Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brother Brigham was one interesting cat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    Not according to this book!


    In all seriousness, Young is responsible for bringing polygamy out of the shadows and making it a central tenet of Mormon doctrine. Polyandry less so, but he still practiced it. It would have been too much to ask him to realize the profound affects polygamy would have on the church and make a 'course correction'. After all, he believed in it. But, he was the president. He could have stopped it if he wanted to.

    He wasn't the originator of the doctrine, but he did much more than Joseph Smith to canonize it.
    My understanding is that BY effectively pulled Sec 132 "out of the fire"... I am not sure if he read it, however. What does the BY books say?
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
      In all seriousness, Young is responsible for bringing polygamy out of the shadows and making it a central tenet of Mormon doctrine. Polyandry less so, but he still practiced it. It would have been too much to ask him to realize the profound affects polygamy would have on the church and make a 'course correction'. After all, he believed in it. But, he was the president. He could have stopped it if he wanted to.

      He wasn't the originator of the doctrine, but he did much more than Joseph Smith to canonize it.
      This is disingenuous. It was JS doctrine. Yes, BY did more to canonize it because he lived much longer.
      "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
      "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
      "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

      Comment


      • #33
        Frankly, bringing it out of the shadows "loud and proud" is much better than hiding it as was done previously. It goes from victims of prophet's prey to doctrine.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
          This is disingenuous. It was JS doctrine. Yes, BY did more to canonize it because he lived much longer.
          He also said he longed for the grave when Joseph first revealed it!
          "They're good. They've always been good" - David Shaw.

          Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
            This is disingenuous. It was JS doctrine. Yes, BY did more to canonize it because he lived much longer.
            All this time I was thinking it was God's doctrine... Thanks for clearing this up!
            "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
            "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
            "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
            GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Uncle Ted View Post
              My understanding is that BY effectively pulled Sec 132 "out of the fire"... I am not sure if he read it, however. What does the BY books say?
              I don't remember from "American Moses'. I wonder if the Turner biography goes into that.

              Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
              This is disingenuous. It was JS doctrine. Yes, BY did more to canonize it because he lived much longer.
              Yes of course. No doubt JS would have ran with it much longer had he lived. But he didn't, and so we have BY to thank for it. I'm not being disingenuous.
              "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
              "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
              - SeattleUte

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
                Not according to this book!
                [ATTACH=CONFIG]8542[/ATTACH]

                In all seriousness, Young is responsible for bringing polygamy out of the shadows and making it a central tenet of Mormon doctrine. Polyandry less so, but he still practiced it. It would have been too much to ask him to realize the profound affects polygamy would have on the church and make a 'course correction'. After all, he believed in it. But, he was the president. He could have stopped it if he wanted to.

                He wasn't the originator of the doctrine, but he did much more than Joseph Smith to canonize it.
                One of your analysis flaws is you hold these guys to modern day mores and not those of the time. So yes, it might be too much to ask him to think that far ahead.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Shaka View Post
                  One of your analysis flaws is you hold these guys to modern day mores and not those of the time. So yes, it might be too much to ask him to think that far ahead.
                  dumb argument. mormon 9:9
                  Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                    dumb argument. mormon 9:9
                    An even more dumb response.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Shaka View Post
                      One of your analysis flaws is you hold these guys to modern day mores and not those of the time. So yes, it might be too much to ask him to think that far ahead.
                      I'm not sure we want to delve too deeply into the 'mores of their time' argument. I'd bet that polygamy was near universally condemned in the western world. Even the republicans figured that out pretty quickly.
                      "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                      "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                      - SeattleUte

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Shaka View Post
                        An even more dumb response.
                        sorry you can't read bro
                        Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
                          I'm not sure we want to delve too deeply into the 'mores of their time' argument. I'd bet that polygamy was near universally condemned in the western world. Even the republicans figured that out pretty quickly.
                          it's a stupid argument that makes no sense in the context of lds doctrine
                          Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            OK, polygamy/polyandry was absolute nuts in the early years. I already knew that, but it is interesting to read it from a fresh angle and learn a few more details. This time around I am surprised at what a high percentage of these early marriages were polyandry (woman already married to other men). And there is no doubt whatsoever that BYU consummated many of these marriages. A few other observations:

                            1) Many of the marriages were for time only, not sealings. BY married a lot of widows, including many of JS widows.
                            2) One married woman got sealed (polyandry married) to a church leader and then wrote to BY claiming that she made a mistake and she would rather be sealed to him instead.
                            3) A significant percentage of these marriages resulted from women approaching BY and asking to become a bride.
                            4) Ages ranges from 16-64.
                            5) Many of the marriages were not consummated. I believe he was sealed to his mother-in-law. Yeesh.
                            6) At one point, both BY and John D. Lee were interested in a woman. BY told Lee that if he backed off and let BY marry her, he would forever have his back and Lee would sit at his right hand in the CK. Of course, Lee was later the designated scapegoat for the Mountain Meadows Massacre and was the only person tried and executed (with BY's blessing).
                            "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                            "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                            "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                              it's a stupid argument that makes no sense in the context of lds doctrine
                              Oh whatever. Revisionist history sucks no matter the context. Condemning Brigham for attitudes that were common for the time is pure folly. If it wasn't you'd probably hate your grandparents. This applies to virtually everything including race, politics, and freaky religious doctrine that wasn't only common to Mormons.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Shaka View Post
                                Oh whatever. Revisionist history sucks no matter the context. Condemning Brigham for attitudes that were common for the time is pure folly. If it wasn't you'd probably hate your grandparents. This applies to virtually everything including race, politics, and freaky religious doctrine that wasn't only common to Mormons.
                                my grandparents weren't prophets, seers and revelators of a church offering its members the fulness of the gospel and a direct line of revelation from god.
                                Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X