Young did everything Smith did but was also a horrible, ruthless, ineffective leader that caused the deaths of many people and a total miserable, hardliner @ssho!e to boot.

He's then rewarded with a university.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2016 11:21AM by newcomer.

Yep, that's pretty much how I see it.

Real Lesson:

How LDS,Inc can make Anyone a "Hero"

The story of BYs life ... as told in Wiki ...is a rather complete Whitewash; I'm sure that efforts to make this article less biased are Promptly scoured out; Example
It doesn't mention the "loans" tscc made to him & the kurfunkle that resulted when he croaked...a Direct Result of co-mingling his private funds(?) with church funds...
Not quite prophetic, 'eh?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2016 05:39AM by GNPE.

I don't know about the "ineffective leader" part. His primary leadership skills were bombast and thuggery, but he managed to drag a remnant of a fractured church to unsettled territory, attract more from Europe, and build a mini empire that's the foundation of the current corporation/church.

Yep, I agree. Young was certainly ruthless, but he was effective at keeping the church together. I don't believe that the LDS church would look anything like it does today (or even exist at all) if Joseph Smith had lived and Brigham Young had never taken the reins.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2016 04:32PM by want2bx.

I'm not a nevermo, but I see it much the same as you do. Smith was the more delusional of the two. Young was easily the more purely evil and did more serious harm to far more people.

Joseph would've if he'd have lived. Ie, moved west and capitalized on the spoils Brigham amassed.

Although I've read he wouldn't have stopped at Utah for his final destination. That wasn't his style.

He'd have pushed further west to tropical, sunny California to grow the church.

To think what a totally different outcome might've manifested had he lived to lead the church into uncharted territory?!

Young piggybacked on Joseph's success no doubt. He lived like a king while others starved around him. I mean literally starved to death, while he exploited them.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joseph would've if he'd have lived. Ie, moved west
> and capitalized on the spoils Brigham amassed.
>
> Although I've read he wouldn't have stopped at
> Utah for his final destination. That wasn't his
> style.
>
> He'd have pushed further west to tropical, sunny
> California to grow the church.
>
> To think what a totally different outcome might've
> manifested had he lived to lead the church into
> uncharted territory?!
>
> Young piggybacked on Joseph's success no doubt. He
> lived like a king while others starved around him.
> I mean literally starved to death, while he
> exploited them.

I'm not sure Smith could have held the church together come hell or high water as young did as evidenced by the number of schisms when he was alive. We'll never know, but i stand by my original thought that Smith was the delusional visionary, but brigham was the evil enforcer who would stop at nothing short of castration, death, whatever it took to keep the flock to a large extent afraid to defect, or order of massacre of a group passing through. Breaking up a printing press, for example, doesn't, to me, equate with the violence and fear-mongering tactics employed by young.

There are always two sides of every story. It's easy for us 150 years later to point the finger and find all kind of faults from our 21st century special-snowflake-political-correctness lenses. But think about how it was back then. We talk about brigham young killing lots of people but think what the pioneers had to put up with with the Indians. Here is one account:

In 1855 there was established a wheat mill in North Ogden. There was a terribly cold winter and crops were small. They all stood there in line waiting their turn to use the grinder. All of the sudden a rather big indian showed up and wanted his wheat ground before everyone elses. The bishop said no and to wait in line. Well the big Indian wasn't use to waiting in line since he was so big and threatened everyone with death, The bishop was scared and had to give him a cow just to get the big indian to go home.

"Even an Indian had a crude sense of humor and much as a cat enjoys playing with a mouse, natives enjoyed teasing frightened pale faces. no one ever seemed to know just when those dusky fellows were tormenting or when they were preparing to scalp their victims." (Beneath Ben Lomond's Peak 279)

How would any of us react to these Indians? we'd be even meaner and have less patience I think.

Bottom line is this: Brigham Young and the pioneers were justified in the what they did to those "dusky fellows."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2016 08:05AM by poopstone.

"How would any of us react to these Indians?"

Here's how many would, and many did:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VyWdYIWACXY/TZAAqpK9yBI/AAAAAAAAALk/vMfq5LJmpC4/s1600/Colt%2B.45%2BPeacemaker%2B-%2BWest%2BPoint.jpg

That dubious, cherry-picked story of an Indian being impatient to have his grain ground is particularly noxious and indefensible. Objective sorts would recognize the source as "typically biased Mormons" rather than repeat it in this fashion.

I'm working on a post on the 1849 and 1850 massacres of Timpanogos Indians at their settlements on the Provo River where it feeds into Utah Lake. Mormons coveted the rich fishing grounds...

The 1849 incident at Battle Creek was followed by orders from Brigham Young to establish Fort Utah as a colony.. A year later 102 members of the Timpanogos Tribe were slaughtered in cold blood...

Not exactly faith-promoting history, is it?

BTW, in an act of faith-promoting historical whitewash, Battle Creek was later named Pleasant Grove.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/2016 12:22AM by SL Cabbie.

poopstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are always two sides of every story. It's
> easy for us 150 years later to point the finger
> and find all kind of faults from our 21st century
> special-snowflake-political-correctness lenses.
> But think about how it was back then. We talk
> about brigham young killing lots of people but
> think what the pioneers had to put up with with
> the Indians. Here is one account:
>
> In 1855 there was established a wheat mill in
> North Ogden. There was a terribly cold winter and
> crops were small. They all stood there in line
> waiting their turn to use the grinder. All of the
> sudden a rather big indian showed up and wanted
> his wheat ground before everyone elses. The bishop
> said no and to wait in line. Well the big Indian
> wasn't use to waiting in line since he was so big
> and threatened everyone with death, The bishop was
> scared and had to give him a cow just to get the
> big indian to go home.
>
> "Even an Indian had a crude sense of humor and
> much as a cat enjoys playing with a mouse, natives
> enjoyed teasing frightened pale faces. no one ever
> seemed to know just when those dusky fellows were
> tormenting or when they were preparing to scalp
> their victims." (Beneath Ben Lomond's Peak 279)
>
> How would any of us react to these Indians? we'd
> be even meaner and have less patience I think.
>
> Bottom line is this: Brigham Young and the
> pioneers were justified in the what they did to
> those "dusky fellows."

I don't think the Shoshone of Northern Utah/Southern Idaho farmed wheat. And grinding wheat would be a woman's job, I think. In the quantities they used for daily consumption, the stone grinders the Natives used for pine nuts would probably have worked.

I don't think I'm at all inclined to believe your story.

He is the David Miscavige of Mormonism.

They're both offensive. As are all mormon leaders.
Why quibble about who's the tallest of the dwarfs? :)

Young was, to coin a phrase, a 'nut-job'.

Unfortunately, he was also in a position where he had power and authority over his followers (sound familiar? Numerous cults - no doubt through the centuries - had them at the top).

Inhabitants of the lunar surface? The surface of the sun? Just two examples of his particular brand of madness.

Of course, nowadays the Church will say "oh, but he wasn't speaking as a church leader, he was voicing an opinion as a man".

Try voicing that opinion if you were a member back in the days of Brother Brigham and see where that line would have got you!

It is a little bit ironic that the man who was behind the mountain meadow massacre got a university named after him.

Kinda like if they would start Anders Behring Breivik university in Norway.

Yep. Was never a fan. Found him as cuddly as a cactus.

Smith started it all. There would be no polygamy in the US today if it hadn't been for Smith.

Polygamy is really bad.

Another theory here of why an apparently noble-looking self-styled prophet would take to slaughtering an innocent party of California-bound pioneers.

Could be his nebulous ties to rebungnified Freemason cutthroats called Lodge of the Nine Sisters which soaked France in blood back awhile before he ascended to a similar role.

"The first five Presidents of the Church, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow, were all made Masons in Nauvoo Lodge.

Also practically every member of the Hiearchy was or became a freemason shortly after the Prophet was raised to the Sublime Degree of Master Mason.

With the marked and well known exception of the justly famous Lodge of Nine Sisters at Paris, France, with its almost incredible roster of French immortals, it is extremely doubtful if any Lodge in the history of Freemasonry has met, let alone exceeded, the record of Nauvoo Lodge in the number of members whose memory is perpetuated in ageless bronze or masterful portraiture."

Let the Lodge roll on!