FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Brigham Young/Personal beliefs
|
Brigham Young's personal beliefs
Jump to details:
- Question: Was Brigham Young a "young earth creationist"?
- Question: Did Brigham Young believe that he would one day become president of the United States?
- Question: Why did Brigham Young say that women "have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God"?
Latter-day Saints and the Bible |
|
Reliability of the Bible |
|
Creation |
|
Genesis |
|
Understanding the Bible |
|
Cultural issues |
|
The Bible and the Book of Mormon |
|
How do we reconcile the actual age of the earth to the "seven thousand years of its continuance" mentioned in D&C 77:6?
The Church does not take an official position on this issue
J. Reuben Clark |
This is one of many issues about which the Church has no official position. As President J. Reuben Clark taught under assignment from the First Presidency:
|
Harold B. Lee |
Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church:
|
First Presidency |
This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website):
In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:
|
References |
Notes
|
The Doctrine and Covenants speaks of the earth's "seven thousand years of continuance, or its temporal existence"
Doctrine and Covenants 77:6–7 contains the only canonized statement specifically identifying the age of the earth:
- 6 Q[uestion]. What are we to understand by the book which John saw,[1] which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
- A[nswer]. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.
- 7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?
- A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.
The phrase "temporal existence" of the earth does not include the creative and preparatory period
The Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, (2002) chapter "Section 77 Questions and Answers on the Book of Revelation" states that the seven thousand years "do not include the period of our planet's creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man."
D&C 77:6–7. Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?
"‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity." (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)
The chronological extent of the earth's creative period is not detailed specifically in scripture.
It should be noted that these verses refer to the Book of Revelation, which is well-known for its dense numerical symbolism. It may, then, be premature to regard such numbers as literal and precise.
Scriptures are not intended to provide scientific information
The language in our scriptures from which such dating of the "age of the earth" is drawn is not intended to provide the kinds of scientific information that some people insist on having. Brigham Young stated that we have no revealed knowledge on the topic:
In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular...whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.
Brigham Young, (May 14, 1871) Journal of Discourses 14:116. (emphasis added)
The scriptures do not specify the age of the Earth
The placement of Adam at 4,000 BC has a rather long history. Perhaps the most famous attempt was made by the Irish Anglican Bishop of Ussher, who calculated the date as 4,004 (and even calculated it down to the month and day!). Such a dating, however, is not in our scriptures, even if a version of it has been included into our Bible Dictionary.
The Encyclopedia of Mormonism article "Earth," states unequivocally:
The scriptures do not say how old the earth is, and the Church has taken no official stand on this question. Nor does the Church consider it to be a central issue for salvation. [2]
There are varying opinions among Latter-day Saints on the age of the earth. Some believe in a "young earth." Many Saints accept an old earth in the billions of years. Many probably have no strong opinions or thoughts one way or the other.
The scripture may be taken either literally or figuratively
Like many passages in scripture, this one is open to some interpretation. A literal reading has led some to conclude that the Earth is 7,000 years old. But others take a more symbolic or figurative interpretation that the 1,000-year dispensations are figurative in the sense of "large spans of time." This follows the Hebrew use of "thousand" ('elef), which sometimes meant a literal one thousand, and other times was more generically used to indicate "a large amount."
Brigham Young (1871): "whether the Lord...made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject"
Brigham Young:
In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular...whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.[3]
John S. Lewis: "Considering that Doctrine and Covenants 77:6 refers to "…this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence," what led Phelps to speak of Earth as 2,555 million years old?"
The antiquity of Earth was a subject of active debate in the early nineteenth century. Some adherents of a conservative interpretation of scripture ignored or sought to explain away the overwhelming evidence from geology. The more liberal scientific interpretations of geological history suggested an age of 100,000 to millions of years for Earth. Almost alone, W. W. Phelps, Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham scribe, offered a vastly larger perspective. In the Times and Seasons, a letter from Phelps to the Prophet’s brother William states:
That eternity, agreeable to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system [Page 76](not the world)3 almost 2555 millions of years; and to know that deists, geologists and others are trying to prove that matter must have existed hundreds of thousands of years:—it almost tempts the flesh to fly to God, or muster faith like Enoch to be translated and see and know as we are seen and known!
...
Considering that Doctrine and Covenants 77:6 refers to "…this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence," what led Phelps to speak of Earth as 2,555 million years old? The answer appears to be straightforward. Though 7000 Earth years is in conflict with all physical, chemical, genetic, archaeological, and linguistic evidence, 7000 years of God is not ruled out. The arithmetic is easy. One day of God is 1000 years of man, and therefore in Joseph Smith’s reckoning, a day of God is 365 × 1000 days of man. The 2.555 billion years in question therefore corresponds to 2,555,000,000/365,000 years of God, which is 7000 years of God for each day of Earth’s existence. A more careful calculation, using the true average length of the year including leap years (365.257 days) gives 2,556,799,000 Earth years. Clearly Joseph Smith did not intend the "7000 years" of Earth’s age to refer to Earth years.[4] —(Click here to continue)
John S. Lewis, "The Scale of Creation in Space and Time,"
Improvement Era 1909 regards an ancient earth as consistent with scripture
The editor of the Improvement Era wrote:
Several students have asked to know whether the ideas contained in the seventh Y. M. M.I.A. Manual lesson are in harmony with the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith as found in section 77 of the Doctrine and Covenants. A careful reading of the 7th lesson, also of the Book of Abraham, and the section referred to in the Doctrine and Covenants will demonstrate that there is no conflict. The Manual, as I understand it, simply gives the scientific deductions concerning the geological age of the earth. It does not pretend to say how old the earth is, but points out the scientific conclusions on this subject. The Book of Abraham in the 3rd and 4th chapters, very distinctly points out, or conveys, the idea that the creative days or periods included long periods of time. This is plainly set forth on pages 56 to 59 in the Manual. We are not told how long these periods were. It is only demonstrated in the Manual that science declares the creation to have covered very long periods of time; and that Joseph the Prophet, through the Book of Abraham, also declared that long periods of time were consumed in the preparation of the earth for man; which the prophet did before the scientists or religious leaders had announced this truth. It seems to me unnec- essary to discuss. much less try to decide, in class, the length of the time. The prophet declares it was long periods. Science, as is stated, gives millions of years as the length of time. There is positively and absolutely no definite solution of the problem given either in science or in revelation; but the fact is clearly expressed, and that is all that is sought to be done, that both science and the Prophet Joseph ascribe long periods of time to the formation of the earth....
The idea to be obtained out of our Manual in regard to these matters is not to settle upon things that are not revealed, and to decide things that cannot be decided; but it is the purpose of the Manual to show that, in a general way, Joseph Smith the Prophet, by the inspiration of God, announced truths then generally unknown but which have since been declared by men of science.[5]
The editor concludes by introducing remarks by Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of the Twelve on the age of the Earth.
John A. Widtsoe in Improvement Era 1909 on the age of the earth
The scientific doctrine of the great age of the earth, rests largely upon the evidence of the orderly arrangement of plant and animal fossils in the rocks constituting the upper portion of the earth’s crust. Those who hold to the six day theory of creation, claim that in accordance with the above quotation from the Prophet Joseph, these stratilied rocks, containing fossils, are fragments of other worlds, and do not represent processes that have taken place on this earth. Why fossils may have been formed on other worlds, but not on the earth, is nearly as difficult to understand as the doctrine that living, intelligent beings are found only on the earth. Modern science has developed a doctrine like that of Joseph Smith, which teaches that heavenly bodies may be made up of fragments of destroyed worlds, but the parts of destroyed worlds which go to build new heavenly bodies are minute, even microscopic in size. There are numerous strong evidences against the view that large sections of other worlds were brought together to form this earth (see an article by Dr. J. E. Talmage, Improvement Era vol 7, p 481). Primarily, it would not be the way of nature, as we know it. God, who is nature's master, does his work in a natural manner.... The more the matter is carefully examined, the firmer grows the belief that the creation of the earth occupied immense time periods, the exact length of which is not yet given to man to know. This view does not in any way discredit the book of books, the Holy Bible. The Bible must be read with understanding minds; as :1 hook, it must no more be held to a word. than a man desires so to be held. By verse and chapter and book, the Bible will be found an accurate, inspired record of the most wonderful and valuable events and doctrines of the world. However, it must not be forgotten that the Apostle Paul has reminded us that "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." God reveals himself in nature; and when nature is read understandingly God may thereby in part be comprehended. There is no conflict between the story of the rocks and the Bible, except as man has made it. Finally, it must be said that so far as living a correct gospel life is concerned, it matters little whether or not we know the time God consumed in making the earth a fit habitation for man.[6]
Charles W. Penrose in Improvement Era 1909 on the age of the earth
In times past a large portion of the religious world, following perhaps the chronology of the scriptures given by Archbishop Usher, believed that the creation took place in the year 4004 before Christ. but this no longer prevails among enlightened people, and has been exploded by researches and developments and scientific observation. Geology, or "the science of the earth." has demonstrated the fallacy of the idea that the earth is such a young; planet in this universe. We do not regard geology as sufficiently scientific to determine exactly the period when this globe rolled into organized existence, revolving on its own axis and traveling [sic] on its career round the sun, but the data furnished by thoroughly sincere and truth exploring geologists are sufficiently definite and reliable to prove that this planet existed and moved and had its being long ages before the six-thousand-years period....
The light thus thrown on the process of creation and the periods thereof , throws hack the age of the earth at least :1 period of six thousand years before the time set forth in the chronology, which for 3 long time was accepted in Christendom. Readers of the Bible should understand that the figures placed at the head of chapters therein are in It large degree speculative and unreliable: some of them, showing the periods from the birth of some of the patriarchs to that of others. are measurably correct, because they are computed from statements given in the sacred record. But those ventured as starting points on which to calculate the age of the earth, are altogether mere matters of conjecture? That which we have referred to as given by modern revelation does not die- close. or profess to disclose, the actual age of the earth. It only starts from the period alluded to in Genesis 1: 3, when "God said, Let there be light; and there was light." How many ages upon ages passed from the time called "in the beginning," to that when God called forth the light out of the midst of the darkness, cannot be gleaned from any revelation or scripture ancient or modem, that is now known to man.
Neither the periods nor the processes of the development of the earth from the nucleus or starting point of its organized development are revealed in the sacred writings, but there may have been eons of ages between the time mentioned as "in the beginning" until the time when "God said, Let there be light; and there was light." And it should not be thought that this command of Deity was the actual creation or formation of light, for that is an eternal principle or manifestation of an eternal essence. It was simply the bringing forth of light to penetrate "the darkness which was upon the face of the deep." So, when after several periods in the order of creation "God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night," and further, when it is said, "God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also," it is not to be understood that they were for the first time brought into being, but that they were disclosed to this globe, and their influence was brought to bear upon it by the clearing away of the dense mists that had surrounded this planet. [7]
James E. Talmage, a geologist, spoke of the earth forming from other bodies
A clear distinction must be made between theory and fact. The observations last referred to are in no sense representative of theory, but, on the contrary, stand as demonstrated facts. The planetesimal hypothesis suggests the formation of worlds—of this earth, at 1east—by the coming together of small but discrete particles, world-dust, if you please, but not large masses of structural character. However, the theory does not deny that during the early formative stages of the earth, ponderous masses may have thus fallen together; but neither theory nor observed facts war- rant the belief that the present structure of the outer parts of the earth is in any way due to the structure of the infalling bodies, Whether particles comparable to dust, or masses of greater size. Approximately nine-tenths of the land surface today consists of stratified or sedimentary rocks. These are composed of the debris of earlier formations, which material by erosion, transportation, and re-deposition has been laid down as orderly beds at the bottom of ocean, sea, or lake. Even the oldest eruptive and metamorphic rocks known to us appear to consist of the material of yet more ancient rocks, changed and made over in the construction of the formations as we now observe them. He would be rash in- deed, who would attempt to affirm that he had identified any rock formation as part of the so-called first or primitive crust. What- ever may have been the character of the planetesimal bodies, the existing structure of the earth’s crust is the result of causes less remote than the original accretion of these bodies,—causes of a kind yet operating,—disintegration, removal, and re-deposition in the case of these dimentaries, volcanism and metamorphism in the case of crystalline rocks.[8]
Was Brigham Young a "young earth creationist"?
The Church does not take an official position on this issue
J. Reuben Clark |
This is one of many issues about which the Church has no official position. As President J. Reuben Clark taught under assignment from the First Presidency:
|
Harold B. Lee |
Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church:
|
First Presidency |
This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website):
In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:
|
References |
Notes
|
Whether or not a prophet knows how old the earth is says nothing about whether he can teach the truths about Jesus Christ necessary for salvation
It is claimed that Brigham Young was a "young earth creationist" (YEC). This is someone who believes the earth was created in the recent past, usually 6-7,000 years ago, based upon a literal and fundamentalist reading of Genesis. For example, critic George D. Smith writes that
Brigham Young ridiculed geologists who "tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years."[1]
- Did Brigham Young ridicule geologists who believe that the earth has existed for millions of years?
- Was Brigham a young earth creationist?
- Does Brigham knowledge (or lack of) regarding modern science challenge his status as a prophet?
Note: This wiki section was based partly on a review of G.D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy. As such, it focuses on that author's presentation of the data. To read the full review, follow the link. Gregory L. Smith, A review of Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage by George D. Smith. FARMS Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2. (Detailed book review)
The meaning of the passage is completely reversed when viewed in context. Brigham was not mocking those who accept an earth greater than six thousand years old—he is giving this idea his provisional approval and insists that while young earth creationism (as we would call it) may be a problem for traditional Christians, it is not a problem for the Latter-day Saints. An examination of the passage cited by George D. Smith (displayed in blue) in context clearly shows this:
You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, "If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity."
In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular...whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.
Brigham Young, (May 14, 1871) Journal of Discourses 14:115-116. (emphasis added)
Whether or not a prophet knows how old the earth is says nothing about whether he can teach the truths about Jesus Christ necessary for salvation.
| Related article: | Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders |
However, in this case, some critics have twisted the documentary sources to make Brigham Young say something that is completely the opposite of what he intended.
For example, George D. Smith writes that
Brigham Young ridiculed geologists who "tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years."[1]
G. D. Smith quotes Journal of Discourses, 12:271, for this assertion. He gets the citation wrong (it is at 14:115) but he might benefit from reading 12:271—it provides Brigham’s insistence that plural marriage had little to do with early persecution of Joseph and the church.
What did Brigham really say?
Brigham in his own words
The source cited says nothing of the kind. Brigham begins by remarking that he is not surprised that unbelief prevails, since apostate "religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science." To Brigham, this state of affairs creates a conflict in which men of science must reject truths discovered through science if they are to accept creedal Christianity. He then proceeds to give an example: "You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has."
There is no ridicule here: Brigham points out that geologists "have good reason" to believe that the earth is extremely old. "If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago," Brigham has the geologists reply, "our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain."
Concludes Brigham, "In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are."[2]
| See also: | BYU criticized for teaching evolution and 'old earth' |
Critical sources |
|
How do dinosaurs fit into God's plan?
The Church does not take an official position on this issue
J. Reuben Clark |
This is one of many issues about which the Church has no official position. As President J. Reuben Clark taught under assignment from the First Presidency:
|
Harold B. Lee |
Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church:
|
First Presidency |
This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website):
In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:
|
References |
Notes
|
The core of the problem is that the scriptures and the revelations simply don't talk about dinosaurs
My seminary class has questions regarding the dinosaurs. They seem to be stuck on "where" and "when." How do they fit into the creation story presented by the scriptures?
Your seminary students are probably hung up on the following issues:
- Scientists say dinosaurs lived and died millions of years ago, and became extinct due to a cataclysmic event, probably an asteroid that struck the earth. This is what your students are taught in school, because it reflects the scientific consensus.
- It is generally believed by many members of the Church that the fall of Adam and Eve took place around 4,000 B.C., and that before this there was no death in the world.
- How do we square #1 with #2? How do we account for fossils that appear to be millions of years old, if we conclude there was no death before about 6,000 years ago?
The core of the problem is that the scriptures and the revelations simply don't talk about dinosaurs, and are inconclusive about whether there was physical death for other organisms before Adam and Eve's fall. This leaves each person to decide for themselves how the fossils we have discovered fit into the timeline of the plan of salvation. There generally two possible solutions that have been adopted by intelligent, faithful Latter-day Saints:
- Some take the approach that the earth is very old, that there was death before the Fall, and that the dinosaurs lived and died in a era long before the story of Adam and Eve begins.
- Some have reasoned that there was no death before the Fall, so the dinosaurs must have lived alongside Adam and the early patriarchs, perhaps dying in (maybe even after) the Flood. (See: Death before the fall main article FAIRWiki link.)
- Some, based on the teachings of Joseph Smith that the earth was organized out of existing material rather than created from nothing, have even concluded that dinosaurs never existed on this world, and that the bones we've found are actually from the destroyed remains of other planets. This is not a popularly held notion today, and it contradicts the findings of modern paleontology. In fact, Brigham Young University has a paleontology museum.
The scriptures — especially the creation accounts in Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the temple endowment — are not concerned with laying out a comprehensive history of the earth
The three important points to get across to your students are:
- The scriptures — especially the creation accounts in Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the temple endowment — are not concerned with laying out a comprehensive history of the earth. They are concerned with telling the story of God's covenant relationship with men, a covenant he first established with Adam and Eve. Anything outside this story is simply not relevant to the issue the scriptures are dealing with.
- Latter-day Saints are ultimately interested in truth, whatever and wherever it may be. We should not be afraid of learning new things that may contradict our previous assumptions, and we should not be overly dogmatic about things that are peripheral to the gospel message (that message being Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was a true prophet, the Book of Mormon was divinely revealed, the keys of the priesthood are on the earth). In other words, have an open mind, but not a gaping one.
- Ultimately, our salvation does not depend on when we believed the dinosaurs lived, or even if we believe there was (or was not) death before the Fall. Our salvation lies in hearing the word the Lord and then doing it.
Critical sources |
|
Notes
Question: Did Brigham Young believe that he would one day become president of the United States?
Hubert Howe Bancroft reports a prophecy made by Brigham Young in 1847, but provides no sources
Bancroft states that Brigham believed that one day soon he would himself become president of the United States, or that he would be able to dictate who should become the president. [1]
Hubert Howe Bancroft reports a prophecy made by Brigham Young in 1847. He provides no sources, so it is difficult to assess Brigham's possible meaning from Bancroft's report. [2] However, Heber C. Kimball spoke in 1856 with Brigham present, and we can perhaps see what Brigham intended:
The Church and kingdom to which we belong will become the kingdom of our God and his Christ, and brother Brigham Young will become President of the United States....
And I tell you he will be something more; but we do not now want to give him the name: but he is called and ordained to a far greater station than that, and he is foreordained to take that station, and he has got it; and I am Vice-President, and brother Wells is the Secretary of the Interior—yes, and of all the armies in the flesh.
You don't believe that; but I can tell you it is one of the smallest things that I can think of. You may think that I am joking; but I am perfectly willing that brother Long should write every word of it; for I can see it, just as naturally as I see the earth and the productions thereof. [3]
Critics of Mormonism usually make it appear that this is a desire or plan on behalf of Brigham Young to acquire secular political power. However, the Israelites did nothing to destroy or battle the Egyptians, they simply obeyed God and God protected and defended them. This fits in well with the apocalyptic view which Heber and Brigham seem to share of Brigham's future leadership in a divine, temporal kingdom of God on earth. But this is no more than the faithful have always anticipated:
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne....And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them....(Revelation 3:21, Revelation 20:4).
Brigham and Heber were a government-in-exile, but had faith their exile would soon end. [4] They needed only "stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord" (Exodus 14꞉13).
Heber C. Kimball does not foresee Brigham Young or other Church leaders ascending to power in the traditional way
Heber C. Kimball's meaning is clear. He does not foresee Brigham Young or other Church leaders ascending to power in the traditional way. Rather, he sees the end of the world as being near. Thus, he anticipates that the earthly Church will yet become "the kingdom of our God and his Christ"—a clear reference to D&C 105꞉32, which promises that "the kingdoms of this world may be constrained to acknowledge that the kingdom of Zion is in very deed the kingdom of our God and his Christ; therefore, let us become subject unto her laws."
This imagery involves the Millennium or end-times, since it invokes the language of John's Revelation:
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night (Revelation 12:10).
This triumph in which the Church achieves the world's secular rule does not happen until Satan—"the accuser of our brethren"—is cast down. Just as Satan was cast from heaven, so he will be cast from rulership of the temporal world.
As head of the Church, Brigham will thus be called to world leadership when the day of the Lord comes—"President," and something grander. (Biblical prophets in a monarchy would be more likely to speak of kings rather than Presidents.) Early Latter-day Saints (like the early Christians) tended to believe that the second coming was very near, and so Heber and Brigham doubtless anticipated that God's triumph over Satan might come soon, within their lifetimes.
Heber's next words are instructive:
Let us live our religion, serve our God, be good and kind one to another, cease all those contentions in your houses, and live in peace....
Why, I would go to work and make an altar and a heaven, and I never would take any other course than that which is honorable before God; and how can you live your religion without this?....
Well, if it is time for the Government of the United States to cut the thread, we are perfectly competent to take care of ourselves. We would not give a dime for this people to be one more in number than they are. There are enough of us; for the Lord is going to manifest his power and to play with our enemies as he did with Pharaoh and all his host. Now, mark it, and see if it does not come so, or something similar. All these things are in this dispensation, and why? Because this is the fulness of times: it is the time fixed for all to make a sacrifice before God.
Life and Character |
|
Youth |
|
Revelations and the Church |
|
Prophetic Statements |
|
Society |
|
Plural marriage (polygamy) |
|
Death |
Teachings |
|
History |
|
Race |
|
Critics |
Did Brigham Young and Joseph Smith say that polygamists were allowed to go beyond normal bounds of social interaction?
Joseph’s point is clear—men, like Brigham, who have reached a certain degree of faithfulness may be asked to do even more difficult things
It is claimed that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young admitted that the practice of polygamy meant they were "free to go beyond the normal 'bounds'" and "the normal rules governing social interaction had not applied to" Joseph.[5]
"Sometimes Joseph phrased the matter [of polygamy] in terms of being free to go beyond normal ‘bounds,’" G. D. Smith announces. As evidence, he presents Brigham Young’s account of being taught plural marriage. Brigham worried out loud that he might marry a second wife but then apostatize, leaving his plural family "worse off." In Brigham’s account, Joseph replied, "‘There are certain bounds set to men, and if a man is faithful and pure to these bounds, God will take him out of the world; if he sees him falter, he will take him to himself. You are past these bounds, Brigham, and you have this consolation.’ But Brigham indicated that he never had any fears of not being saved" (p. 364).[6]
Joseph’s point is clear—men, like Brigham, who have reached a certain degree of faithfulness may be asked to do even more difficult things. They need not fear that they will lose their eternal reward if they falter in these Abrahamic tasks, for God "will take him to himself" before they reap damnation. But G. D. Smith seems to be reading "bounds" in the sense "a limit by which any excursion is restrained; the limit of indulgence or desire."[7] This is why he conceives of it as being "free to go beyond normal bounds"—that is, beyond normal limits or restrictions. This is clearly not Brigham’s meaning. Bounds should be understood as "the line which comprehends the whole of any given object or space. It differs from boundary."[8] These bounds are not a limit beyond which one may not go—they encircle and enclose all that one must do. Before polygamy, Brigham had already striven to be faithful to the whole of his duty to God. Having done so, he would not be damned. But he was now being asked to fulfill a task not asked of most. The circumference of his bounds—or duties—was enlarged.
Brigham was thus past the bounds because he had done all that God required and more, not because he would violate moral limits
Unfortunately for G. D. Smith’s reading, polygamy cannot be "the bounds" referred to since Joseph told Brigham that he was already (before practicing polygamy) "past these bounds"—that is, the duties required of all men by God—and thus "you have this consolation." Brigham was thus past the bounds because he had done all that God required and more, not because he would violate moral limits. He had crossed the finish line; he had not gone "out of bounds" or offside.
G. D. Smith argues that Brigham gave "a telling concession that the normal rules governing social interaction had not applied to [Joseph] Smith as he set about instigating polygamy." But Brigham is not conceding anything like this. His "bounds" are not limits beyond which one may not go, but duties that one must fulfill before anything else might be asked. The bounds are divine duties, not social rules. G. D. Smith caps his argument by citing Brigham’s belief that Joseph "passed certain bounds . . . before certain revelations were given" (p. 365). Thus G. D. Smith wants to paint Brigham as admitting that polygamy required one to transgress social or moral boundaries.
Brigham was clearly making the same claim about Joseph that Joseph made about Brigham. In Brigham’s view, Joseph had not been challenged by the command to practice plural marriage until he had proved sufficiently faithful to guarantee his salvation. For its first practitioners, the challenge of plural marriage was such that a merciful God would not, in Brigham’s mind, require it of those whose salvation would be at risk in the event of their failure.
Brigham sees the matter as a command that he does not wish to fulfill—he would prefer to be dead—but that God confirms as his will
Immediately preceding the language quoted by G. D. Smith, Brigham tells an apostle that
the spiritual wife doctrine came upon me while abroad, in such a manner that I never forget. . . . Joseph said to me, ‘I command you to go and get another wife.’ I felt as if the grave was better for me than anything, but I was filled with the Holy Ghost, so that my wife and brother Kimball’s wife would upbraid me for lightness in those days. I could jump up and hollow [holler?]. My blood was as clear as West India rum, and my flesh was clear.[9]
In this passage, Brigham sees the matter as a command that he does not wish to fulfill—he would prefer to be dead—but that God confirms as his will. His bounds are duties to fulfill, not limits that he is now free to exceed.
Further evidence: Heber C. Kimball
That this reading is correct, and that G. D. Smith is in error, is confirmed by Heber C. Kimball’s similar doubts and reassurance: "Finally [Heber] was so tried that he went to Joseph and told him how he felt—that he was fearful if he took such a step [to practice plural marriage] he could not stand, but would be overcome. The Prophet, full of sympathy for him, went and inquired of the Lord. His answer was, ‘Tell him to go and do as he has been commanded, and if I see that there is any danger of his apostatizing, I will take him to myself.’"[10]
Kimball’s bounds—the commandments given him—had increased. But having already proved his faithfulness, he would not be damned for failure. Kimball apparently clung to this promise and would soon write to his wife that "my prayer is day by day that God would take me to Himself rather than I should be left to sin against Him, or betray my dear brethren who have been true to me and to God the Eternal Father."[11]
The Kimball data is absent from Smith’s analysis, but one wonders if it would have helped. To accept it would require a modification of the thesis that polygamy was driven by lust and a violation of barriers, and that Joseph knew it.
Critical sources |
|
Did Brigham Young boast about his ability to get more wives even though he was married to 50-60 women?
The references do not support the claims
As is often the case, the references do not support the claims, and the worst possible interpretation is placed on what are likely innocent remarks, or remarks intended to teach a spiritual point.
The Tanners cite multiple sources for this claim. They are examined below.
Journal of Discousces 5:210
Brigham is here discussing Thomas B. Marsh's return to the Church, and it is inaccurate to describe him as "boasting."
In conversing with brother Marsh, I find that he is about the same Thomas that he always was—full of anecdotes and chit-chat. He could hardly converse for ten minutes without telling an anecdote. His voice and style of conversation are familiar to me.
He has told you that he is an old man. Do you think that I am an old man? I could prove to this congre[ga]tion that I am young; for I could find more girls who would choose me for a husband than can any of the young men.
Brother Thomas considers himself very aged and infirm, and you can see that he is, brethren and sisters. What is the cause of it? He left the Gospel of salvation. What do you think the difference is between his age and mine? One year and seven months to a day; and he is one year, seven months, and fourteen days older than brother Heber C. Kimball.
"Mormonism" keeps men and women young and handsome; and when they are full of the Spirit of God, there are none of them but what will have a glow upon their countenances; and that is what makes you and me young; for the Spirit of God is with us and within us.
When brother Thomas thought of returning to the Church, the plurality of wives troubled him a good deal. Look at him. Do you think it need to? I do not; for I doubt whether he could get one wife. Why it should have troubled an infirm old man like him is not for me to say. He read brother Orson Pratt's work upon that subject, and discovered that the doctrine was beautiful, consistent, and exalting, and that the kingdom could not be perfect without it. Neither can it be perfect without a great many things that the people do not yet understand, though they will come in the own due time of the Lord.
See Quote mining—Journal of Discourses 5:210 to see how this quote was mined.
Journal of Discourses 8:178
Brother Cannon remarked that people wondered how many wives and children I had. He may inform them that I shall have wives and children by the million, and glory, and riches, and power, and dominion, and kingdom after kingdom, and ..
See Quote mining—Journal of Discourses 8:178 to see how this quote was mined.
Critical sources |
|
Why did Brigham Young say that women "have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God"?
Brigham's intent has been distorted
Brigham Young said women "have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God". This is used to portray Brigham as authoritarian and sexist. However, Brigham's intent has been distorted, and those who cite this have used presentism to bias the reader against him.
Sally Denton uses this quote, and uses D. Michael Quinn, as her source. Unfortunately, Denton omits the context which Quinn's volume provides:
- [women] have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God[—]outside the pale of this they have a right to meddle because many of them are more sagacious & shrewd & more competent [than men] to attend to things of financial affairs. they never can hold the keys of the Priesthood apart from their husbands. [12]
Brigham then continued, "When I want Sisters or the Wives of the members of the church to get up Relief Society I will summon them to my aid but until that time let them stay at home & if you see females huddling together veto the concern." [13]
Brigham's statement about "meddling," then, in no way reflects on women's competence or skills—he insists that many know better than men. Brigham's point is that women have no right to priesthood government. This statement was probably precipitated by Emma Smith's use of her role as head of the Relief Society to resist Joseph's teachings, especially plural marriage. [14] Brigham is signaling that those without priesthood power may not dictate to ordained priesthood leaders about priesthood matters.
The author relies on presentism, since Brigham and virtually all of his contemporaries (men and women) likely had attitudes about women's roles which would strike us as "sexist"
Though the quote seems offensive and exclusionary, we need to remember the context of the time. Attitudes toward women during that time, and even 100 years later, were far from our current attitudes. It is unreasonable to expect people living in a different time to fit 21st century perspectives. Brigham was, however, quite liberal for his day—he encouraged women to get an education: for example, he even assigned several to travel to the eastern United States to get training as physicians.
Critical sources |
|
Brigham Young 8 October 1861 discourse on plural marriage
Summary: Notes on BRIGHAM YOUNG's Unpublished Sermon of 8 October 1861.Why did Emma Smith and Brigham Young dislike one another?
Summary: After Joseph Smith's death, Brigham Young and Joseph's widow Emma came into conflict for a number of reasons.Has the Church tried to hide Brigham Young's polygamy?
Summary: Some critics have claimed that the Church has tried to hide Brigham Young's polygamy in a modern lesson manual—despite polygamy being the one thing for which Brigham is certainly known, in and out of the Church.Joseph Smith's Polygamy: "Brigham Young Seeks a Plural Wife", by Brian C. Hales
Notes
- ↑ Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of Utah, 1540-1886, 505.
- ↑ One reference (Sunstone 6:4/41 [Jul 81]) places the prophecy in Brighton, Utah, 1857—this cannot be same reference as Bancroft's, since his event refers to events ten years before the approach of Johnson's army in 1857. Please contact FairMormon if you have further information.
- ↑ Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 5:219.
- ↑ For this imagery, see Edwin Brown Firmage and Richard Collin Mangrum, Zion in the Courts : a Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830–1900 (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 7. ISBN 0252069803.
- ↑ George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), 364–365. ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review))
- ↑ Citing Brigham Young Manuscript History, 16 February 1849, Church Archives. The quoted material is on pp. 19–20.
- ↑ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "bound."
- ↑ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "bound." (Compare article for "boundary.")
- ↑ Church Historian’s Office, History of the Church, 1839–circa 1882, DVD 2, call number CR 100 102, vol. 19 (19 February 1849), 19.
- ↑ Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, 325-326.
- ↑ Heber C. Kimball to Vilate Kimball, "My Dear Vilate" (23 October 1842), cited in Augusta Joyce Crocheron (author and complier), Representative Women of Deseret, a book of biographical sketches to accompany the picture bearing the same title (Salt Lake City: J. C. Graham & Co., 1884). (accessed 2 December 2008).
- ↑ D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 650.
- ↑ Seventies Record, 9 March 1845, holograph, Church Archives (cited in Beecher, see below).
- ↑ Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, "Women in Winter Quarters," Sunstone no. (Issue #8:4/15) (July 1983), note 37. off-site
Notes