only estimated to have been about 10,000-15,000. You do the math.
OK you can us that same math to show that most Mormons moving to Utah, would not have known Brigham Young, before moving to Utah....
Plus shouldn't they be following God rather than man? :^)
DDJones wrote: As for the large vote of "no confidence" in Brigham Young, by the same standard what can we conclude about Abraham Lincoln? Half the nation thumbed their nose at him and spent several years trying to kill the Northerners to prove their point. Does this mean Lincoln was a failure?
In some ways yes he was. Do you really have to KILL other people to persuade them of your position? Could there have been better ways to resolve the Slavery issue, without destroying the economic base of the South? I would hope so.
DDJones wrote:
To me it indicated he stood his ground for what he knew was right and didn't let popular opinion or backsliders influence his decisions--some of which were good, some were mediocre, and some weren't so good. I'd be very careful about believing and swallowing every family legend you hear.
I am glade to see that you are not a black and white thinker, that discussion is such a waste of time. Because I have stood MY ground for what I knew was right, at that point in time and you have not yet dissuaded me.
But unless you are willing to back off your assertion that "As for Brigham Young being a tyrant, I'd suggest that you find about 60,000 people who claim they believe you're a prophet and then lead them 1,200 miles to some remote desert and set up a civilization from nothing but what you brought in your knapsacks and covered wagons.", then no beneficial discussion will take place.
DDJones wrote: A a heartfelt description of family struggles of leaving the church. And a applaud your efforts to dig down for the truth.
In the end it is spun in a faith promoting way of coming back into the church in the end.
There are some sticking points with the story that are still very colored, that are part of Mormon culture. Why not mention his name and the name of the town?
Second, people that drink don't always beat their wives, and they can drink at home as well and still beat their wives. There are plenty of people that don't drink and still beat their wives and children. I have never said this in public, but as long as we are being honest, my father drank when he was younger and did so till my middle sister was about 8, (my father would have been 30 something and is now 91). I was not born when he used to smoke and drink, but now one now can even imagine him doing so. Still he stopped drinking and smoking and went to church every week and still does, but he never stopped beating his children. Would it not be proper to mention his name while he is still alive ? Mormon culture would say it is bad form. Well if my father had repented of this sin of abusing his children physically, I would remember him coming and making times right for what he did wrong. Well it has not happened.... Probably will not at this point. Ok then his name is Don Gilbert Porter. My grand father was dead for over 30 years before any of the family would talk about him sexually molesting his grand children.
For the most part we have a tradition of painting inactive members in a bad light and active members in a more positive light than they deserve.
There are also the family stories that run counter to that and we defend family members against church actions and then as family members we also tend to back the church and leave family members without support and are unchristian to our own family members.
Yea, it is kind of a mess, there is no one way to categorize family stories without digging way deep into motives, which are very very very difficult to prove.
Again I applaud your efforts to dig down for the truth!
DDJones wrote:
++Last topic++ I am totally unfamiliar with the story you tell about Brigham Young sending out a rescue party to bring in a "metal engine" in the dead of winter. Are you talking 1856 here? If you are, it couldn't have been a railroad engine, because the railroad wasn't even close to Utah until 1867-1869, about eleven to twelve years later than the Willey and Martin handcart rescue. I'd love to hear some facts about this story rather than allegations and suppositions. Since you stated that you have done graduate-level work, I presume you know how to follow through with solid research and footnotes. I'd love to know more about the truth of this story.
Well I first heard Will talk about this in a Sunstone presentation a few years back, I think he also talks about it here.
Not sure it his presentation at Sunstone was published.
But here is a start.
Perry
===========
See Torture Devices_SL06252
SL06252, Two-Wheeled Torture Devices: A Contrarian's View of the Handcart Disaster - speakers: Will Bagley, Lyndia Carter - symposium: 2006 Salt Lake Symposium - excerpt: '' Abstract- A plenary session at this spring’s meeting of the Mormon History Association asked four experts to address the question: “Who or What to Blame? Assessing the Multiple Causes of the Willie and Martin Handcart Disaster.” All four pointed the finger at Apostle Franklin D. Richards, who rightly deserves his share of the blame for the disaster. But I believe it is also time to take a hard look at the person who designed, promoted, and insisted on maintaining the handcart system long after its critical flaws had been revealed: Brigham Young. This presentation examines long-ignored evidence identifying what was wrong with what Danish handcart pioneer John A. Ahmanson called “those two-wheeled man-tormentors,” which I have translated more freely as “torture devices.” Have historians of the disaster “put the saddle on the right horse”?
Sorry, I have tried, but I can't rustle up the source you cited about the rescue of the "engine". Maybe you could contact Mr. Bagley and have him share his sources.
What I read into the census figures is that we don't know for sure (nor does it really matter) how many people in the New York, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, and/or European eras didn't make it to Utah or came to Utah and then left later. I don't see how population figures or fluctuations thereof either validate or invalidate Brigham Young's claim to be the legitimate successor to Joseph Smith.
I'm afraid I didn't follow your comment on the tyrant issue. Brigham had a huge, if not overwhelming, responsibility for starting and perfecting the "Kingdom of God" out of pretty much nothing but a salty lake and sea of sagebrush. He couldn't have succeeded at all with a wimpish personality. Was Moses a milquetoast? I have heard several historians label the pioneers' trip across the plains (notably excluding the Willie and Martin experience, of course) a comparative Sunday picnic excursion compared to the hand-to-mouth meager existence the first generation faced once they arrived in Utah and doggedly tried to survive. In an atmosphere like that Brigham had to be determined, organized, and tough--especially with 10,000 initially and 80,000 to 90,000 people subsequently coming to a land they had never seen nor experienced. To me the word "tyrant" brings up images of Josef Stalin or Idi Amin. With that definition, I can't judge Brigham Young with that term, like many detractors do so flippantly. With all his challenges I cut Brigham lots of slack. He succeeded in doing the impossible.
Regarding your assertion that life would have been easier in California, I wholeheartedly agree. Brigham would have agreed, too. Moses led the Children of Israel around in the desert for forty years. Life would have been big and easy in comparison anywhere but there. But you see, Moses did what God told him to do, and apparently, God had his reasons for toughening up his followers. Probably winnowed out some chaff in the process. I suspect Brigham brought the pioneers out here for a similar purpose. I don't know if you've noticed the phenomenon, but when life gets cushy and easy many people suddenly abandon God for money (or California gold in this case?). Read a few of Brigham's talks for yourself and see whether or not you come to the same conclusion. In fact, there's a wise/funny quote that I saw on a poster at BYU many years ago. It read something like, "The worst fear I have about this people is that they will grow rich, wax fat, forget God, kick themselves out of the Kingdom, and go to Hell." I'll see if I can track down the quote for you. If I remember right it's recorded in some pioneer's diary who heard Brigham say it and paraphrased it.
Regarding my great grandfather's story, this one turned out in a happy conclusion, except for the fact that for 36 years he missed out on many of the blessings of the Gospel like being able to baptize his children, pay tithing, receive a patriarchal blessing, speak in Church meetings, attend the temple when his children married, perform temple work for his ancestors, etc. Had he not humbled himself and changed his life, I would still tell the story with the unhappy ending.
I don't intend to represent that alcoholics are the cause of all crime and misery in the world, but you can't deny that alcohol is a drug and that it causes all types of misbehavior and evil (murders, fights, sexual and physical abuse, drunk drivers killing people, for example--16,694 in 2004). Which is apparently why the Lord doesn't want us toying around with alcohol or encouraging others to imbibe.
I am very sorry that you and your family have experienced the wrenchingly sad experience of physical and sexual abuse. It sounds to me like some people who claimed to be Christians should have been invited to a Church disciplinary council to answer for their actions and have their membership challenged. Fortunately, society has changed and such behavior that wasn't talked about openly before, has been dealt with by such councils. Unfortunately, in this life there is no guarantee of fairness or justice. However, I believe both your father and your grandfather will have to face the Lord and answer for the evil and disgrace they inflicted. It's obvious they haven't repented, otherwise, they would have asked for forgiveness from the people they offended. The Lord will make it up to you and the other innocent victims at some point. I don't know how but He will.
DDJones wrote: Sorry, I have tried, but I can't rustle up the source you cited about the rescue of the "engine". Maybe you could contact Mr. Bagley and have him share his sources.
Perry> I only see him once or twice a year. Are you saying you only believe account if you see the sources? You don't think that FARMS or FAIR would jump all over Will if he invented the steam engine story about Brigham Young?
What I read into the census figures is that we don't know for sure (nor does it really matter)
Perry > The entire point of my replying to your post was because you said it DID matter that why would so many people follow Brigham Young to Utah if he were a tyrant?
Perry > Is this your way of backing of your assertion?
Perry > I thought I made some pretty good points about how most of the people that moved to Utah, did so without knowing Brigham Young and that of those that did know him in Nauvoo, many chose not to follow him to Utah?
Perry > Can't you acknowledge those as pretty good points?
I'm afraid I didn't follow your comment on the tyrant issue. Brigham had a huge, if not overwhelming, responsibility for starting and perfecting the "Kingdom of God" out of pretty much nothing but a salty lake and sea of sagebrush. He couldn't have succeeded at all with a wimpish personality. Was Moses a milquetoast?
Perry > Sounds like you are describing "tyrants" maybe mild compared to other such as " Josef Stalin or Idi Amin" but the label might fit in some situations?
DDJones wrote:
As for Brigham Young being a tyrant, I'd suggest that you find about 60,000 people who claim they believe you're a prophet and then lead them 1,200 miles to some remote desert and set up a civilization from nothing but what you brought in your knapsacks and covered wagons.
Josef Stalin, Idi Amin and Adolph Hitler had huge loyal followings, much bigger then Brigham Young, that not only followed their leader, but killed and died for them.
DDJones wrote:
As for Brigham Young being a tyrant, I'd suggest that you find about 60,000 people who claim they believe you're a prophet and then lead them 1,200 miles to some remote desert and set up a civilization from nothing but what you brought in your knapsacks and covered wagons.
Perry > Go ahead and lets be done with this, admit that you made an assertion that was backup by a claim that was not only misleading but is not an indicator if someone is a tyrant or not.
Perry > True, Mormons crossing the plains was seen in hind sight much worse than it was at the time it happened.
With all his challenges I cut Brigham lots of slack. He succeeded in doing the impossible.
Perry > Sorry to split hairs here, but you have some major hero warship going on here, if the task were truly impossible, then Brigham Young could not have done it.
Regarding your assertion that life would have been easier in California, I wholeheartedly agree. Brigham would have agreed, too. Moses led the Children of Israel around in the desert for forty years. Life would have been big and easy in comparison anywhere but there. But you see, Moses did what God told him to do, and apparently, God had his reasons for toughening up his followers.
Perry > I wrote: "Don't put too much stock in the faith promoting this is the place monument, as research has shown that Californian was still considered a destination for quite some time after 1847. (hopefully I have avoided a little back and forth waste of cyber space.)", yet you still contend that it was part of God's plan to live in a desert. The fact that there was continued discussion of moving on to California, indicates that either it was Brigham Young's idea and not inspiration from God, or that God and Brigham were taking past each other, much the way we are. Or there was a lot of magic thinking going on after the fact.
Probably winnowed out some chaff in the process. I suspect Brigham brought the pioneers out here for a similar purpose.
Perry > OUCH! That is pretty arrogant to say that that suffered or died were Chaff! The idea that the righteous lived and the weak died or moved on…. OUCH! I think I could be persuaded that there was a linage of self-righteous that continues on to this day!
I don't know if you've noticed the phenomenon, but when life gets cushy and easy many people suddenly abandon God for money (or California gold in this case?).
Perry > But Gold and Silver from Jesse Knight, would be the exception, right?
"The worst fear I have about this people is that they will grow rich, wax fat, forget God, kick themselves out of the Kingdom, and go to Hell." …. but you can't deny that alcohol is a drug and that it causes all types of misbehavior and evil (murders, fights, sexual and physical abuse, drunk drivers killing people, for example--16,694 in 2004). Which is apparently why the Lord doesn't want us toying around with alcohol or encouraging others to imbibe.
Perry > As far as getting rich and fat, and encouraging others to drink a few years ago when they had an exclusive contract with most airlines, the largest seller of alcohol, in the nation was none other then J. Willard Marriott! But we will look the other way as long as one partakes of the " blessings" of paying tithing.
I am very sorry that you and your family have experienced the wrenchingly sad experience of physical and sexual abuse. It sounds to me like some people who claimed to be Christians should have been invited to a Church disciplinary council to answer for their actions and have their membership challenged. Fortunately, society has changed and such behavior that wasn't talked about openly before, has been dealt with by such councils.
Perry > Gee I think that my grandfather died in 1979, that is hardly the dark ages. I think that people knew that child molesting was wrong, but he was a powerful man in the community and in the ruled with an iron hand in the family.
Perry > I think the statute of limitations should last as long as the effects that molesting someone is still an issue. Posthumously we let people back into the church, why should we not posthumously excommunicate anyone that had sexually molested small boys or girls? Why not? If the council's decisions are lead by inspiration, in the face of overwhelming evidence, why not move to excommunicate? Today is just as much a part of eternity as tomorrow is.
Unfortunately, in this life there is no guarantee of fairness or justice. However, I believe both your father and your grandfather will have to face the Lord and answer for the evil and disgrace they inflicted. It's obvious they haven't repented, otherwise, they would have asked for forgiveness from the people they offended. The Lord will make it up to you and the other innocent victims at some point. I don't know how but He will.
Perry > Hummmmm that is not much comfort for those that I know that still suffer from inappropriate touching that happened years ago. Those leaders that sides with the perpetrator and ignored the pain of the victims, should be held accountable, just like the leaders that put a priority and a portion of rescue efforts into a steam engine while saints froze to death on the plains.
Perry > DDJones, the more you right the younger you appear to be. With that aside, I think it is time for you to not simply acquiesce the following assertion, but openly admit that you overstated.
DDJones wrote:
As for Brigham Young being a tyrant, I'd suggest that you find about 60,000 people who claim they believe you're a prophet and then lead them 1,200 miles to some remote desert and set up a civilization from nothing but what you brought in your knapsacks and covered wagons.
Perry > We can always quibble over how big or small of a tyrant Brigham Young was, but how many people followed him is not an indication of an unsullied life.
Since this discussion doesn't seem to be going much of anywhere (except in cybercircles), here are my final comments.
Regarding the rescue of the "engine," I have searched everywhere I know to find it and simply can't track it down. When information is that scarce about such a hot topic, I start to wonder what's up. That's why I'd like to see some primary source materials instead of rely on hearsay. I sorry, but I don't blindly subscribe to the concept of "In Bagley We Trust." If he's got "proof," then let's see it. What is he afraid of? He doesn't seem to have published anything about this topic, and not everyone in the Universe attends Sunstone.
Topic of Brigham Young: Whether or not 57 or 257,000 people followed Brigham Young and the Apostles from Nauvoo to Utah is neither proof nor lack of proof that Brigham was appointed by the Power Upstairs to lead the members west. Compare the situation to Noah. How many people followed him compared to the number who could and should have followed him? Not very many. Did that diminish Noah's role of Prophet? Apparently not in God's eyes, which are the only ones that actually count. You seemed to indicate in your initial remarks that because so many Nauvoo-era members didn't follow Brigham Young west that meant his role as Prophet was rejected and negated and he was therefore not a Prophet. At least that's what I read into your remarks--maybe I misunderstood them.
Was Brigham a tyrant? Here's the definition of tyrant from the dictionary: 1. a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly. 2. any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically. 3. a tyrannical or compulsory influence. 4. an absolute ruler, esp. one in ancient Greece or Sicily. Synonyms: despot, autocrat, dictator.
Keep in mind that Mormonism was/is a theocracy trying to co-exist peaceably in a democracy, which is one of the number one reasons why Americans resented and despised Mormons in the 19th century and still have a hard time trying to deal with us today.
I believe Brigham, as I stated above, was very firm and adamant at times (he even made mistakes just like every other human who has ever lived), but he had to be organized and firm to prevent chaos from destroying unity. Have you ever had to lead a group of people to do anything--like being a supervisor at work, or something? How easy/hard was that? How popular/unpopular were you? Did you ever have to make decisions that made everyone mad at you, but you still had to stand your ground? If so, can we label you a "tyrant"? You can take pot shots at Brigham till you're out of bullets, but the fact remains that despite his human failings (I have yet to read anything in which he stated he was "unsullied"), he was the Prophet that God selected to get the Saints from Nauvoo to Utah and set them up again where no one would attack and drive them out. You either believe he was a Prophet, or you don't. I believe it. You apparently don't. I'm pretty sure I could probably never say anything or offer sufficient proof of anything good about the man that would convince you otherwise. Your mind seems to be made up that he was a bully, fraud, egomanic, etc. Somewhere you've picked up an opinion that a man has to be perfect to be a Prophet, and because Brigham wasn't perfect (and you can prove it and proudly point out all his character moles and birthmarks), he wasn't a Prophet and therefore Mormonism is also a great big fraud?
Next topic: Mr. Marriott will answer to the same God that your grandfather has already met. How about we let God decide their fate? I may be young (?) but I have already learned that there is no perfect fairness or justice in this life.
Finally: If you're still troubled by the sexual abuse issue, and I'm sorry that you might be, then I'd suggest you get some help. There are plenty of therapists and counselors now who can provide that help.
DDJones wrote:
Since this discussion doesn't seem to be going much of anywhere (except in cybercircles), here are my final comments.
DDJones> Regarding the rescue of the "engine," I have searched everywhere I know to find it and simply can't track it down.
Perry> New historical information, tends to tale a while to trickle down to the Internet sometimes.
DDJones> When information is that scarce about such a hot topic, I start to wonder what's up. That's why I'd like to see some primary source materials instead of rely on hearsay. I sorry, but I don't blindly subscribe to the concept of "In Bagley We Trust." If he's got "proof," then let's see it. What is he afraid of? He doesn't seem to have published anything about this topic, and not everyone in the Universe attends Sunstone.
Perry> That is pretty harsh about someone that I suspect you don't know. I have known Will Bagley since 1994 when he spoke to our small chapter of the Utah County Chapter of the Utah Historical Society. Your comments above are not justified here.
Topic of Brigham Young: Whether or not 57 or 257,000 people followed Brigham Young and the Apostles from Nauvoo to Utah is neither proof nor lack of proof that Brigham was appointed by the Power Upstairs to lead the members west.
DDJones wrote:
As for Brigham Young being a tyrant, I'd suggest that you find about 60,000 people who claim they believe you're a prophet and then lead them 1,200 miles to some remote desert and set up a civilization from nothing but what you brought in your knapsacks and covered wagons.
When I read the following remark by you several weeks ago, I felt it was an overstatement I will take your admission above to be as close to a retraction as I am likely to get.
Was Brigham a tyrant? Here's the definition of tyrant from the dictionary: 1. a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly. 2. any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically. 3. a tyrannical or compulsory influence. 4. an absolute ruler, esp. one in ancient Greece or Sicily. Synonyms: despot, autocrat, dictator.
Perry > I repeat "We can always quibble over how big or small of a tyrant Brigham Young was…"
DDJones> Keep in mind that Mormonism was/is a theocracy trying to co-exist peaceably in a democracy,
Perry> Just when I thought this thread was put to bed you say something else that requires correction.
While the church in Utah was a theocracy, (which lends itself too easily to be ruled by a tyrant, which started this tread), I do not see how you can or should say it "is" a theocracy now. Lets just have the dictionary point out the obvious.
theocracy
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.
1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.
A nation or state in which the clergy exercise political power and in which religious law is dominant over civil law. Iran led by the Ayatollah Khomeini was a theocracy under the Islamic clergy. (See Islam.)
DDJones> …. which is one of the number one reasons why Americans resented and despised Mormons in the 19th century and still have a hard time trying to deal with us today.
Perry> You speak as if having a theocracy in our day and time here in pluralistic America would be a good thing?
DDJones> I believe Brigham, as I stated above, was very firm and adamant at times (he even made mistakes just like every other human who has ever lived), but he had to be organized and firm to prevent chaos from destroying unity. Have you ever had to lead a group of people to do anything--like being a supervisor at work, or something? How easy/hard was that? How popular/unpopular were you? Did you ever have to make decisions that made everyone mad at you, but you still had to stand your ground? If so, can we label you a "tyrant"? You can take pot shots at Brigham till you're out of bullets, but the fact remains that despite his human failings (I have yet to read anything in which he stated he was "unsullied"), he was the Prophet that God selected to get the Saints from Nauvoo to Utah and set them up again where no one would attack and drive them out. You either believe he was a Prophet, or you don't.
Perry> Why would you want to paint live and people in such black and white term?
DDJones> I believe it. You apparently don't. I'm pretty sure I could probably never say anything or offer sufficient proof of anything good about the man that would convince you otherwise.
Perry> I am not sure why you are eager to put words in my mouth or attribute me to black and white thinking. You have setup your straw man, now push him over if it makes you feel better.
DDJones> Your mind seems to be made up that he was a bully, fraud, egomaniac, etc. Somewhere you've picked up an opinion that a man has to be perfect to be a Prophet, and because Brigham wasn't perfect (and you can prove it and proudly point out all his character moles and birthmarks), he wasn't a Prophet and therefore Mormonism is also a great big fraud?
Perry> Well you have setup your straw man and how shoved him over and stomped on him. Attempts to meet mutual ground and learn and grow from others experiences, has left at odds with your characterizing me, as a Prophet hater, when I was merely tying to putout that you made a statement that seemed to be over stated.
DDJones> Next topic: Mr. Marriott will answer to the same God that your grandfather has already met. How about we let God decide their fate? I may be young (?) but I have already learned that there is no perfect fairness or justice in this life.
Perry> Well like a drop of cold water on a hot skillet, by the time I reply to this you will be in a new location in the frying pan, or maybe even in to the fire. ;^)
So am I right in assuming Gods condemnation of whom sells alcohol and why is ethically situational? Sin can be overlooked depending on the amount of tithing we indulge in.
DDJones> Finally: If you're still troubled by the sexual abuse issue, and I'm sorry that you might be, then I'd suggest you get some help. There are plenty of therapists and counselors now who can provide that help.
Perry> Hummmm that is curious, you seemed to have been predisposed to weigh in on making moral judgments often in our exchange, but when it comes to removing members in good standing from their membership, for conduct definitely unbecoming a member of the church, i.e. sexual abuse, is left without condemnation, simply because the perpetrators are dead? Hummm I hope the next generation does not see it this way.
Too bad those who denounce "the slippery slope of character assassination" consider this historian fair game. And why stick with facts when slime is so much easier? "Mr. Sanders and Mr. Bagley can't read Pitman, either, but that hasn't stopped them from wholesale conjuring and hyperventilating about contrived conspiracies." Sanders and Bagley, in fact, have more than 400 typewritten transcriptions from four of Long's Pitman notebooks. Long's daughter believed her father was killed, and as for conjecture about who might have murdered him, I suggested Bill Hickman might have done it for the Union
Pacific: but this is only a "family tradition, while others believe Wild Bill was working for his usual employer, the Old Boss. Given the contradictory, even "hinky" reports of Long's death, any decent historian should be suspicious.
My friend Ron Barney also feels the Long Collection is valuable.
Brigham Young did not in fact stop General Conference to launch the "rescue" of the handcart victims. He had other priorities. Young ordered A.O. Smoot to get the prophet's pet steam engine, which Smoot had parked at Fort Bridger, and haul all 13,000 pounds of it into town. Frank Woolley took teams from the Willey Company, which was at Bear River: eight members died on the rest of the trip to Salt Lake.
I've got an article on this coming up in "Journal of Mormon History,"
which will no doubt make me the most beloved Utah historian of all time.
"Owing to the lateness of the season and being too heavily loaded &c, we had a hard trip and did not arrive until the snows began to fall in the mountains[.] We had the first snow at the ?three crossings? of Sweetwater River and more or less afterwards until we got home. At Fort Ridges [Bridger] we left 8 waggons and their loads as it was impossible for our teams to take them all, through to the valley when at the mouth of Echo Kanyon [Canyon] Bro Smoot received a letter from Bro Young directing him to bring all the goods in and if he had not enough team to call upon the brethren who were out in the mountains with ox teams to assist the hand cart emmigrations, to assist in bring [-] the waggons that we left at Bridges [Bridger]. I was again called on to go back and bring up the rear which was able to do with considerable talking to some of the brethren who feared the season was too late to venture back to the fort with cattle but I succeeded in obtaining enough to answer my purpose and brought everything in, in good condition."
Woolley, Franklin Benjamin, Autobiography [ca. 1856], 13?15, LDS Archives. Digital copy at http://www...799,00.htm l [31 July 2006].
Young apparently had no clear idea of what to do with the steam engine and sold it to the Iron Mission in Cedar City for $2,500. He also shipped many of the crippled handcart survivors to "Dixie," where they, like the steam engine, would be out of sight.
11/13/2007 10:33:53 PM
© 2009 KUER, 101 S. Wasatch Dr., SLC, UT 84112