St. Brigham at Sic et Non

[huckelberry]

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.

[Kishkumen]

It seems that I cannot countenance any criticism of Brother Brigham or any other leader of the Church of Jesus Christ, living or dead. And only hagiographic treatments of them should be read. Brigham Young may have been called “the Lion of the Lord” by some of his contemporaries, but I want to insist that he was a flawless and perfectly saintly lamb. Moreover, I don’t feel any obligation to be fair, or understanding, or nuanced in my view of Brigham Young, Church leaders, and the history of the Church as a whole. They were and are perfect. And anyone that I perceive to be criticizing or attacking the Church is, by definition, unjustified and wrong, and perhaps even mentally ill, and my response to such a person will always be robotic and predictable

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.

[Kishkumen]

There is some exaggeration here, but it is essentially accurate. His defense is that he cited a couple of books that *do* describe the negative aspects of BY, but will we ever see him quoting passages that describe BY's bad behavior from these books? Would he actually do that on "SeN"? And is he citing these books in the interest of having a "balanced view," or only as a knee-jerk reaction to the criticisms?

I dunno. He pretty badly misread some of what I said. I agree with you that he is very careful to cite works and take positions that keep him on the right side of the line that determines the positive integers where depictions of the LDS Church always must fall. I mean, isn’t this kinda what being an apologist means? Defending the Church in order to show how it comes out looking good in the end?

I get it. The Church needs apologists. DCP is a good one. This is yet another great example. He either mangled or skillfully misrepresented my words, but the end result is that, yet again, I must be made to look woefully wrong in the eyes of his readers. LOL!

And I see that he is cry-babying because of my remark that his new movie is an avowedly anti-Community of Christ production. He writes that the:

claim that I’ve expressly declared my intent to make Six Days in August an anti-Community of Christ film is a flat-out lie

Fair enough: he hasn't "expressly declared" that this is his intent. "Repeatedly implied" is probably the better description. Regardless, it's absolutely not a "flat-out lie." Pretty much 100% of the material he's posted about the film have all pointed to it being a fundamentally and avowedly anti-CoC production.

To LDS apologists, the CoC had to get it wrong. By definition, a succession film made by LDS people must say Brigham was God’s choice to lead the saints. So . . . .

[Tom]

Back in February, Our Intellectual Porter Rockwell quoted the following paragraph from Alexander's academic biography on his blog but curiously omitted the last sentence (shown in bold type):

All too often, critics of Brigham Young have assumed that he controlled the Latter-day Saints through fear, coercion, and violence. We should understand, however, that these methods can control a people only if they have no way of escaping the system. In Utah, most of those who wanted to leave the territory generally either did so, or they remained and fashioned their lives according to their own persuasion. Clearly, a few who wanted to leave could not do so because of violence--the Parrish-Potter murders are witness to that.

Our Intellectual Porter Rockwell recently wrote:

According to what might be called the Nuanced View of me, why do I mention the full name of Wife No. 19 as Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning? It’s because, for some quite inscrutable and seemingly irrelevant reason, I suddenly want to stigmatize all divorced people as unreliable — and not because the thrice-divorced Ann Eliza’s behavior toward her husbands before and after Brigham Young (and toward her son thereafter) seems, as Hugh Nibley pointed out decades ago, to say something directly relevant about her.

A few questions for Our Intellectual PR to address on his blog: what directly relevant thing does Ann Eliza Webb's behavior toward her first husband, James Dee, say about her? What does Dee's behavior toward Ann Eliza Webb say about him?

I look forward to reading his responses.

[drumdude]

The Church needs apologists. DCP is a good one.

Next time he calls you out, just pull this sentence from your back pocket. That’s how Dan argues, from the cherry picked one liners buried in the middle of his and others’ posts.

[Kishkumen]

Back in February, Our Intellectual Porter Rockwell quoted the following paragraph from Alexander's academic biography on his blog but curiously omitted the last sentence (shown in bold type):

All too often, critics of Brigham Young have assumed that he controlled the Latter-day Saints through fear, coercion, and violence. We should understand, however, that these methods can control a people only if they have no way of escaping the system. In Utah, most of those who wanted to leave the territory generally either did so, or they remained and fashioned their lives according to their own persuasion. Clearly, a few who wanted to leave could not do so because of violence--the Parrish-Potter murders are witness to that.

Our Intellectual Porter Rockwell recently wrote:

According to what might be called the Nuanced View of me, why do I mention the full name of Wife No. 19 as Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning? It’s because, for some quite inscrutable and seemingly irrelevant reason, I suddenly want to stigmatize all divorced people as unreliable — and not because the thrice-divorced Ann Eliza’s behavior toward her husbands before and after Brigham Young (and toward her son thereafter) seems, as Hugh Nibley pointed out decades ago, to say something directly relevant about her.

A few questions for Our Intellectual PR to address on his blog: what directly relevant thing does Ann Eliza Webb's behavior toward her first husband, James Dee, say about her? What does Dee's behavior toward Ann Eliza Webb say about him?

I look forward to reading his responses.

LOL! This stuff is GOLD, Tom. Thanks for posting. I, too, look forward, and may ever look forward, to the answers. I mean, if Hugh Nibley thinks she was a bad egg, case closed, eh? I can’t imagine anyone not thriving as Wife #19! Anyone who cannot see that the fault is all hers, well, they must be anti-Mormons!

[Kishkumen]

The Church needs apologists. DCP is a good one.

Next time he calls you out, just pull this sentence from your back pocket. That’s how Dan argues, from the cherry picked one liners buried in the middle of his and others’ posts.

LOL! Good idea! Except we both know that won’t work. When text doesn’t do the trick, subtext will be called upon.

[Marcus]

According to what might be called the Nuanced View of me, why do I mention the full name of Wife No. 19 as Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning? It’s because, for some quite inscrutable and seemingly irrelevant reason, I suddenly want to stigmatize all divorced people as unreliable — and not because the thrice-divorced Ann Eliza’s behavior toward her husbands before and after Brigham Young (and toward her son thereafter) seems, as Hugh Nibley pointed out decades ago, to say something directly relevant about her.

Her behavior toward her husbands??

From the Utah gov archives, her first husband:

It was during this time that Ann fell in love with James Dee and married him when she was nineteen. Brigham officiated the ceremony. The couple lived with Ann’s mother, while her father lived with his polygamous wives. Ann and James had two children together, but it was not a happy marriage. During their engagement, Dee had promised that Ann would be his only wife, but after marriage he frequently threatened her with polygamy. After an act of domestic violence, Ann’s father threw James out of the house. Ann filed for divorce, which was granted in 1865.

Second husband:

Brigham set Ann up in a separate house. He provided minimal groceries and the promised allowance was never paid. Ann worked to support herself and her two sons. In a year’s time, Brigham grew disinterested and stopped calling on her. Eventually, Brigham allowed her to run a boarding house out of her home. However, Ann’s stove was too small to cook dinner for her family and boarders. When she requested funds for a new stove from Brigham, he refused, saying, “If you want a cooking-stove, you’ll get it yourself. I’ve put you into a good house, and you must see to the rest. I cannot afford to have so many people calling on me for every little thing they happen to think they want.”

Ann went home and asked her boarders, Mr. and Mrs. Hagan, help in filing divorce, since Mr. Hagan was an attorney. He encouraged Ann to proceed, saying it was a test case and would show polygamous women where they stood in the eyes of the law.

She filed for divorce in July of 1873. She then sued Brigham Young for court fees and alimony, stating that he had not taken care of her financially during the marriage, and had forced her to work until she needed medical care, which he refused to pay for. After some deliberation it was decided that the Third District Court had no jurisdiction in divorce proceedings and dismissed the case.

In 1874 a Territorial Utah Supreme Court case established precedent that the District Courts did have jurisdiction in divorce cases. Shortly afterwards, a federal law also passed, giving district courts jurisdiction in divorce cases. Ann and her attorneys refiled her suit for alimony.

Brigham Young did not pay the backlog of alimony owed, and appealed the decision that he should have to pay alimony while the case was ongoing. From Series 1649– District Court Territorial Minute Books, Book 3.

Brigham Young started by denying that his marriage to Ann was legal, as it was a polygamous marriage and therefore could not be used to demand alimony. He also refuted Ann’s assertion of his wealth (she claimed he had eight million dollars) and stated he only had $6,000 a month ($158,000 today) to support the other 63 people in his family. He asked that the judge take that into consideration and not demand alimony from him.

Judge McKean ruled that even a marriage in the Mormon tradition of polygamy would qualify for compensation. Brigham was ordered to pay $3,000 in court fees and $500 a month in alimony to Ann, as well as back payments for alimony during the court case. Brigham refused to pay and was arrested, spent the night in jail, and then was forced to pay the court fees.

Brigham promptly filed an appeal for paying the alimony. Judge McKean was replaced by Judge Lowe, who decided that there was not enough proof of the marriage, and therefore alimony could not be demanded. The divorce was finalized in January of 1875.

And the third husband:

Ann married a third time to a man named Moses Denning. After she caught him having an affair with a maid, she divorced for the third time.
https://archivesnews.utah.gov/2023/03/2 ... ham-young/

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?

[Marcus]

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.'

[drumdude]

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?

They’re just roadblocks to The Plan of Happiness(tm) and Jesus Christ’s church. She’s probably an agent of The Adversary…