St. Brigham at Sic et Non

[Gadianton]

But the material you've been citing here is striking. In many ways, the violent and corrupt Brigham Young that comes across in these quotations is the ideal Mopologetic prophet--it's easy to see why Midgley, Gee, Boylan, and others would idolize him.

You beat me to it again, professor. I had not read your penetrating insights prior to posting my own comments.

previous hagiographies of Brigham Young are simply inadequate. They don't portray the Brigham that his base are interested in revering.

[huckelberry]

Kishkumen, instructive posts, thankyou. I gather that is a book recommendation in there.

You make a painful point but one the needs to be clearly seen by all these days. A leader who gives permission and encourages transgressions that some people lust for (such as violence) gains serious power over those followers.

[Nevo]

Why is it that the most recent and roundly praised biography of St. Brigham is missing from the proprietor's recommendations?

Actually, the most recent well-regarded biography of Brigham Young, Thomas Alexander's Brigham Young and the Expansion of the Mormon Faith (University of Oklahoma Press, 2019), did, in fact, make the proprietor's shortlist.

It doesn't provide a "saccharine" depiction of Young either.

Alexander doesn't deny that Young was a theocrat: "One can argue with Buchanan's assertion that Young was a despot, but the Mormon prophet was without question a theocrat" (134).

Alexander also doesn't deny that Young sometimes sanctioned extrajudicial violence. He notes, for example, that Young "instructed local officers to be on the lookout for and possibly execute two ex-convicts, John Ambrose and Thomas Betts" (Alexander, 123; see also, Ardis Parshall, "'Pursue, Retake & Punish': The 1857 Santa Clara Ambush," UHQ 73 [2005]: 64–86). And Alexander is uncertain whether Brigham Young ordered the Aiken party and Yates murders during the Utah War (332). But he points out that Young generally "opposed violence" and concludes that Young's views on "Mormon-authored violence" were "inconsistent largely because, in most cases, they were pragmatic responses to difficult conditions" (330).

Regarding Young's blood atonement doctrine, Alexander writes: "On balance, Arrington and Turner seem correct to understand Young's teaching as rhetoric, but Turner is also correct to say that some Mormons interpreted Young's sermons as a license for violence" (332). He goes on to mention the Parrish murders as an example of this.

Alexander doesn't ignore Young's coarseness either, but notes Young's own explanation: "In his own defense, Young said he spoke emphatically and used profanity because he believed that respectable language was like the 'wind' — it reached the ear but was soon 'forgotten.' If you want the people to 'feel what you say,' he insisted, 'you have got to use language that they will remember'" (206).

In short, Alexander offers an honest, even-handed appraisal of a complex historical figure (an "eloquent and judicious portrait," John Turner called it in his jacket endorsement), not one calculated to keep readers "in the dark" about "actual facts."

[Kishkumen]

Actually, the most recent well-regarded biography of Brigham Young, Thomas Alexander's Brigham Young and the Expansion of the Mormon Faith (University of Oklahoma Press, 2019), did, in fact, make the proprietor's shortlist.

It doesn't provide a "saccharine" depiction of Young either.

Alexander doesn't deny that Young was a theocrat: "One can argue with Buchanan's assertion that Young was a despot, but the Mormon prophet was without question a theocrat" (134).

Alexander also doesn't deny that Young sometimes sanctioned extrajudicial violence. He notes, for example, that Young "instructed local officers to be on the lookout for and possibly execute two ex-convicts, John Ambrose and Thomas Betts" (Alexander, 123; see also, Ardis Parshall, "'Pursue, Retake & Punish': The 1857 Santa Clara Ambush," UHQ 73 [2005]: 64–86). And Alexander is uncertain whether Brigham Young ordered the Aiken party and Yates murders during the Utah War (332). But he points out that Young generally "opposed violence" and concludes that Young's views on "Mormon-authored violence" were "inconsistent largely because, in most cases, they were pragmatic responses to difficult conditions" (330).

Regarding Young's blood atonement doctrine, Alexander writes: "On balance, Arrington and Turner seem correct to understand Young's teaching as rhetoric, but Turner is also correct to say that some Mormons interpreted Young's sermons as a license for violence" (332). He goes on to mention the Parrish murders as an example of this.

Alexander doesn't ignore Young's coarseness either, but notes Young's own explanation: "In his own defense, Young said he spoke emphatically and used profanity because he believed that respectable language was like the 'wind' — it reached the ear but was soon 'forgotten.' If you want the people to 'feel what you say,' he insisted, 'you have got to use language that they will remember'" (206).

In short, Alexander offers an honest, even-handed appraisal of a complex historical figure (an "eloquent and judicious portrait," John Turner called it in his jacket endorsement), not one calculated to keep readers "in the dark" about "actual facts."

You know, I would just love to give you credit, Nevo, but I feel like you have gone out of your way to misrepresent my words. I did not call the work of Arrington or Alexander “saccharine,” and I would appreciate it if you refrained from suggesting I did. I am still baffled regarding the reasons why Turner’s biography was omitted, if there is very little air between the two works, as your post suggests.

Furthermore, a bully’s pathetic excuses for his own bad behavior don’t mean much to me. It is regrettable that you quote them as if they do matter.

Let me also add that dismissing the words of an autocrat as though he needs to wield the knife himself in order to be culpable is almost criminally naïve or unforgivably complicit. Let’s get real.

Finally, to know and approve of Young’s behavior is a bridge too far for me.

[drumdude]

Excellent response to a very weak blog post. I expect we will see much more rationalization from Dan as his next film’s release date approaches.

[Kishkumen]

Kishkumen, instructive posts, thankyou. I gather that is a book recommendation in there.

You make a painful point but one the needs to be clearly seen by all these days. A leader who gives permission and encourages transgressions that some people lust for (such as violence) gains serious power over those followers.

Excellent point, huckelberry. One would think that the nightmare of MAGA politics would have taught all of its objectors principles to apply more generally.

[Morley]

Why is it that the most recent and roundly praised biography of St. Brigham is missing from the proprietor's recommendations?

Actually, the most recent well-regarded biography of Brigham Young, Thomas Alexander's Brigham Young and the Expansion of the Mormon Faith (University of Oklahoma Press, 2019), did, in fact, make the proprietor's shortlist.

It doesn't provide a "saccharine" depiction of Young either.

Alexander doesn't deny that Young was a theocrat: "One can argue with Buchanan's assertion that Young was a despot, but the Mormon prophet was without question a theocrat" (134).

Alexander also doesn't deny that Young sometimes sanctioned extrajudicial violence. He notes, for example, that Young "instructed local officers to be on the lookout for and possibly execute two ex-convicts, John Ambrose and Thomas Betts" (Alexander, 123; see also, Ardis Parshall, "'Pursue, Retake & Punish': The 1857 Santa Clara Ambush," UHQ 73 [2005]: 64–86). And Alexander is uncertain whether Brigham Young ordered the Aiken party and Yates murders during the Utah War (332). But he points out that Young generally "opposed violence" and concludes that Young's views on "Mormon-authored violence" were "inconsistent largely because, in most cases, they were pragmatic responses to difficult conditions" (330).

Regarding Young's blood atonement doctrine, Alexander writes: "On balance, Arrington and Turner seem correct to understand Young's teaching as rhetoric, but Turner is also correct to say that some Mormons interpreted Young's sermons as a license for violence" (332). He goes on to mention the Parrish murders as an example of this.

Alexander doesn't ignore Young's coarseness either, but notes Young's own explanation: "In his own defense, Young said he spoke emphatically and used profanity because he believed that respectable language was like the 'wind' — it reached the ear but was soon 'forgotten.' If you want the people to 'feel what you say,' he insisted, 'you have got to use language that they will remember'" (206).

In short, Alexander offers an honest, even-handed appraisal of a complex historical figure (an "eloquent and judicious portrait," John Turner called it in his jacket endorsement), not one calculated to keep readers "in the dark" about "actual facts."

Nevo, have you read both Turner and Alexander? It’s been a while, but I didn’t get the impression that they were even close in their respective critiques of Young—either in tone or content. You seem to be suggesting that they’re similar.

[Nevo]

Nevo, have you read both Turner and Alexander? It’s been a while, but I didn’t get the impression that they were even close in their respective critiques of Young—either in tone or content. You seem to be saying they’re similar in approach.

There are definitely some differences in how they approach BY. Both biographers are excellent historians, and both try to be honest and fair, but I think it's clear that Alexander has more sympathy for his subject (he says in the preface, "I would like to have known him personally"). Turner, I think it is safe to say, is not a great admirer of post-1844 Brigham, although he's quite ready to give credit where it is due.

Turner is more critical, but his biography is also longer and more detailed. It would be interesting to see what Alexander would have done with more space and the luxury of end notes. (Probably Turner would still be more critical, but who knows?)

In any case, I think Daniel Peterson's omission of Turner's book was understandable, given that Peterson's explicit goal was to push back against the idea of Brigham as "a frightening bully and a murderous tyrant." As Kish's quotes show, Turner's book probably provides too much support for that view to be recommended unreservedly. But I know he holds no ill-will for Turner himself, who he has praised on his blog in the past and who was one of the talking heads featured in Undaunted: Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

While I admire Peterson's impulse to defend Brigham Young, which I partly share, I also agree with Turner's call for Latter-day Saints to engage in a "straightforward and sober accounting with the frailties of the church's members and its institutional history" (Turner, "'Things Are So Dark and Mysterious': The Thomas Lewis Case and Violence in Early LDS Utah," 195). Kish and I aren't miles apart in that regard.

[Kishkumen]

There are definitely some differences in how they approach BY. Both biographers are excellent historians, and both try to be honest and fair, but I think it's clear that Alexander has more sympathy for his subject (he says in the preface, "I would like to have known him personally"). Turner, I think it is safe to say, is not a great admirer of post-1844 Brigham, although he's quite ready to give credit where it is due.

I would call that a lot more than mere sympathy. I mean, I look at everything I have read about Brigham, and I can’t say I would give him the time of day if I had my druthers.

And, on that note, Tacitus once set the historian’s ideal as writing without anger and partiality. That disqualifies Alexander’s work as meeting this ideal of good history. It may still be illuminating biography in other respects. It tells us what a fan with great historical chops can do when he undertakes a biography of one of his idols.

In any case, I think Daniel Peterson's omission of Turner's book was understandable, given that Peterson's explicit goal was to push back against the idea of Brigham as "a frightening bully and a murderous tyrant." As Kish's quotes show, Turner's book probably provides too much support for that view to be recommended unreservedly. But I know he holds no ill-will for Turner himself, who he has praised on his blog in the past and who was one of the talking heads featured in Undaunted: Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

Key questions are “understandable in what sense” and “recommend unreservedly to whom and under what circumstances?”

Yes, one can see why one who seeks to protect Brigham Young’s reputation in the LDS Church as a holy man of God would be highly motivated to suppress as much evidence falsifying that view as possible. I understand that. I do not condone suppressing facts about the past to achieve that bad aim.

I also can understand why active LDS scholars would avoid criticizing a former Church leader publicly in print. If I were in his position, in his organization, where the danger of compromising “testimonies” built on half-truths is very real, I suppose I would be forced to swerve far from anything that provided a truly fulsome account of “St. Brigham.”

While I admire Peterson's impulse to defend Brigham Young, which I partly share, I also agree with Turner's call for Latter-day Saints to engage in a "straightforward and sober accounting with the frailties of the church's members and its institutional history" (Turner, "'Things Are So Dark and Mysterious': The Thomas Lewis Case and Violence in Early LDS Utah," 195). Kish and I aren't miles apart in that regard.

I feel no impulse to defend the dead, particularly when they engaged in behaviors I find loathsome. Indeed, much should be done to check the cult of leadership in the LDS Church that might begin with refusing to whitewash deplorable behavior. I say, be grateful for the good they did, and criticize their flaws honestly and in proportion to the severity of the misdeed.

[Kishkumen]

To expound further on this idea of defending the dead, I can only see this working with people I knew and had real affection for. I don’t know quite what to make of this impulse to protect the reputations of people one never actually knew nor had any direct social investment in. Brigham Young once declared that Joseph Smith could have been a cad but that would not change the truth of the gospel. I have to concede that in this regard he was infinitely more sophisticated and wiser than his defenders.

I write about ancient Romans. They fascinate me. Recently I looked into the claim, repeated by many, that Julius Caesar had a homosexual affair with a king of Bithynia. Whether he did or did not does not matter at all to me. For some reason, a fair number of folks out there need to hold up the dead as models or moral lessons. It turns out that he most likely did not have such an affair. Yet I still imagine it is possible he had same-sex romantic encounters.

Does not matter to me one way or the other. Does not change my life. Does not make my personal choices right or wrong. I could happily write a biography of Caesar in either case, and my principal, indeed guiding, concern would be to depict the man accurately.

What makes me angry about this situation regarding Brigham is not so much that he was a crummy person, but that people go around covering up for him and making excuses for him as though the truth depends on his personality and character. THAT is infuriating.