Brigham Young and the Expansion of the Mormon Faith, a review

Review by Doug Gibson

"Brigham Young and the Expansion of the Mormon Faith," 2019, University of Oklahoma Press, follow a more comprehensive biography a few years back from John Turner, "Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet. (Reviewed here)

Thomas C. Alexander is the author of ... Expansion of the Mormon Faith, and despite not being as detailed as Turner's biography -- as part of the Oklahoma Western Biographies series, it lacks footnotes, for example -- it is a very valuable historical and biographical resource, offering insights and accounts of Young's time in Utah that may surprise readers.

The book moves rapidly through Young's life until events after Nauvoo, then it settles down into a much more detailed account of the Mormon prophet's life in Utah. Early in the book, Alexander provides life passages that underscore both Young's learned stances and philosophies on life. For example, he was amicably turned out of his home by his father at age 16 with the admonition to make his way in the world. Also, as a young man, Young was a more radical Methodist, insisting on baptism by immersion and a believer in talking in tongues. In fact, he joined the more radical Reformed Methodists, writes Alexander. For a while, early Mormonism included talking in tongues, of which Young participated in.

As mentioned, the meat of the biography is Young's 30-year tenure as ecclesiastical leader in Utah -- and for a while governor -- although he retained political power even after having to accept territory leaders sent by Washington D.C. Readers who are accustomed to hearing that Young was a forbidding autocrat who brooked no dissent or disobedience from church members will be surprised by Alexander's account. Not infrequently, church members ignored Young's advice. Some examples: Some members Young would call -- from the pulpit -- on missions chose not to serve; some members called to colonize new towns would either not go or return home after a short spell; some merchants would refuse Young's admonitions to not sell or trade with out-of-state, or non-Mormon, merchants; some of Young's ecclesiastical opinions, notably blood atonement and the Adam-God Doctrine, were disputed by members and high church leaders. The latter never gained acceptance, the former appears to be a possibly misunderstood remnant of the Mormon Reformation only.

However, this is not to intend that Alexander's biography is a harsh critique of Young.It's no hagiography either. Alexander notes Young's strong personality and organizational skills. He managed to settle hundreds of colonies through Utah and the rest of the Intermountain West. He retained great loyalty and devotion among members of the Mormon Faith during his tenure. Although he made his share of mistakes, he was enough of a diplomat to endure severe hostility from Washington D.C., non-Mormon territorial leaders, military officials, and dissident Mormons within Utah. His stature, diplomatic skills, and relationships with allies, such as non-Mormon Thomas L. Kane, occasionally assisted his efforts to sway U.S. officials to ease tensions. It's clear that without Brigham Young, the Utah Mormon Faith would likely have splintered apart.

Young had a caustic tongue, and was a strong, talented public speaker who spoke off the cuff a lot. Alexander acknowledges that his rhetoric caused problems. The author accurately notes that Young did not order the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but points out the sharply inappropriate remarks Young made at the site,, talking about revenge being taken. Alexander writes that Young, for years after the massacre, urged federal officials -- to no avail -- to speed their slow investigation.

Alexander does a  great job describing the tension and dangers that swept through Utah during the Utah War in 1857 and the later Black Hawk War. The former inspired a palpable fear in Utah. Salt Lake City was emptied at one point. A tragic error by Young that allowed a Native American ally to be killed by Mormon settlers exacerbated the already deadly Black Hawk War. In both cases Young learned from mistakes, having the presence of mind to negotiate and make concessions in order to achieve peace, however uneasy it may have been.

Young had an idealistically contradictory viewpoints of Native Americans. Believing them as meant to be part of the restored gospel, he wanted to keep them close to settlers. This clashed with the goal of obtaining more land and resources for settlements. These conflicts flared into violence, with Young sometimes sanctioning the deaths of Native Americans. At the same time, he was angry at settlers who dealt harshly with Native Americans. Eventually, Native Americans were moved away onto reservations, with monetary promises from the federal government that were largely reneged on.

Young's discourses are covered well in the book. On issues, he was progressive for his times on women's role in society. He supported suffrage; Utah territory provided the vote to women. He also routinely granted divorce to women who requested it. Despite his own limited education, he implemented a strong education system, including BYU, University of Utah and LDS Business College. He also strongly supported the arts in Utah society, favoring concerts and stage productions. In fact, he called church members to be in the arts, prompting (appropriate) complaints that they needed to be paid for their time and efforts,

The book provides familial details of Young's family life among his many spouses and children. In the Beehive and other houses, daily family spiritual time was mandated. Alexander notes Young's occasional chagrin that some family occasionally missed those spiritual hours.

His final years, as Alexander notes, were accompanied by increasing health problems. One of his final public acts was the dedication of the St. George Temple. Too weak to stand during the ceremonies, Young was carried throughout the building and spoke seated. He also did a lot of church reorganization in the final years, including ranking apostle leadership by ordination rather than age.

Alexander's biography is relatively easy to read. There's much more than I summarized. I was surprised by some of the details of Young's mind and life that I learned from the book. The Young depicted, while flawed as any other man, is both pragmatic, eager to learn more, and learned from his mistakes.

Young was struck ill in the summer of 1877 and died soon afterward. According to Alexander, although his health was poor many today believe he died of appendicitis, which was not diagnosed as such in that time.

Parts of the biography that stand out are the accounts of the Utah War, the Mormon Reformation, the Mountain Meadows Massacre and its aftermath, the Black Hawk War, a section on Young's discourses, and accounts of the prophet's family life.

Mitt Romney’s dad George was too perfect to be president in 1968

(This post, originally published at StandardNET, was written in 2010, long before Mitt Romney's unsuccessful 2012 bid for the presidency.)

The Spring 1971 BYU Studies journal has an interesting article. Titled, “The 1968 Presidential Decline of George Romney: Mormonism or Politics?,” it’s an interesting look at the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney’s father (seen above). The elder Romney was as an attractive a candidate in 1967 as his son was 40 years later. They were both very handsome and about the same age when they ran. The elder Romney never ran for the presidency again. He served in President Richard Nixon’s cabinet for one term.

It’s popular today to assign Romney’s relatively early demise in the 1968 presidential derby to the bad publicity resulting from his claim that he was “brainwashed” into supporting the Vietnam War by U.S. military, but writer Dennis L. Lythgoe disagrees. Romney’s perfect persona was disconcerting to many voters, Lythgoe asserts. The American electorate may not have bought a used car from a man like Richard Nixon, but they were more apt to vote for Tricky Dick than for auto executive George Romney, who had revolutionized the auto industry by pushing compact cars onto the market.

Mixed in with Romney’s “perfectness” was a piety that disquieted voters. Romney’s campaign took issue with the declining morals of a nation. His stump speech, according to Lythgoe’s reporting, involved the “nation’s six declines: religious conviction, moral character, quality of family life, the principal of individual responsibility, patriotism and respect for law.”

Yet George Romney lacked passion detailing these issues. He also didn’t appear to have a great command of the issues. Voters sensed a vagueness from Romney on the issues. I’ve read “Nixonland,” by Rick Perlstein, which covers the early mid-1960s to early ‘70s and my hunch is that Romney simply wasn’t as Machiavellian as Richard Milhouse Nixon. Romney appears to have been asking Americans to be more decent. However, Nixon was pointing at other Americans and saying, “you are more decent than those people.” Nixon used division, scapegoats and created faux victims to boost his political fortunes. George Romney doesn’t appear to have been capable of that vilification.

It would be impossible today for any Mormon to be a serious contender for the presidency if the church still barred black males from holding the priesthood. Surprisingly, though, it doesn’t seem to have been the biggest barrier to Romney’s campaign. There were lots of news articles about the LDS Church’s blacks and the priesthood policy during that election cycle, and the elder Romney was criticized often for it, but his strong support for civil rights as governor of Michigan diluted much of the bad publicity that might have resulted. However, one must also factor in that 42 years ago we were a less racially tolerant society than we are now.

In the 1960s, George Romney was not shy about claiming that he consulted God about all major decisions. According to Lythgoe, he reportedly prayed to God for guidance prior to his decision to run for governor of Michigan in 1962.

It would be interesting today to track the fortunes of a presidential candidate who made those same statements. President George W. Bush was criticized for his reliance on God’s counsel, but it didn’t stop him from serving eight years in office.

Despite his piety, Romney was considered a moderate, even a liberal Republican. In what would make a Beck 9/12 member gasp, he cited progressive Teddy Roosevelt as a hero. Yet he lost badly, apparently failing to grab the blue collar middle class workers who boosted Nixon. Lythgoe cites three main reasons for Romney’s loss: “his vagueness on the issues; the Negro Doctrine of the Mormon Church; and his piety.”

Reporters came to believe that he did not have deep enough knowledge of the national scene, especially foreign affairs, to handle himself effectively on the political stump,” he writes.
Finally, the “fear that he believed himself to be divine and therefore incapable of error produced new frustrations in the voters,” added Lythgoe.

Was Romney the first perfect politician? Was that “perfection” also a problem with his son Mitt? In my opinion, the younger Romney is an overwhelming favorite to grab the GOP presidential nod in 2012. It will be interesting to see how the son fares in a challenge his father never undertook.

-- Doug Gibson

Book argues that Book of Mormon a response to Anti-Semitism in New Testament

Review by Doug Gibson

Bradley J. Kramer, who has degrees from both the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Brigham Young University, provides a provocative argument in a new book published by Greg Kofford Books, Salt Lake City. At least it's a provocative argument to readers such as myself, with a more casual relationship to Gospel knowledge and analysis.

The theme is described in the title, "Gathered in One -- How the Book of Mormon Counters Anti-Semitism in the New Testament." The author does not consider the New Testament to be uninspired nor anything less than essential to those who adhere to or seek to learn more about Christianity. In fact, it's mulled in the book that perhaps anti-Judaism is a better term than anti-Semitism.

With analysis augmented by references to religious scholars, Kramer argues that much of the New Testament, particularly in the Gospel of Matthew and John, can perpetuate a hostility and increasing prejudice against Jews. The aforementioned Gospels, including later parts of The New Testament, were written several decades after Christ was crucified. The Romans had utilized extreme force against the Jews, and this influenced sentiments within the still-young Christian faith.

An example of this cited in Matthew Chapter 27, is the Gospel author's assertion that all Jews present urged a hesitant Pontius Pilate to kill Jesus. This includes the so-called blood curse, where the Jews are quoted as saying "his blood be on us, and on our children."

As Kramer writes, "And now, before all its readers, the Gospel of Matthew passes judgment on the Jews ... inviting its readers to scourge and mock and ultimately execute them, just as the ancient Jews allegedly did Jesus."

Kramer's book dismisses the Gospel interpretation of Pilate as urging leniency to Christ, arguing that the Roman official historically was known for brutal leadership and disrespect to the Jews, and was eventually recalled to Rome. Another provocative argument broached in the book is that the Pharisees were not the hyper-judgmental, hyper-letter-of-the-law hypocrites as they are described. Rather, the Sadducees, were the party of the elites. The Pharisees, the book adds, represented the middle- and lower-classes. The book notes that some scholars even believe Christ may have sympathized with the Pharisees, and -- gulp -- might even have been one.

Quoting Fisher, Kramer writes, "(Matthew's Pharisees are) not the Pharisees of Jesus' time, but those of Matthew's own that the Gospel author is arguing against." As mentioned, The Gospel of Matthew was written several decades after Christ's earthly life.

The Gospel of John, it is argued in the book, can be perceived as being worse than Matthew's Gospel, as it casts the Jews as "(abiding) in darkness," "(wicked) masters of Israel," and "blind to all things spiritual," and more. As Kramer notes, the rhetoric makes it seem impossible that the Jews could remain God's covenant people.

The Book of Mormon provides a distinct, more forgiving interpretation that avoids anti-Judaism, asserts Kramer, who is the author of "Beholding the Tree of Life: A Rabbinic Approach to the Book of Mormon." As Kramer notes, 1st Nephi 14:14 assures that Jews will eventually be "armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory." Other Book of Mormon scriptures promise that righteous people will look toward the Jews to receive correct teachings and counsel.

Kramer also writes that in the Book of Mormon, when the sins of wicked groups or individuals are revealed, the rhetoric by prophets condemning the sinful behavior "seems not so much to revel in their moral turpitude, as the Gospels appear to do with respect to the Pharisees, as it is to reveal the strength of God's commitment to them."

An example of this, Kramer adds, is Laman and Lemuel, never cast out or left behind by their father or brothers. And that offer of forgiveness and inclusiveness is extended to their descendants, no matter how opposed their theologies are.

Also, as Kramer writes, The Book of Mormon urges Christians to listen respectfully to Jews who disagree with the prophets, and to consider them as friends. Nephi maintained that the Jews had much to teach us. (The book includes this reference from  2nd Nephi 25:5 -- "... I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews."

There's much more to this fascinating read. It addresses a harsh truth, which is that anti-Semitism clings to Christianity. However, without tarnishing the spiritual gifts of the New Testament, this problem can be addressed. The Book of Mormon serves as a guide to resolving this uncomfortable issue.

Early Mormon grudge against President Van Buren lasted a long time

Mormons believe that the higher level of salvation, or exaltation, a person earns after their time on Earth determines the extent of their power and responsibilities throughout eternity. Temple ceremonies on earth are connected to the Mormon view of the hereafter. As can be expected, energetic Mormons have done temple work for just about all of the U.S. presidents and even founding fathers. For a long time, there was one key exception: the eighth U.S. president, Martin Van Buren. (See above in this Matthew Brady photograph)

Although it wasn’t true, I was told as a child by more than one adult LDS Church member that temple ceremonies had not been performed for President Van Buren as punishment for his deliberate betrayal to the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith and the early LDS church members. And indeed, Smith was very bitter when, on a visit to Washington D.C. in 1839, President Van Buren emphatically rejected the young church’s pleas to allow church members to settle peacefully in Missouri or at least be paid for their losses at the hands of that state’s anti-Mormon mobs. In early 1840, Smith met again with Van Buren, who uttered these LDS-iconic words: “...your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you.

Although the incident — to Van Buren — was probably one of many minor annoyances a president had to deal with, to the early, clannish, persecuted Saints, Van Buren became the scapegoat, or at least symbol, of what members perceived as indifference and mistreatment from the federal government. Before he died, Smith said that Van Buren “was not as fit as my dog, for the chair of state; for my dog will make an (effort) to protect his absurd and insulted master ...” Later, when the LDS members moved to Utah, then-Prophet Brigham Young condemned Van Buren from the pulpit.

The rumor that Van Buren never had his temple work done probably started in 1877, when then-Prophet Wilford Woodruff oversaw most of the U.S. presidents’ temple work but deliberately left out Van Buren, and 15th U.S. president, James Buchanan, who sent the U.S. Army to Utah in 1857.

In an interesting irony — according to the book, “Presidents and Prophets,” by Michael K. Winder — despite Woodruff’s actions, Van Buren, who died in 1862, had actually been baptized for the dead in the Salt Lake City Endowment House in 1876. However, it was not until 1938, during the tenure of then-Prophet Heber J. Grant, that Van Buren received his full temple endowments. Buchanan had received his six years prior. Still, the long feelings of enmity toward Van Buren that church leaders cultivated for scores of years was strong enough to last well into the latter half of the 20th century.

It’s difficult for people who are not members of the LDS Church to understand the fuss over posthumous baptisms and temple work, but the importance attached to these ordinances by members are part of what makes the LDS Church unique and contributes to the still-quirky image of my faith 180 years after its founding..

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardNET in 2010.

The Fighting Preacher is T.C. Christensen's best film

This is not really a review. I watched, with great interest, T.C. Christensen's film, "The Fighting Preacher," which is the story of Willard Bean and his wife, Rebecca, and their efforts to revive the LDS Church in Palmyra, New York. Their mission lasted roughly 25 years. Christensen has consistently improved film by film and that makes "The Fighting Preacher" his best film. "The Fighting Preacher" is faith-affirming without the syrup and suspension of belief that accompanied earlier efforts. He's more subtle in this film.

A perfect example is the film's strongest scene, where Bean, talking to a formerly hostile Palmyra local with whom he has slowly developed a friendship, mentions his first, unsuccessful marriage. Talking about his wife's tragic murder at the hands of an abusive man after her divorce, Bean expresses deep regret and sadness that he wasn't a better husband to her, saying, clearly remorseful, that he could have done better.

I should note that the two actors playing Willard and Rebecca Bean, David McConnell and Cassidy Hubert, are superb in their roles.

Boxing plays a big role in the film. Until Gene Fullmer came along in the 1950s, Bean was arguably the best Mormon boxer who was active in the faith (Jack Dempsey was an inactive Mormon, who jokingly called himself a "Jack Mormon.") The film depicts Bean as a middleweight champion, and shows him winning a major title. I've done research on Bean's boxing career and am convinced he was never the middleweight champ, national or world. The world middleweight champion during that era was Tommy Ryan.

Bean's BoxRec.com boxing record lists his fighting days ending in 1902. BoxRec is likely not complete and it's very possible Bean fought for a promotion that described his fight as for the "world's or national middleweight championship," (that kind of stuff happens today) but it wasn't, if it happened, for a title that the high-level boxing world of that era would have paid attention to.

However, Bean was a very good pro fighter. He lost a decision to Fireman Jim Flynn, who fought twice for the world heavyweight title, and defeated Jack Dempsey (Flynn lost the rematch). Bean also fought to a no decision, although newspaper reports tagged him the loser, to Joe Choynski, one of the early greats of boxing, a Hall of Fame boxer. So no bones about, Bean was a splendid boxer.

Here is an Ensign article about Willard Bean that serves as a template for "The Fighting Preacher." There is a larger book version of Bean's life but I have been unable to procure a copy.

Here is a link to my blog post on Bean's boxing career, Willard Bean, Mormonism's Fighting Parson, did have an admirable pro career.. His life was a fascinating one.