Brigham: Good or Bad?

[Luke]

Here's a divisive one. Was Brigham Young a great leader or unmitigated disaster?

[Rick Grimes]

Good leader. Made mistakes to be sure, but instrumental to the restoration of the gospel of our Lord.

[LukeAir2008]

After Joseph Smith, the greatest President the Church has had. Friend of Joseph, schooled and taught by Joseph, trusted by Joseph, in place to be the Senior Apostle when Joseph died.

[Lexew1899]

Good. He was just rough around the edges.

[Robin Hood]

Like all human beings Bro. Brigham was good and bad.

[tdj]

Both: He was a great leader as far as public relations is concerned. One of the best the church has ever had.
But he was absolutely horrid in his personal life. Let's face it, the widows weren't married to him for their sake, but so that he could acquire their land and property. No reason at all in Utah that he couldn't have pressed for a law saying women could keep their own land upon widowhood. Or did he? Even if one could excuse that part with the argument that the women weren't left destitute, there's no excuse for engaging in intercourse with multiple women and fathering over 50 kids.

[LDS Watchman]

I believe Brother Brigham was a good leader and the man God wanted to lead the Church after Joseph Smith.

He was definitely not perfect and rough around the edges.

In spite of his shortcomings I have a lot of respect for him.

I especially appreciate that he gave it to you straight and wasn't afraid to give his opinion on controversial issues.

I also appreciate his warnings about what would happen to the Church, if we joined hands with Babylon and caved to worldly pressure. His words have proven prophetic.

[Silas]

Both: He was a great leader as far as public relations is concerned. One of the best the church has ever had.
But he was absolutely horrid in his personal life. Let's face it, the widows weren't married to him for their sake, but so that he could acquire their land and property. No reason at all in Utah that he couldn't have pressed for a law saying women could keep their own land upon widowhood. Or did he? Even if one could excuse that part with the argument that the women weren't left destitute, there's no excuse for engaging in intercourse with multiple women and fathering over 50 kids.

His excellence as a father and husband to many has always been one of the things that has caused me to deeply admire him.

[Allison]

I don't know enough to come out with a dogmatic opinion, but from what I do know, I think he had some good and powerful traits, as well as some problems. When his version of events differs from Joseph's, I side with Joseph. But he does seem to have been born to get the saints out west.

[MikeMaillet]

Bad. He reminds me of king Noah in The Book Of Mormon.

[Allison]

Both: He was a great leader as far as public relations is concerned. One of the best the church has ever had.
But he was absolutely horrid in his personal life. Let's face it, the widows weren't married to him for their sake, but so that he could acquire their land and property. No reason at all in Utah that he couldn't have pressed for a law saying women could keep their own land upon widowhood. Or did he? Even if one could excuse that part with the argument that the women weren't left destitute, there's no excuse for engaging in intercourse with multiple women and fathering over 50 kids.

His excellence as a father and husband to many has always been one of the things that has caused me to deeply admire him.

What information do you have on how he parented them all?

[Silas]

Both: He was a great leader as far as public relations is concerned. One of the best the church has ever had.
But he was absolutely horrid in his personal life. Let's face it, the widows weren't married to him for their sake, but so that he could acquire their land and property. No reason at all in Utah that he couldn't have pressed for a law saying women could keep their own land upon widowhood. Or did he? Even if one could excuse that part with the argument that the women weren't left destitute, there's no excuse for engaging in intercourse with multiple women and fathering over 50 kids.

His excellence as a father and husband to many has always been one of the things that has caused me to deeply admire him.

What information do you have on how he parented them all?

There are letters back and forth between him and his children. Biographies have been written. You can get some information on tours of one of his homes.

It’s not secret hidden stuff. Out there for anyone. I suppose if one is predisposed to look down upon polygamist they will filter out anything positive about his family life.

[BruceRGilbert]

That it would be easy to categorically classify someone as entirely good or entirely bad! Brigham Young, as well as each one of us, is a composite of both good and bad. He had weaknesses as a human being, as we all do. As a leader, he was chosen by God because of his "quirks." Brigham was a very stalwart and "determined" leader. It was this attribute that qualified him to hold the Church together after the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He had clear ideas as to how things ought to be done and was quite "stubborn" in insisting that they be so. For this reason he was referred to as "The Lion." Controversy surrounds his demise. There was a time when it was suspect that he was poisoned.

Brigham got many things right, but, too, he got some things wrong:
1.) Adam-God Theory
2.) Blood Atonement
3.) The Endowment "Additions:" viz a viz: Oath of Vengeance, Penalties, *Entrapment (Pre-swearing and Suppression of Agency: "Bow your head and say "yes.")
4.) Polygamy
5.) Suppression of "minorities:" Native and African Americans.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Emma ... gham_Young

*Agency is an eternal principle with Heavenly Father. He respects the freedom to choose. He is "forthright" and explains the conditions of any covenant He requests BEFORE an answer is solicited. As in all things, the intelligence who is invited to enter into a covenant agreement with Him is given the choice to refuse. He offers no "small print" nor does He amend additional clauses without approval of BOTH parties. The Law of Common Consent is a practice originating from this attribute. Further "revelation" is needed to "fix" the Endowment.

[Zathura]

It’s a shame that people tend to take things to the extreme. Trump is either a hero or the worst person in existence . Obama is literally the anti christ or the best Man to ever walk to halls of the White House.

Any criticism of Brigham and it’s assumed that the person must think Brigham was an apostate murder whoremonger.

Like Robin Hood and Bruce said, he was good and bad, like every other human out there.

Bruce summed it up nicely.

[BruceRGilbert]

Thank you, Stahura. I believe that Brigham was sincere. He did the things that he believed; however, I do think that he, like us, was subject to "misunderstanding" of some of the "advanced" topics that the Prophet Joseph Smith taught. I believe it had to do with somewhat of a "confirmation bias" of hearing only those things that he was presupposed to without understanding the "deeper" significance of what Joseph Smith intended.

It is very reasonable to assume that Micha_EL was a god on the Council of the Gods; however, He was not the Head God who convened the Council or chose the councilors. This was based on Heavenly Father's foreknowledge. Gabri_EL or Noah, was, also, present - as were others who would later "come down" and become "Dispensation Heads." I think that Brigham kinda got confused because Micha_EL was chosen to be "Adam" or the first.

Brigham kinda got obsessed with this "shedding of blood" to make atonement, thing. He, because of his strict view of "black and white," gave little platitude to "grace" and "mercy." He was an "eye for an eye" type of fellow. His boundaries were always very rigid and well defined. I would tend to think that he heard the Prophet Joseph say the following and took it to mean that Brigham was "sufficient" in his, sometimes, "not prone to correction" state:

The nearer man approaches perfection, the clearer are his views, and the greater his enjoyments, till he has overcome the evils of his life and lost every desire for sin. . . . But we consider that this is a station to which no man ever arrived in a moment: he must have been instructed in the government and laws of that kingdom by proper degrees, until his mind is capable in some measure of comprehending the propriety, justice, equality, and consistency of the same.

Certainly, Brigham could be characterized as "stalwart" and "tenacious," but I don't believe that the terms "considerate, meek, and humble" find a great deal of pronouncement in other's description of him.

The "Polygamy" idea has several roots. Certainly it is appealing to the "natural man" because of a "carnal base" toward "conquest" and "dominion." It was aggravated by the Cochranites and John C. Bennett with the characterization of "Spiritual Wifery." I can understand a gross misinterpretation of the power of "sealing" through the Priesthood and something else that the Prophet Joseph Smith said:

Again: The doctrine or sealing power of Elijah is as follows:—If you have power to seal on earth and in heaven, then we should be wise. The first thing you do, go and seal on earth your sons and daughters unto yourself, and yourself unto your fathers in eternal glory, and go ahead, and not go back, but use a little wisdom, and seal all you can, and when you get to heaven tell your Father that what you seal on earth should be sealed in heaven, according to his promise. I will walk through the gate of heaven and claim what I seal, and those that follow me and my counsel.

It was Joseph's desire to constitute an "Eternal Family." He advocated the "eternal chain" so that many would have opportunity to breach the "veils." If this were not understood in proper context, then it could be made into something very damning in the progression of many people; being a stumbling block of "self-gratification." This was NOT what Heavenly Father, nor Joseph intended. What ensued was neigh unto disaster for the Church because of the idea that it was a condition of exaltation . . . and, of course, man took it upon himself to make haste.

Joseph commissioned Brigham to record the Endowment. We did not receive it without additions. We know that . . . the early endowment included the "Oath of Vengeance" which was added to avenge the death of Joseph Smith. We do not know if there were other embellishments, because we only have Brigham's rendition, at this juncture. I suspect that other things were "added" and I am not privy at this time to know of any "omissions." I have further suspicions; however, I am to hold my tongue at this time.

Brigham would justify Brigham for his choices and actions. I find Brigham's character to be very rigid and uncompromising with regard to his viewpoints. He was not someone who could be easily taught, especially by someone that he considered his inferior. I love the man for what he did in being a "rock" upon which to accomplish an arduous task of uniting a broken, bewildered and frightened people after the death of the Prophet. He; however, was, also, a rough stone rolling that merited some polishing.

[Silas]

Thank you, Stahura. I believe that Brigham was sincere. He did the things that he believed; however, I do think that he, like us, was subject to "misunderstanding" of some of the "advanced" topics that the Prophet Joseph Smith taught. I believe it had to do with somewhat of a "confirmation bias" of hearing only those things that he was presupposed to without understanding the "deeper" significance of what Joseph Smith intended.

It is very reasonable to assume that Micha_EL was a god on the Council of the Gods; however, He was not the Head God who convened the Council or chose the councilors. This was based on Heavenly Father's foreknowledge. Gabri_EL or Noah, was, also, present - as were others who would later "come down" and become "Dispensation Heads." I think that Brigham kinda got confused because Micha_EL was chosen to be "Adam" or the first.

Brigham kinda got obsessed with this "shedding of blood" to make atonement, thing. He, because of his strict view of "black and white," gave little platitude to "grace" and "mercy." He was an "eye for an eye" type of fellow. His boundaries were always very rigid and well defined. I would tend to think that he heard the Prophet Joseph say the following and took it to mean that Brigham was "sufficient" in his, sometimes, "not prone to correction" state:

The nearer man approaches perfection, the clearer are his views, and the greater his enjoyments, till he has overcome the evils of his life and lost every desire for sin. . . . But we consider that this is a station to which no man ever arrived in a moment: he must have been instructed in the government and laws of that kingdom by proper degrees, until his mind is capable in some measure of comprehending the propriety, justice, equality, and consistency of the same.

Certainly, Brigham could be characterized as "stalwart" and "tenacious," but I don't believe that the terms "considerate, meek, and humble" find a great deal of pronouncement in other's description of him.

The "Polygamy" idea has several roots. Certainly it is appealing to the "natural man" because of a "carnal base" toward "conquest" and "dominion." It was aggravated by the Cochranites and John C. Bennett with the characterization of "Spiritual Wifery." I can understand a gross misinterpretation of the power of "sealing" through the Priesthood and something else that the Prophet Joseph Smith said:

Again: The doctrine or sealing power of Elijah is as follows:—If you have power to seal on earth and in heaven, then we should be wise. The first thing you do, go and seal on earth your sons and daughters unto yourself, and yourself unto your fathers in eternal glory, and go ahead, and not go back, but use a little wisdom, and seal all you can, and when you get to heaven tell your Father that what you seal on earth should be sealed in heaven, according to his promise. I will walk through the gate of heaven and claim what I seal, and those that follow me and my counsel.

It was Joseph's desire to constitute an "Eternal Family." He advocated the "eternal chain" so that many would have opportunity to breach the "veils." If this were not understood in proper context, then it could be made into something very damning in the progression of many people; being a stumbling block of "self-gratification." This was NOT what Heavenly Father, nor Joseph intended. What ensued was neigh unto disaster for the Church because of the idea that it was a condition of exaltation . . . and, of course, man took it upon himself to make haste.

Joseph commissioned Brigham to record the Endowment. We did not receive it without additions. We know that . . . the early endowment included the "Oath of Vengeance" which was added to avenge the death of Joseph Smith. We do not know if there were other embellishments, because we only have Brigham's rendition, at this juncture. I suspect that other things were "added" and I am not privy at this time to know of any "omissions." I have further suspicions; however, I am to hold my tongue at this time.

Brigham would justify Brigham for his choices and actions. I find Brigham's character to be very rigid and uncompromising with regard to his viewpoints. He was not someone who could be easily taught, especially by someone that he considered his inferior. I love the man for what he did in being a "rock" upon which to accomplish an arduous task of uniting a broken, bewildered and frightened people after the death of the Prophet. He; however, was, also, a rough stone rolling that merited some polishing.

I’m always doubtful of people born nearly two centuries after Joseph claiming that they know more about what he was “really” teaching than Brigham Young who taught by Joseph directly in public meetings, with the twelve, and individually.

It just seems really convenient to put everything you don’t like about Joseph’s teachings on Brigham.

[BruceRGilbert]

I’m always doubtful of people born nearly two centuries after Joseph claiming that they know more about what he was “really” teaching than Brigham Young who taught by Joseph directly in public meetings, with the twelve, and individually.

It just seems really convenient to put everything you don’t like about Joseph’s teachings on Brigham.

Silas, as you should be. I have an arm of flesh, too. There will be a juncture where everyone associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is going to have to reconcile in some way or shape, the ESSAYS that address controversy.
The reason that this is going to occur is because they remain unanswered. There will be resolution and clarity when such things are "put to bed" as it were. They remain a stumbling block for many people. I should like to hear your take on what YOU believe and think the reasons are for the "mis-steps" that have taken place.

[LDS Watchman]

That it would be easy to categorically classify someone as entirely good or entirely bad! Brigham Young, as well as each one of us, is a composite of both good and bad. He had weaknesses as a human being, as we all do. As a leader, he was chosen by God because of his "quirks." Brigham was a very stalwart and "determined" leader. It was this attribute that qualified him to hold the Church together after the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He had clear ideas as to how things ought to be done and was quite "stubborn" in insisting that they be so. For this reason he was referred to as "The Lion." Controversy surrounds his demise. There was a time when it was suspect that he was poisoned.

Brigham got many things right, but, too, he got some things wrong:
1.) Adam-God Theory
2.) Blood Atonement
3.) The Endowment "Additions:" viz a viz: Oath of Vengeance, Penalties, *Entrapment (Pre-swearing and Suppression of Agency: "Bow your head and say "yes.")
4.) Polygamy
5.) Suppression of "minorities:" Native and African Americans.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Emma ... gham_Young

*Agency is an eternal principle with Heavenly Father. He respects the freedom to choose. He is "forthright" and explains the conditions of any covenant He requests BEFORE an answer is solicited. As in all things, the intelligence who is invited to enter into a covenant agreement with Him is given the choice to refuse. He offers no "small print" nor does He amend additional clauses without approval of BOTH parties. The Law of Common Consent is a practice originating from this attribute. Further "revelation" is needed to "fix" the Endowment.

I think the elephant in the room needs to be addressed. If Brigham was guilty of the 5 things you accuse him of, he was a really bad guy and certainly not a true prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ.

1) He would have taught a completely false narrative about the nature of God repeatedly, even misunderstanding who God is. No prophet or even true apostle of Christ would do this.
2) He would have taught people that murder was okay
3) He would have taught Satanic things in the temple of God
4) He would have been a liar for making up a false revelation and attributing it to Joseph Smith. He also would have been a whoremonger and adulterer. And worse he would have misled the Saints of God to do the same.
5) He would have been a racist bigot who falsely denied an entire race the priesthood and blessings of the temple

To sum up, he would for sure be thrust down to hell and end up in the Telestial kingdom, if he was lucky.

In this case, it really wouldn't matter what other good he might have done.

[BruceRGilbert]

I think the elephant in the room needs to be addressed. If Brigham was guilty of the 5 things you accuse him of, he was a really bad guy and certainly not a true prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ.

1) He would have taught a completely false narrative about the nature of God repeatedly, even misunderstanding who God is. No prophet or even true apostle of Christ would do this.
2) He would have taught people that murder was okay
3) He would have taught Satanic things in the temple of God
4) He would have been a liar for making up a false revelation and attributing it to Joseph Smith. He also would have been a whoremonger and adulterer. And worse he would have misled the Saints of God to do the same.
5) He would have been a racist bigot who falsely denied an entire race the priesthood and blessings of the temple

To sum up, he would for sure be thrust down to hell and end up in the Telestial kingdom, if he was lucky.

In this case, it really wouldn't matter what other good he might have done.

1.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_doctrine

Certainly "Priesthood" prescribes a hierarchical chain of command, and the statement made by the Prophet is respectful of the position that Adam or Michael has as the father of the human race. I think Brigham prematurely ended the discussion at that point instead of acknowledging that there was someone superior in authority to Adam.

2.) Mountain Meadows Massacre and Reed Smoot Hearings. George Lee's Testimony.

3.) Sure enough, I have heard "ole scratch" himself in dialogue there about "priesthoods, fear and blood and horror."

4.) How do you reconcile Doctrine and Covenants 132 as an addition after the death of Joseph Smith and the removal of the 1835 section damning the practice?

5.) Many people have accused Brigham Young . . . and the Church as well, for being "racist." These things have been covered in other threads.

Now, I am glad that I am not being judged by you, Matthias. (Or am I? ) The principle is:

1 Corinthians 1:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

So, God can choose whom He will. I think that it adequately shows forth His power to do as He will. I don't find Brigham to be a terrible, awful person - on the contrary, I find Brigham to have been the man for the job. . . . And God's purposes are being brought about in making the Restoration, a "Reformation."

Oh, and my favorite part about your post that brought a chuckle was this one:

To sum up, he would for sure be thrust down to hell and end up in the Telestial kingdom, if he was lucky.

You, do, of course, realize that we reside on a "low order" Telestial kingdom on this earth. According to Doctrine and Covenants 76, this is the "order" of Kingdom that those who are sent to hell reside on. (It isn't going to get any worse, insofar as environment and society unless we become "sons of Perdition.")

I was compelled to come back and address this statement, Matthias:

In this case, it really wouldn't matter what other good he might have done.

I have stated in other places, "Judgment is meant for IDENTIFICATION and NOT condemnation." I believe that. I think that it does matter about the "other good" that he did. No one else was chosen or could have done for the Lord, what Brigham Young did. Make no mistake about that. Just because someone trips and falls on the playing field is no reason to bench them. Consider King David. God didn't throw in the towel on him. In fact, if you study the genealogy of Jesus, you realize that He came through the lineage of David and Bathsheba . . . the woman whose husband David had killed because he committed adultery with his wife and got her pregnant - not wanting Uriah, the husband to find out.

I have to state it again, Matthias, I am glad that you aren't going to be my judge. I don't measure up under my own standards, than alone . . . .

[LDS Watchman]

I think the elephant in the room needs to be addressed. If Brigham was guilty of the 5 things you accuse him of, he was a really bad guy and certainly not a true prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ.

1) He would have taught a completely false narrative about the nature of God repeatedly, even misunderstanding who God is. No prophet or even true apostle of Christ would do this.
2) He would have taught people that murder was okay
3) He would have taught Satanic things in the temple of God
4) He would have been a liar for making up a false revelation and attributing it to Joseph Smith. He also would have been a whoremonger and adulterer. And worse he would have misled the Saints of God to do the same.
5) He would have been a racist bigot who falsely denied an entire race the priesthood and blessings of the temple

To sum up, he would for sure be thrust down to hell and end up in the Telestial kingdom, if he was lucky.

In this case, it really wouldn't matter what other good he might have done.

1.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_doctrine

Certainly "Priesthood" prescribes a hierarchical chain of command, and the statement made by the Prophet is respectful of the position that Adam or Michael has as the father of the human race. I think Brigham prematurely ended the discussion at that point instead of acknowledging that there was someone superior in authority to Adam.

2.) Mountain Meadows Massacre and Reed Smoot Hearings. George Lee's Testimony.

3.) Sure enough, I have heard "ole scratch" himself in dialogue there about "priesthoods, fear and blood and horror."

4.) How do you reconcile Doctrine and Covenants 132 as an addition after the death of Joseph Smith and the removal of the 1835 section damning the practice?

5.) Many people have accused Brigham Young . . . and the Church as well, for being "racist." These things have been covered in other threads.

Now, I am glad that I am not being judged by you, Matthias. (Or am I? ) The principle is:

1 Corinthians 1:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

So, God can choose whom He will. I think that it adequately shows forth His power to do as He will. I don't find Brigham to be a terrible, awful person - on the contrary, I find Brigham to have been the man for the job. . . . And God's purposes are being brought about in making the Restoration, a "Reformation."

Not judging you at all. Just addressing the list of accusations you made against Brigham Young and calling a spade a spade.

[BruceRGilbert]

Just addressing the list of accusations you made against Brigham Young and calling a spade a spade

Matthias, I would prefer to characterize the things that I have pointed as something other than accusations. They are "identifications" of where the "train left the tracks" and have to do with some of the things which have had to be "reformed" in the Church by General Authorities later on. Adam-God has been refuted. Blood Atonement has been refuted. Polygamy has been refuted. Things have been removed from the Endowment . . . and more is to come. The ban on Priesthood has been revoked . . . and so, you see, these aren't necessarily new things that find their origination with me. I concur, that things need to be taken further . . . I am hopeful that they will.

I question what possible motive you would have to suggest that these are "accusations" when you, yourself, know that "reformation" has had to take place to remedy these things. I find it very curious. I would invite you to examine yourself in this regard.

Finally . . . and this is taking specific aim at a falsehood that continues to raise it's ugly head. POLYGAMY is NOT a requirement of exaltation in the Highest of the Celestial Realms.

[Zathura]

Thank you, Stahura. I believe that Brigham was sincere. He did the things that he believed; however, I do think that he, like us, was subject to "misunderstanding" of some of the "advanced" topics that the Prophet Joseph Smith taught. I believe it had to do with somewhat of a "confirmation bias" of hearing only those things that he was presupposed to without understanding the "deeper" significance of what Joseph Smith intended.

It is very reasonable to assume that Micha_EL was a god on the Council of the Gods; however, He was not the Head God who convened the Council or chose the councilors. This was based on Heavenly Father's foreknowledge. Gabri_EL or Noah, was, also, present - as were others who would later "come down" and become "Dispensation Heads." I think that Brigham kinda got confused because Micha_EL was chosen to be "Adam" or the first.

Brigham kinda got obsessed with this "shedding of blood" to make atonement, thing. He, because of his strict view of "black and white," gave little platitude to "grace" and "mercy." He was an "eye for an eye" type of fellow. His boundaries were always very rigid and well defined. I would tend to think that he heard the Prophet Joseph say the following and took it to mean that Brigham was "sufficient" in his, sometimes, "not prone to correction" state:

The nearer man approaches perfection, the clearer are his views, and the greater his enjoyments, till he has overcome the evils of his life and lost every desire for sin. . . . But we consider that this is a station to which no man ever arrived in a moment: he must have been instructed in the government and laws of that kingdom by proper degrees, until his mind is capable in some measure of comprehending the propriety, justice, equality, and consistency of the same.

Certainly, Brigham could be characterized as "stalwart" and "tenacious," but I don't believe that the terms "considerate, meek, and humble" find a great deal of pronouncement in other's description of him.

The "Polygamy" idea has several roots. Certainly it is appealing to the "natural man" because of a "carnal base" toward "conquest" and "dominion." It was aggravated by the Cochranites and John C. Bennett with the characterization of "Spiritual Wifery." I can understand a gross misinterpretation of the power of "sealing" through the Priesthood and something else that the Prophet Joseph Smith said:

Again: The doctrine or sealing power of Elijah is as follows:—If you have power to seal on earth and in heaven, then we should be wise. The first thing you do, go and seal on earth your sons and daughters unto yourself, and yourself unto your fathers in eternal glory, and go ahead, and not go back, but use a little wisdom, and seal all you can, and when you get to heaven tell your Father that what you seal on earth should be sealed in heaven, according to his promise. I will walk through the gate of heaven and claim what I seal, and those that follow me and my counsel.

It was Joseph's desire to constitute an "Eternal Family." He advocated the "eternal chain" so that many would have opportunity to breach the "veils." If this were not understood in proper context, then it could be made into something very damning in the progression of many people; being a stumbling block of "self-gratification." This was NOT what Heavenly Father, nor Joseph intended. What ensued was neigh unto disaster for the Church because of the idea that it was a condition of exaltation . . . and, of course, man took it upon himself to make haste.

Joseph commissioned Brigham to record the Endowment. We did not receive it without additions. We know that . . . the early endowment included the "Oath of Vengeance" which was added to avenge the death of Joseph Smith. We do not know if there were other embellishments, because we only have Brigham's rendition, at this juncture. I suspect that other things were "added" and I am not privy at this time to know of any "omissions." I have further suspicions; however, I am to hold my tongue at this time.

Brigham would justify Brigham for his choices and actions. I find Brigham's character to be very rigid and uncompromising with regard to his viewpoints. He was not someone who could be easily taught, especially by someone that he considered his inferior. I love the man for what he did in being a "rock" upon which to accomplish an arduous task of uniting a broken, bewildered and frightened people after the death of the Prophet. He; however, was, also, a rough stone rolling that merited some polishing.

I’m always doubtful of people born nearly two centuries after Joseph claiming that they know more about what he was “really” teaching than Brigham Young who taught by Joseph directly in public meetings, with the twelve, and individually.

It just seems really convenient to put everything you don’t like about Joseph’s teachings on Brigham.

I’m always doubtful of people who believe in something simply because Brigham swears that Joseph said so in private and made him pinky swear not to tell anyone.

“oh yeah, Joseph told me in secret and made me swear not to talk about it until he died, don’t worry guys”

Even though there exist 0 public statements and 0 private journal entries on the topic by Joseph in which he does anything other than condemn it and deny it.

[markharr]

I don't rate prophets as if they are a toaster I purchased on Amazon.

[Zathura]

Just addressing the list of accusations you made against Brigham Young and calling a spade a spade

Matthias, I would prefer to characterize the things that I have pointed as something other than accusations. They are "identifications" of where the "train left the tracks" and have to do with some of the things which have had to be "reformed" in the Church by General Authorities later on. Adam-God has been refuted. Blood Atonement has been refuted. Polygamy has been refuted. Things have been removed from the Endowment . . . and more is to come. The ban on Priesthood has been revoked . . . and so, you see, these aren't necessarily new things that find their origination with me. I concur, that things need to be taken further . . . I am hopeful that they will.

I question what possible motive you would have to suggest that these are "accusations" when you, yourself, know that "reformation" has had to take place to remedy these things. I find it very curious. I would invite you to examine yourself in this regard.

Finally . . . and this is taking specific aim at a falsehood that continues to raise it's ugly head. POLYGAMY is NOT a requirement of exaltation in the Highest of the Celestial Realms.

Yes, this word “accusation” is a fan favorite here, and I don’t know why.

If it’s a demonstrable fact that something occurred and it is pointed out, people don’t call it an accusation anymore.

Except when it comes to Church leaders... apparently.

[BruceRGilbert]

Normally I wouldn't take the time to go through your posting, Matthias, but because I care about you and have a desire to illustrate some things that you are prone to do in your characterizations and interpretations - I want to make you aware:

You use some interesting "adjectives" that aren't objective in usage, but carry a "weightier," more subjective "charge" of negativity. I am going to highlight those for you so that you can witness a "wee bit of steering" and "slanting" on your part.

I think the elephant in the room needs to be addressed. If Brigham was guilty of the 5 things you accuse him of, he was a really bad guy and certainly not a true prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ.

1) He would have taught a completely false narrative about the nature of God repeatedly, even misunderstanding who God is. No prophet or even true apostle of Christ would do this.
2) He would have taught people that murder was okay (Under certain conditions, he did.)
3) He would have taught Satanic things in the temple of God (There were . . . .as shown earlier.)
4) He would have been a liar for making up a false revelation and attributing it to Joseph Smith. He also would have been a whoremonger and adulterer. And worse he would have misled the Saints of God to do the same. (That was not my characterization of Brigham, but yours)
5) He would have been a racist bigot who falsely denied an entire race the priesthood and blessings of the temple (Again, not my characterization, but yours)

The use of If-Then statements with your own negative characterizations indicates something of how you think and not how I think. If the elephant is in the room, it is there in your own mind and not mine. You have chosen your language and I am not going to be made responsible for it.