Church stance on Brigham Young


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is always such a strange topic for me to talk about, but there seems to be carrying opinions on the topic.

I recently purchased a “discourses of Brigham Young” book. While traveling home I was browsing through it and every single sentence seems to be packed with some profound binof doctrine. At one point he was talking about how miraculous healings in Christ’s time we’re just as common as they are today. That Christ did not heal every person he came across.

Now here is the discussion I have a hard time with. Many people claim that we can’t take all of Brigham Young’s words as divine, that often times he was not speak as a prophet, but as a man. 

What has officially been said about Brigham Young and the nature of prophets that may assist in this question? I’m not so much interested in opinions but rather statements made by prophets or apostles dealing with the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No prob Fether- here you go:

Quote

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear.    You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.  Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted."
   - Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1956, 3:203-4"

"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.
 - President Harold B. Lee, The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973"

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)
 

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

There is a story of Brigham making a loud, long and impassioned speech. The next day he came back and said, ‘Yesterday you heard from Bro Brigham. Today, you hear from the Lord. He then spoke on the same subject and reversed his previous opinions.

J. Reuben Clark told this story, quoted most recently by Elder Christofferson in the April 2012 General Conference. Note that Elder Clark himself said that the story may have been apocryphal (read: made up):

“To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. …

“… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”

-J. Reuben Clark Jr., When Are Church Leaders’ Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture, 10.

The footnote in the linked version of Elder Christofferson's talk reads:

Quote

Of the story his father told him about Brigham Young, President Clark further wrote:“I do not know if this ever happened, but I say it illustrates a principle—that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’“How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”

Of the story his father told him about Brigham Young, President Clark further wrote: “I do not know if this ever happened, but I say it illustrates a principle—that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

No prob Fether- here you go:

 

This is fantastic! Thanks!

Im getting a bit picky though on this, are these quotes found on an official LDS site? Or in a book with the LDS stamp on it? I absolutely love Book Craft and the many wonderful books they have produced, but they are not the church. I want somewhere I can point when someone says “Orson Pratt said *insert strange quote* so this is what the church believes”.

But I’m beginning to see a stark difference between official teachings of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as accepted by the quorum of the twelve and the church as a whole, and the teachings found in books written by apostles under their own volition and printed by LDS affiliated companies like Book Craft,  Deseret Book/News, LDS Living, Fair Mormon, BYU, and other non “in house” sources.

I find all sorts of quotes by church authority explaining the break down of what is to be accepted as doctrine and what isn’t. But I haven’t come across much on the topic under the official church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also remember reading somewhere a diagram explaining the different spheres of teachings. It was a series of circles within each other. The middle circle being “doctrine of the church”, the next outer circles was “teachings of the general authorities”, the next being something like “connections between different teachings that lead to other truths” and the outer circle being “theories”. Anyone know what I’m talking about???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fether said:

I also remember reading somewhere a diagram explaining the different spheres of teachings. It was a series of circles within each other. The middle circle being “doctrine of the church”, the next outer circles was “teachings of the general authorities”, the next being something like “connections between different teachings that lead to other truths” and the outer circle being “theories”. Anyone know what I’m talking about???

Might not be what you're talking about, but if you're looking for circles, you can start with our resident circle.

doctrine-graph-300x300.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the church’s stance in Brigham Young is the same as with another previous prophet. What they have said is true unless it doesn’t agree with current church policy in which case we can forget what they said.

Bruce R. McConkie

And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

Edited by BJ64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The story behind the Journal of Discourses is that some guy came up to Brigham Young and asked if he could write down his sermons to publish in the newspaper to make money for his sick wife. It has been discovered that 30 percent of the discourse has been altered by the guy. (not in a malicious way) And was not originally produced by the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queolby said:

The story behind the Journal of Discourses is that some guy came up to Brigham Young and asked if he could write down his sermons to publish in the newspaper to make money for his sick wife. It has been discovered that 30 percent of the discourse has been altered by the guy. (not in a malicious way) And was not originally produced by the church.

Source? I believe you, but I’m curious where you learned thisx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia:  

Quote

The Journal was the proposal of George D. Watt, who was Brigham Young's stenographer. Watt had recorded several early sermons in Pitman shorthand, and proposed to the LDS Church that this and other material be published, with printing to be done in England where printing costs were cheaper. The church's First Presidency immediately approved the idea, and officially granted Watt the privilege of preparing and publishing them. Watt recorded the material in the first four volumes of sermons himself, and he continued to contribute through volume twelve, but at least eleven other stenographers were involved.

 

Here, read a fifteen page essay on the thing.  Apparently, there was quite a bit of friction about money and poverty and who and how and stuff.  Seems to have a happy ending, after a lot of difficulties. (Start on page 134)

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queolby said:

The story behind the Journal of Discourses is that some guy came up to Brigham Young and asked if he could write down his sermons to publish in the newspaper to make money for his sick wife. It has been discovered that 30 percent of the discourse has been altered by the guy. (not in a malicious way) And was not originally produced by the church.

George D. Watt transcribed sermons given by church leaders and published them as the Journal of Discourses for the benefit of the British saints. He was paid for the work. I think that errors occur because he wrote them in shorthand while listening to the talk. As you can imagine it’s hard to get down exactly what someone says while they are speaking.  

The Discourses of Brigham Young however were compiled by John A Widtsoe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
Quote

It has been discovered that 30 percent of the discourse has been altered by the guy. (not in a malicious way)

I have previously read/heard the content posted/quoted by Neuro Typical and BJ64, but not the above.   What is the source for this?   It might be true, but it would be great to have a source.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2018 at 5:21 AM, Fether said:

This is always such a strange topic for me to talk about, but there seems to be carrying opinions on the topic.

I recently purchased a “discourses of Brigham Young” book. While traveling home I was browsing through it and every single sentence seems to be packed with some profound binof doctrine. At one point he was talking about how miraculous healings in Christ’s time we’re just as common as they are today. That Christ did not heal every person he came across.

Now here is the discussion I have a hard time with. Many people claim that we can’t take all of Brigham Young’s words as divine, that often times he was not speak as a prophet, but as a man. 

What has officially been said about Brigham Young and the nature of prophets that may assist in this question? I’m not so much interested in opinions but rather statements made by prophets or apostles dealing with the topic.

I thought he was the second prophet of the mormon church? Aren't we supposed to believe what he said, he was a prophet, just like Jospeh Smith?

Im new to this so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought when the prophet speaks,  you listen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, VelvetShadow said:

I thought he was the second prophet of the mormon church? Aren't we supposed to believe what he said, he was a prophet, just like Jospeh Smith?

Im new to this so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought when the prophet speaks,  you listen

You do! But there are some minor disclaimers.

For one, a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet. When we compare words, the living prophet always trumps.

There aren’t too many situations where this happens, but on occasion it does.

also, as mentioned in the quote by Bruce R McConkie above, we have more light and understanding today and there were some things that the early prophets took at Liberty to speak on that today have been refuted by the prophets today. When a prophet speaks on behalf of the church, we ought to listen and obey; but when they speak on their own volition (like in Books) they aren’t speaking on behalf of the church but rather from their own learnings.

The truth is that some strange things have been said and done in church history. These sayings likely came from the prophets doing the best they could with the revelation they received to answer questions. As we get closer to the second coming of Christ, more truths will be revealed.

An easy way to find this is by looking for the LDS logo. If you see the church’s official logo on a book or website, you know it is from God. This encompasses the scriptures, general conference, church produced manuals and church made websites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, VelvetShadow said:

I thought he was the second prophet of the mormon church? Aren't we supposed to believe what he said, he was a prophet, just like Jospeh Smith?

Im new to this so correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought when the prophet speaks,  you listen

I would say that the main thing that he taught which the church has disavowed is his Adam-God doctrine in which he seemed to be saying that God the Father and Adam are the same person. 

I think that in many cases when his teachings seem to be incorrect it might be that what he said was true but people heard him incorrectly and misunderstood him and recorded what he said incorrectly. The discourses of Brigham Young is not something he wrote but rather the recording of what people heard him say. There is always a chance for error when you are taking notes while someone is speaking. 

Brigham is also misunderstood in his teachings concerning blacks and the priesthood and he is the most famous polygamist in church history. I think that these things combined with Adam-God put the Church in the position of wanting to forget the past and the bad publicity which comes with it. 

I respect Brigham Young very much. He was probably the greatest colonizer in American history he was a great prophet and leader. I enjoy very much reading about him and his teachings. Perhaps you need to recognize when what you read is contrary to modern church policy but you certainly don’t have to through out everything he said. 

If you look you can find seemingly wacky things that many of the prophets have said but I wouldn’t hold it against them. They were a product of their time which influenced their thinking and opinions. They are also not infallible. We shouldn’t expect perfection in everything they said and taught. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Fether said:

An easy way to find this is by looking for the LDS logo. If you see the church’s official logo on a book or website, you know it is from God. This encompasses the scriptures, general conference, church produced manuals and church made websites.

I would say that if you see the church logo then it is an official church publication however I wouldn’t say that everything published with the church logo is necessarily from God. That would imply that everything published is revelation when it might just be good advice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fether said:

You do! But there are some minor disclaimers.

For one, a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet. When we compare words, the living prophet always trumps.

There aren’t too many situations where this happens, but on occasion it does.

also, as mentioned in the quote by Bruce R McConkie above, we have more light and understanding today and there were some things that the early prophets took at Liberty to speak on that today have been refuted by the prophets today. When a prophet speaks on behalf of the church, we ought to listen and obey; but when they speak on their own volition (like in Books) they aren’t speaking on behalf of the church but rather from their own learnings.

The truth is that some strange things have been said and done in church history. These sayings likely came from the prophets doing the best they could with the revelation they received to answer questions. As we get closer to the second coming of Christ, more truths will be revealed.

An easy way to find this is by looking for the LDS logo. If you see the church’s official logo on a book or website, you know it is from God. This encompasses the scriptures, general conference, church produced manuals and church made websites.

@VelvetShadow, in addition to Fether's reply, one should note that anything documented prior to the age of video and audio recordings is subject to error in the recording or transcription, and therefore may not accurately represent what the prophet actually said.  Also, language changes.  Words have different nuances or even change meanings, and what you understand may not be what the original speaker / author meant for you to understand.  Thus, be slow to find fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zil said:

 Also, language changes.  Words have different nuances or even change meanings, and what you understand may not be what the original speaker / author meant for you to understand.  Thus, be slow to find fault.

Here is an example of words and meanings changing over time.  Nowadays we all have a pretty common understanding of what the word "Gay" means.  Yet I can clearly remember watching cartoons as a child.  One of those cartoons was the Flintstones and their theme song had the line " We'll have a gay old time "  (see https://genius.com/The-flintstones-theme-song-lyrics)

Clearly they were not meaning what we might otherwise assume they were meaning.  But in my lifetime the word Gay has gone from meaning "Happy and Carefree" (as used in the Flintstones lyrics and elsewhere) to "Homosexual."  That is a bog change in just 40 years so how might things be different in 200 or so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2018 at 7:53 PM, Fether said:

Source? I believe you, but I’m curious where you learned thisx

 

On 8/4/2018 at 8:25 PM, BJ64 said:

George D. Watt transcribed sermons given by church leaders and published them as the Journal of Discourses for the benefit of the British saints. He was paid for the work. I think that errors occur because he wrote them in shorthand while listening to the talk. As you can imagine it’s hard to get down exactly what someone says while they are speaking.  

The Discourses of Brigham Young however were compiled by John A Widtsoe. 

 

On 8/4/2018 at 10:42 PM, Scott said:

I have previously read/heard the content posted/quoted by Neuro Typical and BJ64, but not the above.   What is the source for this?   It might be true, but it would be great to have a source.  

 

LaJean Carruth is trained in Pittman Shorthand and has made a project of comparing Watt’s shorthand notes of Young’s sermons with the published versions of the same sermons as they appear in the Journal of Discourses.  A semi-recent LDS Perspectives podcast interviewed her about it and she confirmed there are quite a lot of differences; though I don’t know that the figure is as high as 30% and I don’t think scribal error is the origin for notions like Adam-God. 

If memory serves, publication of Sister Carruth’s work is forthcoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2018 at 4:21 PM, Fether said:

This is always such a strange topic for me to talk about, but there seems to be carrying opinions on the topic.

I recently purchased a “discourses of Brigham Young” book. While traveling home I was browsing through it and every single sentence seems to be packed with some profound binof doctrine. At one point he was talking about how miraculous healings in Christ’s time we’re just as common as they are today. That Christ did not heal every person he came across.

Now here is the discussion I have a hard time with. Many people claim that we can’t take all of Brigham Young’s words as divine, that often times he was not speak as a prophet, but as a man. 

What has officially been said about Brigham Young and the nature of prophets that may assist in this question? I’m not so much interested in opinions but rather statements made by prophets or apostles dealing with the topic.

I am not yet a Latter Day Saint.... I am Messianic Gentile but I think we can agree that both King David and his son King Solomon

had gifts that sure seemed prophetic but.............

for many, many, many reasons.... both King David and his son missed the mark...... the bulls eye.... on the subject of polygamy.  

As soon as we guys miss the mark in that way...... (and lots of Messianic Jews and Messianic Gentiles in the first and second century

did as well........ and could not serve in certain capacities in the first century church when they did)............ THEN.... issues come up along the lines of

keeping forty and / or a thousand young woman in line................  obedient and modest.........

and once one of us guys goes in that direction........... we face certain tests and trials that Adam did not face......... because he had one wife. 

(King David's Psalms were quoted as Prophetic... .and the writings of Solomon...... although a very different style of writing..... sure seem prophetic to me as well...... I mean how did King Solomon know about the ........SILVER CORD)?????  Many near death experiencers in our time period have mentioned..... a silver cord.... connecting their soul to their body????

For the record..... IF.... Messiah Yeshua - Jesus were to send me back into the time period of Mr. Brigham Young........

I cannot dogmatically state that i would be so wise and self disciplined that I would not make the same decision?! Ezekiel 37 may connect with the modern Multiverse Theory......... that an online buddy of mine has attempted to explain?????

 

 

Edited by DennisTate
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2018 at 10:42 PM, Scott said:

I have previously read/heard the content posted/quoted by Neuro Typical and BJ64, but not the above.   What is the source for this?   It might be true, but it would be great to have a source.  

 

I got it off LDS Perspectives podcast. They had some scholar on as a host. Good stuff! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share