St. Brigham at Sic et Non

[Doctor Scratch]

I do not know how any member of the Brigham branch of Mormonism would not be against the C of C who must be seen as misguided and mistaken. Well thy might be seen as ok folks and all but they must be seen as wrong.

I would assume the Peterson agrees with that whether said or not. I cannot imagine a reason to be concerned surprised or agitated.

No I cannot imagine Peterson is some reactionary in an organization moving towards accepting the validity of priesthood in other church organizations.

True. And your comment simply reinforces my point: he’s making an avowedly anti-Community of Christ film. I don’t know why my saying that is so controversial.

Consider the opposite. Suppose someone is making a movie about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. What if they leave out the Mormon perspective? What if they fail to exonerate BY? You already know how this will go: the Mopologists would scream endlessly about how the movie was “biased” and “avowedly anti-Mormon.”

DCP and the filmmakers can redeem themselves by including a post-credits scene that has Joseph Smith III being ordained, but they’re never going to do that.

[Gadianton]

negative aspects of BY

If it weren't for the "maverick liberal" historians, how many faithful Mormon historians would ever mention the negative aspects of BY?

Don't they only admit to what they can't avoid admitting, and from there put their energy in to how to spin it to make the negative things character marks?

- no, he didn't do that. That's a lie.
- okay, he might have done that, but we don't know for sure.
- okay, sure, he did it, happy? But you hardly have the whole story about that incident.
- that might be the story, more or less, but hardly uncommon for a leader in that time in that situation.
- huh, sure; that was something, and a rarity -- nobody has ever disputed that. This was a larger-than life, complex man. A fascinating figure of history. Few travelled the road he did.

All the faithful historian does is take every event of the prophet's life and then go down this list. His faithfulness is proportional to the degree in which he resists falling to the next rung if there still exists deniability for the previous rung.

[malkie]

It is always fun to see the funhouse mirror effect of DCP’s take on the “bad and wrong” things (in his view) others say on this board. He gets some aspects of this so woefully backwards that it makes me concerned for his well being.

Speaking of the funhouse mirror effect, in one of the proprietor's many, and frequent, blog entries that contains responses to this board...

...Why do I pay attention to the Peterson Obsession Board? My nickname for it explains the reason. I look in on the POB several times each week because, on a daily basis for something like the past fifteen years — in other words, for however long it has existed — I have been a regular target there and, arguably, the single principal target, for criticism, mockery, and, yes, character assassination and defamation. It’s the only anti-Mormon website to which I pay any kind of regular notice, and that is entirely because, every single week of every single year, and pretty much daily, I’m a significant target there.

...I am curious about the accusations (of unethical and even illegal acts, cruelty, incompetent buffoonery, brazen dishonesty, and the like) that are made about me.

Pretty standard stuff. But then....

I respond to them relatively rarely, though...

What???? We seem to have very different definitions of 'relatively rarely.'

rare(ly) = not well done

[Kishkumen]

So, according to DCP, how she treated her husbands was the issue. I guess so. She divorced one for domestic abuse, the second for neglect, the third for cheating.

What is it with these women who don't just accept domestic violence, neglect, and cheating, and have the audacity to divorce the men who are violent, neglectful, or cheaters?

Geez! Those are some sad events! That St. Brigham! What a swell guy!

[Kishkumen]

If it weren't for the "maverick liberal" historians, how many faithful Mormon historians would ever mention the negative aspects of BY?

Don't they only admit to what they can't avoid admitting, and from there put their energy in to how to spin it to make the negative things character marks?

- no, he didn't do that. That's a lie.
- okay, he might have done that, but we don't know for sure.
- okay, sure, he did it, happy? But you hardly have the whole story about that incident.
- that might be the story, more or less, but hardly uncommon for a leader in that time in that situation.
- huh, sure; that was something, and a rarity -- nobody has ever disputed that. This was a larger-than life, complex man. A fascinating figure of history. Few travelled the road he did.

All the faithful historian does is take every event of the prophet's life and then go down this list. His faithfulness is proportional to the degree in which he resists falling to the next rung if there still exists deniability for the previous rung.

Looks like you have it pretty well mapped out there, Dean. I wonder whether there is any kind of sociological analysis that can pin down precisely what drives this mindset. I was just reading an article Res Ipsa linked elsewhere about a book examining Christian nationalism. The results were interesting and somewhat surprising, but on the whole they made a lot of sense.

[Philo Sofee]

negative aspects of BY

If it weren't for the "maverick liberal" historians, how many faithful Mormon historians would ever mention the negative aspects of BY?

Don't they only admit to what they can't avoid admitting, and from there put their energy in to how to spin it to make the negative things character marks?

- no, he didn't do that. That's a lie.
- okay, he might have done that, but we don't know for sure.
- okay, sure, he did it, happy? But you hardly have the whole story about that incident.
- that might be the story, more or less, but hardly uncommon for a leader in that time in that situation.
- huh, sure; that was something, and a rarity -- nobody has ever disputed that. This was a larger-than life, complex man. A fascinating figure of history. Few travelled the road he did.

All the faithful historian does is take every event of the prophet's life and then go down this list. His faithfulness is proportional to the degree in which he resists falling to the next rung if there still exists deniability for the previous rung.

Ha! You nailed it!!!

[Doctor Steuss]

So, according to DCP, how she treated her husbands was the issue. I guess so. She divorced one for domestic abuse, the second for neglect, the third for cheating.

What is it with these women who don't just accept domestic violence, neglect, and cheating, and have the audacity to divorce the men who are violent, neglectful, or cheaters?

I can't even begin to imagine the type of fortitude and resilience needed to survive that kind of repeated trauma, while also having the courage and resolve to lay bare some of the experiences for the world to see.

[Kishkumen]

Reading the link that Marcus provided, I am sadly unsurprised that Brigham pulled a Trump and reneged on his business and personal commitments:

Brigham pursued Ann for two years after her divorce. He offered her a house and $1,000 a year. Ann still refused, enjoying her independence and affirming that she would never marry again.

At this time, Brigham hired Ann’s brother, Gilbert, to put up telephone poles. Gilbert did so, but Brigham didn’t pay him the agreed fee. Gilbert was left with employees to pay and large debts. One of those debts was to a member of the faith, but he paid his debts to non-Mormon bankers first, which enraged Brigham. Brigham thought the LDS banker, who happened to be his close friend, ought to be paid first. He intended to disfellowship Gilbert for the infraction. Ann writes that this display was all put on for her, and she finally capitulated to the marriage proposal. Gilbert never received the money he was owed, but he was not disfellowshipped from the church. Ann and Brigham married on April 7, 1868.

He also never paid the yearly allowance he had promised Ann:

Brigham set Ann up in a separate house. He provided minimal groceries and the promised allowance was never paid.

Ironic that he had so much wealth but he refused to pay workers for the labor completed according to his orders. He wooed Ann with a promise of $1000 a year allowance, and then refused to pay it. Can’t say I am very impressed with his integrity.

The worst part is that she surmised BY was withholding pay from her brother to pressure her to marry him. She gave in, and he never paid either one what he had agreed. Damn that sucks.

[Marcus]

Speaking of the funhouse mirror effect, in one of the proprietor's many, and frequent, blog entries that contains responses to this board...

Pretty standard stuff. But then....

What???? We seem to have very different definitions of 'relatively rarely.'

rare(ly) = not well done

Definitely well done by you!!!!

[Dr. Shades]

Reading the link that Marcus provided, I am sadly unsurprised that Brigham pulled a Trump and reneged on his business and personal commitments:

Yeah, it’s pretty clear that Brigham Young was the Donald Trump of the Nineteenth Century (with unlimited theocratic power).

I wonder why the Proprietor loves the one and dislikes the other when they’re both materially the same?