From the article:

"It was finally determined that his estate was worth
approximately $1,626,000, . . . "

Brigham died in 1877. $1,626,000 adjusted for inflation would
be worth $37,000,000 today. Brigham Young, a cabinet maker and
church leader amassed a fortune of (in today's dollars) $37
million by the time he died. Do you think he used his Church
position and authority to line his pockets? Do ya? WELL DO YA,
PUNK??

guessing he lined all those new buildings in slc with new cabinents and amassed some wealth.

Great book by sam taylor...cant member the name...described the six weeks of torture john taylor went through trying to sort out what was church and what was briggys...of course it was all generated on tithing just as it is now...taylor refused to move into briggys state palace referring to it as extravagant...had a bit of respect for that...Taylor caused a rift with briggys kids...arrogant peckers were only left with a pittance compared to what they thought...if memory serves...it began as close to seven million...briggys family only got aroubd 600k...spread over his abundant crossdressing playboy sons...it would hardly support them in the manner they were accustomed to...im sure the quiet obedient wives still got squat...permelia likely kept the lions share and probly the lion house...leaders of MLM scams usually make out like irresponsible aholes...and the little people love to have it so

Book also rehearsed the sugar beet fiasco john taylor was instrumental in bringing to utah...though it was a glorious failure due mainly to briggys arrogance and his ongoing distaste for john taylor...due maninly it seemed to Taylors education...guess only a couple people in the world knew how to convert molasses into sugar...Taylor brought one of them out to utah...briggy sent him packing cuz gawd cud convert molasses to sugar by the power of the phood...haha...seems poetic justice that briggys might have met his demise...from asugar bowl...guess phood is as great at converting sugar as it is at healing people

WHAT?????? You mean that Brigham didn't live the law of consecration like he expected people to live that he sent off to settle different areas of Utah, Idaho, and Arizona?

Brigham *was* the law of consecration. Whatever flowed heavenward stopped at his door. Why when he died the church had to buy out his personal stake. He owned more net assets than the church did. Same thing occurred when Joseph died. Brigham sued Emma for Joseph's holdings, and lost as they were all in JS name only, not the LDS church. Brigham knew a good racket when he saw it.

“In 1873, Ann Eliza filed for a divorce from Brigham Young. The book, ‘Zion in the Courts- A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900,’ gives an account of this proceeding:

“’In “Young v. Young,” Ann Eliza Webb Young sued Brigham Young for divorce in 1873, claiming neglect, cruel treatment, and desertion (‘ Comprehensive History of the Church,’ vol. 5, pp. 442-43). . . . Claiming that Young was worth $8 million and had a monthly income of $40,000, she asked for $1,000 per month pending the trial, a total of $20,000 for counsel fees, and $200,000 for her maintenance. Brigham Young denied her charges and claimed to have a worth of only $600,000 and a monthly income of $6,000. More fundamentally, he pointed out the inconsistency of granting a divorce and alimony for a marriage that was not legally recognized.’ (‘Zion in the Courts-A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900,’ by Firmage and Mangrum, 1988, University of Illinois Press, p. 249)

"LDS historian Thomas Alexander commented on the peculiar problems of plural marriage and divorce:

“’Several civil cases involving Brigham Young came before McKean's court, but undoubtedly the most celebrated was the attempt of Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young, the Prophet's 27th wife, to sue for divorce. The facts of the case are well known and need not be reiterated here. Judge Emerson at first referred the case to the probate courts. After the passage of the Poland Act, it was again returned to the Third District Court where McKean heard it. Brigham Young filed a counter petition stating that, though it was unknown to him previously, Ann Eliza was not divorced at the time of the marriage, which was at any rate a 'plural or celestial marriage' and thus not legal. The defendant was, in addition, legally married to Mary Ann Angell.

"’McKean placed the burden of proof on Young and ordered him to pay $500 per month alimony pending the outcome. He rightly pointed out that no matter what sort of marriage his union with Ann Eliza had been, it was a legal marriage, provided both parties were competent to marry, because Utah had no laws governing marriage. In Utah, it was incumbent upon Young to prove, either that Ann Eliza was not divorced from James L. Dee at the time of the plural marriage, or that he was legally married to Mary Ann Angell. If he could do so, McKean said that he would sustain Young's position.

"’This ruling, of course, placed Brigham Young on the horns of a dilemma. It would be impossible to prove that Dee and Ann Eliza were not legally divorced because the Poland Act had legalized all action of probate courts where their divorce had taken place. On the other hand, if he were actually to prove he was legally married to Mary Ann Angell, he would be bringing evidence which might have led to his conviction under the Morrill Act because of his prior admission under oath that he had also married Ann Eliza. Young chose simply to appeal to the territorial supreme court. He failed, however, to follow the proper procedure and on March 11, 1875, McKean sentenced the Prophet to a fine of $25 and one day imprisonment for contempt of court. Later, the divorce suit was thrown out after the intervention of the United States Attorney General on the ground that Ann Eliza could not have been Brigham Young's legal wife.

"’In addition to demonstrating McKean's poor judgment in some matters, the Ann Eliza case served to show that the Mormons never bothered to define any legal status for plural wives. The only sanctions which the Church imposed were moral and religious, and anyone who chose to disregard them could do so with legal, and sometimes even religious, impunity. Brigham Young argued that the marriage could have no validity at law--that it was only an ecclesiastical affair. Yet on other occasions, Mormons argued that plural wives should have the same rights as did legal wives and they complained at the prosecution for adultery with plural wives. On occasion, as when George Q. Cannon was indicted for polygamy, they took the position that each polygamous wife was also a legal wife.’ (‘Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,’ vol.1, no.3, pp. 91-92, 'Federal Authority Versus Polygamic Theocracy: James B. McKean and the Mormons 1870-1875,' by Thomas G. Alexander)

(“Brigham Young's Wives and
 His Divorce From Ann Eliza Webb;” also contains chart titled, “Wives of Brigham Young: Determining and Defining 'Wife': The Brigham Young Households," by Jeffery Ogden Johnson, from ‘Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,’ vol. 20, no. 3, p. 64), at: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/brighamyoungswives.htm)

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1079847



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2017 12:22PM by steve benson.