Torches at High Noon: A Fog Machine, Power Lines, An Angry Extra and Brigham Young’s Electric Boogaloo

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Peterson says, "here are some quotations from someone who'd met him." He then says, "He could philosophize with authority, if not polish, on Voltaire (If I am mistaken in suggesting that Remy and Brenchley did not write, "He could philosophize with authority, if not polish, on Voltaire," I would welcome a correction.) Bottom line: Peterson should have credited Arrington.

The Afore manufactured this quote out of whole cloth? An astonishing move, though hardly surprising. Given the Afore's dubious personal and professional track record, his work inevitably invites skepticism and suspicion. Bowdlerizing Brigham fits the pattern perfectly, marked by both a plagiarized screenplay and fabricated facts. Folks, you really can't make this stuff up.

[Tom]

Peterson says, "here are some quotations from someone who'd met him." He then says, "He could philosophize with authority, if not polish, on Voltaire (If I am mistaken in suggesting that Remy and Brenchley did not write, "He could philosophize with authority, if not polish, on Voltaire," I would welcome a correction.) Bottom line: Peterson should have credited Arrington.

The Afore manufactured this quote out of whole cloth? An astonishing move, though hardly surprising. Given the Afore's dubious personal and professional track record, his work inevitably invites skepticism and suspicion. Bowdlerizing Brigham fits the pattern perfectly, marked by both a plagiarized screenplay and fabricated facts. Folks, you really can't make this stuff up.

No. He read a quotation in Arrington’s biography (see here). I’ve been unable to locate the source of Arrington’s quotation, but the Afore didn’t manufacture it.

Episode 31: "Lives of Their Own? The Wives and Family Life of Brigham Young"

Jenessa Sheffield opens the episode by saying, "I have a couple of letters I want to share." Daniel Peterson, with a beatific look, replies, "Oh, what have you found?" Sheffield explains that the first one is from one of Brigham Young's daughters, Clarissa (Young Spencer). She hands a childhood photo of Clarissa to Peterson and reads: "No child ever loved, revered, and cherished a father more than I did mine . . . . He had the affection and tenderness of a woman for his family and friends. . . . [a camera shot of a book page is shown] Each day of my childhood stands forth in my memory as one long round of happiness."

Camrey Bagley Fox: "So, I'm guessing she was his favorite daughter ..."
Sheffield laughs.
Fox: "... if she's talking like that about him, right?"
Sheffield: "I mean, Camrey, I don't know. But what I do know is that one of his other daughters, Susa, what she said about him was, 'No other fact of father's life was so profound a proof of his true nobility and greatness as his life at home which he radiated there. . . . but to his children he was an ideal father. Kind to a fault, tender, thoughtful, just and firm. . . . [page shown] None of us feared him; all of us adored him. . . . What his life and love meant to his family only their subsequent lives may testify.'"
Peterson: "That's interesting. But, you know, that kind of sentiment from his children is pretty commonly expressed. They seem to have felt that way about him. And I'm sure there were the little strifes that always come along with being a child and kind of bucking up against authority and finally declaring your independence. But I think it's important that they didn't fear him, that they saw him as a loving parent."

Let me note at the outset that I do not know why Sheffield refers to these reminiscences as "letters." The first quotation she reads is from a hagiographic book published in 1940 entitled Brigham Young at Home. It was co-authored by Clarissa Young Spencer. The second quotation she reads is featured in an article by Dean Jessee published in BYU Studies in 2001. Jessee's source is a book co-authored by Susa Young Gates published in 1930 entitled The Life Story of Brigham Young.

To reiterate a point I made earlier, recall that Peterson has invited Fox and Sheffield (and viewers) to tour a museum that collects, to use Peterson's words, "materials, artifacts, documents, diaries, journals, all those sorts of things about the early pioneer period." Why are Peterson, Fox, and Sheffield sitting in such a museum reading from books published in 1930 and 1940 and a journal article published in 2001? It strikes me as a performance.

As an aside, I noticed several shots of Peterson's tablet screen. See, for example, the view beginning at 40 seconds. It appears to be the episode script. I should note, however, that the script is not being strictly followed. I see a “Wow!” line in the script, but neither Sheffield nor Fox actually said it. I’m confident that Peterson would not be given the line “Wow!” He’s there to play the role of teacher to Sheffield and Fox, not to be caught showing any sign that he’s learning anything new about Young. Peterson is playing the part of the Brigham Young expert.

I thought Peterson was going to interject more realism into the glowing testimonies from two of Young's daughters. I have my doubts, for example, that "[e]ach day of [Clarissa Young's] childhood st[ood] forth in [her] memory as one long round of happiness." That issue aside, how much time, on average, did Brigham Young spend with his children on an average day?

Peterson notes that Brigham Young's father was a "stern disciplinarian" and "would govern the kids with a word and a blow, and the blow usually came first." He comments that "Brigham apparently resolved that he was not going to be that kind of father." The context of the remark by Brigham Young that Peterson references is noteworthy. Young was addressing Latter-day Saints at the October 1856 general conference in Salt Lake City. He says:

I wish the most strict attention of the entire congregation, for if there is walking and talking within and around this bowery, a great many will not be able to hear. And I request those who wish to talk and whisper, to remove so far that they will not disturb the congregation today, nor during the Conference, as the assembly, undoubtedly, will be very large.

If we could possibly build a bowery, or a tabernacle, that would bring the people so near to us that we would not have to speak so loud, we should certainly do it: but this we cannot do, for by the time that we could build a tabernacle for seating fifteen thousand persons nearer the speaker than are the outskirts of this congregation, the people would have so increased, that we should just be as far from our object as now.

I shall require the people to be perfectly still, while they are here and we are trying to speak to them. Let there be no talking, whispering, nor shuffling of feet. It would be beneficial for mothers who have small children here that will cry, to leave, the bowery, if they cannot keep their children still. I make this suggestion, in consequence of what has passed.

I will say, in regard to the sisters who bring children here to make a noise, they have never yet sufficiently thought, nor sufficiently considered their own place in this world, nor the place of others, to know that there is any other person living on the earth but themselves; and they think, when they hear people talk, that it is a noise through a dark veil. I cannot say much for the education, based on good feeling, that such persons have. Were I to describe it in a plain way, I should say that they are people of no breeding, that they were never bred but came up; that is about as good a character as I can afford to give to any mother that will keep a squalling child in a meeting. I have never said to the congregation, look and see who they are, for you may distinguish by your ears, without looking, the mothers that have had good teaching and been brought up in a civilized society.

So it is with some men; and to the disgrace of some of our police, I will state that in Conference times, and when we have unusually large assemblies, they will converse right in the congregation, and just on the outside, disturbing the meeting. I would that we had a police that understood good breeding. If the police want to know how to manage to keep order, notwithstanding I have frequently told them, I will now tell them again. Instead of shouting "silence," go and touch the unruly person.

Were I a policeman I would follow a practice of my father's; it used to be a word and a blow, with him, but the blow came first. I should act upon that plan, when persons are holding caucus meetings in or about our congregations; and if they would not desist, I would rap them hard enough for them to take the hint without my speaking.

I make these remarks, because I wish the brethren who will speak to you to-day, the Elders who have lately returned, to be heard. Those who speak in large assemblies understand that they often have to raise their voices as though they were giving commands to a large army, but we expect our Elders will speak as they have been in the habit of doing. If they can raise their voices above the crying of children and the talking and whispering of the people, so that all can hear, it will be well; but this we cannot expect.

Journal of Discourses 4:112-113 (October 5, 1856) (emphasis added).

Did Brigham Young's father's discipline inspire him to be a kinder father? Perhaps. But he took more than one lesson from his father's abusive ways.

Peterson then reads a few quotations from Brigham Young. He does not cite his source, but both quotations (the words were not delivered on a single occasion) are included in Jessee's article. He could also be reading from chapter 46 of Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young.

Regarding the episode's excerpts of Fox's interview with Lisa Olsen Tait and Brittany Chapman Nash, I would note Tait's observation that Brigham Young believed that women should obey their husbands. "That was part of that male headship paradigm," she says. "And it was part of the temple at the time. Like, that was part of how they understood what the relationship should be. So women shouldn't be uppity. Women shouldn't be dictatorial. Women shouldn't be trying to control everything--unless they can do it without him knowing, right? But within that [paradigm], he wants them to be fully converted and engaged individuals within the kingdom."

Fox asks: "Within the religious side of things, did Brigham Young grant women any ecclesiastical authority? And if so, what were the limits of that?"

Tait points out that in 1867, Brigham Young called and commissioned Eliza Snow to "go around and reorganize relief societies in the church around the territory. And that is how this women's sphere then grows within the community is through the organization of the relief society and then there's the retrenchment movement and then they organize the young ladies and then primary comes in 1878. They're all under the umbrella of the Relief Society and Eliza R. Snow is the undisputed leader of all of that until her death in 1887. As Brittany said, there's a great deal of autonomy that women were exercis[ing] within that sphere and within these organizations, but everybody knows that when the chips are down, which sphere is subordinate to which sphere."

Tait and Chapman do not explain why Snow needed to reorganize relief societies in 1867. I recommend that the next episode of Bowdlerizing Brigham discuss Brigham Young's 9 March 1845 discourse denouncing the relief society. That would be informative.

Peterson says “it’s important to judge people against the background of their time.” Bowdlerizing Brigham is failing to show that Young was more than a man of his time.

[Doctor Scratch]

Great post, Tom. It makes me wonder how much apparently deceptive content is in the films. One of the lingering problems for the Church is this long history of “lying by omission,” which tends to give people the impression that the Church bas been deliberately trying to cover up embarrassing history. So, this Interpreter project is just adding to the problem. I wonder if the Afore’s co-hosts are aware of just how deceptive this is.

[Gadianton]

I was struck by the odd quote from the Afore reacting to the quote about BY being a nice daddy. It was the type of thing a habitual apologist says to get in front of a problem. Well, going by Tom's theory, that the Afore is playing the expert, saying "that's interesting. But that kind of sentiment is common from children, I'm sure there were little strifes..." is quite odd.

In this case he's anticipating the skeptic. As an expert, he would know what the sentiments actually are. They could actually talk factually about all of this. What child bucked against authority?

"That's interesting. But, you know, that kind of sentiment from his children is pretty commonly expressed. They seem to have felt that way about him. And I'm sure there were the little strifes that always come along with being a child and kind of bucking up against authority and finally declaring your independence. But I think it's important that they didn't fear him, that they saw him as a loving parent." -- the Afore

He seems to be searching for a plea bargain for no reason, as all we have on the table is positivity about BY as a dad.

An entire essay could be written on this one subtle paragraph. It's a masterclass in apologetics and I'm afraid, dishonesty.

[I Have Questions]

Talk about polygamy! There is no true philosopher on the face of the earth but what will admit that such a system, properly carried out according to the order of heaven, is far superior to monogamy for the raising of healthy, robust children!

Brigham Young

https://www.azquotes.com/author/16087-B ... g/children

How has that philosophy aged?

Brigham Young had (I think) 57 children across 56 wives. How does one effectively go about being a devoted husband and doting father, giving quality time to each of his dependants, to 113 individuals?

In organizations, the common understanding is that for a leader to be effective they should have no more than 7 direct reports. I realise it’s different to a family, but the principle about how many people an individual can give quality time to stands equally as well in a family.

Floodlit considers Brigham Young a sex offender. It’s probably these details that Peterson is trying to combat.

Brigham Young (1801 – 1877) was the second president of the Mormon church; married 56 women, including a 15-year-old and three 16-year-olds; was publicly accused during his life (1801-1877) of sexual misconduct, including adultery and illegal polygamy; never charged with a sex crime; arrested and charged with adultery in 1871; not convicted.

[Doctor Scratch]

I was struck by the odd quote from the Afore reacting to the quote about BY being a nice daddy. It was the type of thing a habitual apologist says to get in front of a problem. Well, going by Tom's theory, that the Afore is playing the expert, saying "that's interesting. But that kind of sentiment is common from children, I'm sure there were little strifes..." is quite odd.

In this case he's anticipating the skeptic. As an expert, he would know what the sentiments actually are. They could actually talk factually about all of this. What child bucked against authority?

"That's interesting. But, you know, that kind of sentiment from his children is pretty commonly expressed. They seem to have felt that way about him. And I'm sure there were the little strifes that always come along with being a child and kind of bucking up against authority and finally declaring your independence. But I think it's important that they didn't fear him, that they saw him as a loving parent." -- the Afore

He seems to be searching for a plea bargain for no reason, as all we have on the table is positivity about BY as a dad.

An entire essay could be written on this one subtle paragraph. It's a masterclass in apologetics and I'm afraid, dishonesty.

Absolutely. This whole project is turning out more and more to be a total sham. The claim at the outset was that it would address "difficult issues," but is it? No. It's not. It's a total, embarrassing whitewash. He says, "I think it's important that they didn't fear him, that they saw him as a loving parent." Of course he "thinks it's important," because that's part of the warped, dishonest portrait that he's trying to peddle. I mean, does he think it's "important" that viewers know about BY's anti-Relief Society attitudes? Does he think it's "important" that viewers know about BY's depraved, murderer grandson?

And I still have to ask: are the co-hosts fully aware of the extent of the issues? E.g., if Sister Bagley Fox was made aware of the Relief Society comments, would she still want to participate in this project?

Meanwhile, what happened to Bro. Wilson? I am reminded that (allegedly), on certain occasions, some of the brethren in the olden days were sent off on missions so that those in power could take their women as plural wives. I'm not saying there are any similarities here, beyond the most superficial ones, but, still, Wilson's absence is curious, given the context.

[Tom]

Great post, Tom. It makes me wonder how much apparently deceptive content is in the films. One of the lingering problems for the Church is this long history of “lying by omission,” which tends to give people the impression that the Church bas been deliberately trying to cover up embarrassing history. So, this Interpreter project is just adding to the problem. I wonder if the Afore’s co-hosts are aware of just how deceptive this is.

It's hard to say. The scriptwriters have painted Fox and Sheffield as individuals who are fairly uninformed about Brigham Young and church history. At the close of the episode, Peterson condescendingly asks them, "So was it useful to you? Was it helpful?" Useful and helpful for what purpose? Peterson sounds like a parent quizzing young children. He's speaking to adults. Did Peterson find the interviews with Tait and Chapman Nash "useful" and "helpful"?

I was struck by the odd quote from the Afore reacting to the quote about BY being a nice daddy. It was the type of thing a habitual apologist says to get in front of a problem. Well, going by Tom's theory, that the Afore is playing the expert, saying "that's interesting. But that kind of sentiment is common from children, I'm sure there were little strifes..." is quite odd.

In this case he's anticipating the skeptic. As an expert, he would know what the sentiments actually are. They could actually talk factually about all of this. What child bucked against authority?

"That's interesting. But, you know, that kind of sentiment from his children is pretty commonly expressed. They seem to have felt that way about him. And I'm sure there were the little strifes that always come along with being a child and kind of bucking up against authority and finally declaring your independence. But I think it's important that they didn't fear him, that they saw him as a loving parent." -- the Afore

He seems to be searching for a plea bargain for no reason, as all we have on the table is positivity about BY as a dad.

An entire essay could be written on this one subtle paragraph. It's a masterclass in apologetics and I'm afraid, dishonesty.

Absolutely. This whole project is turning out more and more to be a total sham. The claim at the outset was that it would address "difficult issues," but is it? No. It's not. It's a total, embarrassing whitewash. He says, "I think it's important that they didn't fear him, that they saw him as a loving parent." Of course he "thinks it's important," because that's part of the warped, dishonest portrait that he's trying to peddle. I mean, does he think it's "important" that viewers know about BY's anti-Relief Society attitudes? Does he think it's "important" that viewers know about BY's depraved, murderer grandson?

And I still have to ask: are the co-hosts fully aware of the extent of the issues? E.g., if Sister Bagley Fox was made aware of the Relief Society comments, would she still want to participate in this project?

Meanwhile, what happened to Bro. Wilson? I am reminded that (allegedly), on certain occasions, some of the brethren in the olden days were sent off on missions so that those in power could take their women as plural wives. I'm not saying there are any similarities here, beyond the most superficial ones, but, still, Wilson's absence is curious, given the context.

Now that the topic of Brigham and women has been touched upon, I expect that Peterson will escort Sheffield offstage in favor of Wilson.

[I Have Questions]

Will Peterson be covering the fact that…

Church president Brigham Young taught on multiple occasions that Black–White marriage merited death for the couple and their children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interraci ... LDS_Church

…anytime soon?

[sock puppet]

Will Peterson be covering the fact that…

Church president Brigham Young taught on multiple occasions that Black–White marriage merited death for the couple and their children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interraci ... LDS_Church

…anytime soon?

Why would anything the Brethren say be followed by anyone? Just give it some time and their successors will dismiss it as "man speak", not from Elohim/Jehovah.

[Tom]

Episode 32: “Religious Kindred & Savage Enemies”

Here’s a description of the episode:

How did Brigham Young’s determination to never again be driven out of his home collide with Native peoples who were being pushed off the rivers and valleys of Utah?

Why did a church that sent missionaries to Native Americans so early still end up building forts and fighting battles?

Our hosts visit a historic Utah fort and use it as a doorway into the complicated relationship between early Latter-day Saints and Native peoples. They talk about why the Saints built forts, how those sites also served as way-stations on the north–south corridor, and how the arrival of Mormon settlers disrupted Native hunting, fishing, and gathering grounds.

Historian John Peterson explains that the first contacts began the week the Saints entered the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, and Brigham Young saw living in “Indian country” as a chance to fulfill a Book of Mormon mission to the Lamanites. But daily survival—settlements, canals, cattle, and colonization—often pushed that ideal aside. The hosts emphasize that the history is gray rather than one-sided. Saints arrived as refugees fleeing persecution and quickly expanded to secure a lasting Zion, while Native groups took the pioneer cattle on their lands as a kind of tax after their food system was broken.

It’s not clear to me why “savage enemies” is part of the episode title. Is it intended to reflect historical rhetoric? For example, did early LDS colonists in Utah often describe the native peoples of Utah as “savage enemies”? The title above the YouTube video is slightly different: “Religious Kindred but Savage Enemies?” Is the episode meant to challenge that historical rhetoric or understanding? If “savage enemies” is intended to indicate animosity and conflict between Mormons and native peoples of Utah, different language should have been used. The term savage carries a great deal of baggage inasmuch as it has been used by colonists for centuries to disparage native Americans, to portray them as backward and uncivilized, and to justify displacement, taking land, and violence. Unfortunately, the episode doesn’t address use of the term and why it’s problematic.

Here’s the clunky dialogue that opens the episode:

John Wilson: How crazy is this [his voice cracking]? What’s the point of living in Utah if you can’t be surrounded by neat things.
Camrey Fox: Well, you know, you couldn’t always just hop on a road and drive here, John.
John Wilson: Don’t bring me down. I would have arrived on a horse.
Camrey Fox: I’m sure you would have.
John Wilson: What do you think? Do we just knock?
Camrey Fox: It’s actually open.
[Peterson appears from behind the fort’s large door]
John Wilson: Oh, hey, Dan.
Dan Peterson: So you made it.
John Wilson: Indeed, we did. Excited for the episode today. I got to interview Dr. John Peterson, and he had some crazy things to share about the conflicts between the Native Americans and early Saints.
Dan Peterson: Pretty eye-opening, isn’t it?
John Wilson: Yeah.
Camrey Fox: I’m guessing when you say conflicts, you’re not just talking about arguments.
John Wilson: No. No. There were some tragic affairs.
Dan Peterson: So do you think you have a better understanding now of why?
John Wilson: Yeah, and that was, I think, was the most elucidating thing. It was like, it’s not a black and white history. It’s gray. It’s muddled. It’s confusing. And both sides have justifications for their actions.
Dan Peterson: It’d be nice to be able to choose one side and say they were completely right, and these were completely wrong. You can’t do it.
John Wilson: And even Brigham admits to making mistakes.
Dan Peterson: Yeah. Well, OK, so let’s go on in.

After the standard introduction narrated by Fox, the three are shown entering the fort.

John Wilson: Whoa.
Dan Peterson: What do you think?
Camrey Fox: It’s nothing like I expected it to be. I don’t know what I was expecting.
John Wilson: Yeah.
Camrey Fox: But this wasn’t it.
John Wilson: Exactly.
Camrey Fox: I’m curious, is this how it was originally?
[For some reason, Wilson suddenly walks away from Fox and Peterson and trots toward the stairs. He begins climbing the stairs]
Dan Peterson: You know, in general structure, general outline, I think. I doubt that it was kept up quite as well as it is now, back in the days when it was an active hub of activity.

The best part of the episode consists of excerpts from an interview with John Peterson conducted by Wilson. (Peterson is probably best known as the author of Utah’s Black Hawk War (1998); he also wrote an interesting master’s thesis on Warren Snow (1985).) For those who are interested in reading what John Peterson has to say in the episode, a transcript is available here. I wish the episode had featured more from him.

Viewers will have to wait at least a week to see if and how the series discusses the Timpanogos.