Comments about ‘Pioneer personas: Couple enjoys bringing Brigham Young, Mary Ann Angell Young to life’

Mary Ann was BY's second wife. His first wife died in 1832 so Mary Ann was not a plural wife upon her marriage to BY. But BY did add over 50 plural wives to the household following his marriage to Marry Ann. I wonder if these enactments discuss life with the other 50+ plural wives to make it a more real depiction of the BY home?

Fine timely article for this holiday, thanks.

Brigham Young may not be my favorite historical figure and there are some questions in regards to historical events that I would put forth.. However... One can not deny the fact that he was a great leader to his people and he sure knew how to design a city.

Idaho Coug is right.

My daughter and her husband toured the Beehive House on Saturday and the tour guide referred to it as being the home of Brigham, his ONE wife, and seven children. That's simply not true.

These people (those changing or hiding our Mormon history) must think the rest of us either have short-term memories or are stupid. Our Mormon society loves historical fiction--changing history to something more interesting. But not telling the truth is never good.

This effort to hide our plural marriage past is deceitful and leaves us to wonder whether any of these rewriters of history even believes in the prophets of old. To me, it's obvious they don't.

Needless to say, we ended up having a family discussion about plural marriage yesterday because of this. It helped for our children to know when it started, who participated in it and when and why it was ended. We also discussed the ages of these (and the Prophet Joseph Smith's) wives--that they weren't old women. That some were as young as 14.

Truth (not ingorance) makes people free.

Sure, Brother Brigham and Mary Ann had a relationship. So did 54 other women.

The story about the St George Temple steeple is no longer told.
Matter of fact, the visitor center in St George will tell you that the story was just mormon lore and that they were instructed not to tell the story anymore. This was some time ago.

@MapleDon: My family visited the Beehive house recently and had a wonderful visit. No one tried to "hide" the fact that Brigham had multiple wives. The purpose is to show off the house and the living standards and decor of the period. Getting bogged down in history is the last thing most tourists want, and trying to explain the reasons and purposes of polygamy would take away from the visitor's experience.

I don't think there's another church that is more open about its history than the LDS. Just read Rough Stone Rolling and the Joseph Smith papers.

Monsieur - Rough Stone Rolling and the JS Papers are indeed great steps toward transparency. The current disconnect is between works such as that and what is taught in missionary discussions and general Sunday lessons. Until what we teach in Sacrament Meeting, Sunday School, PR/RS, Institute, missionary discussions, etc. are equally accurate there will always be the potential for members and investigators to be confused and feel mislead. It's not enough to say the truth has been published somewhere by someone you just have to know where to look so therefore we are totally transparent.

I do think we are making progress. But we were making progress in the eighties as well only to see a rash of excommunications of scholars and a real retrenching of correlated material. Hopefully these current activities result in the teaching of accurate history and doctrine in all our materials.

Members (like me) may struggle with some of the true LDS history and doctrine that we learn. But that is preferable to the feeling of not knowing when correlated material is accurate and when it is not. I would rather know the full truth and make an educated decision how I feel about it.

Idaho Coug: I have been studying church doctrine and history for over 55 years now, and have never seen any changes and/or discrepancies in either, so I am ignorant of that which you speak. I do remember the church discouraging members from engaging in special study groups which resulted in cliques within wards. I was in one at the time and although it was interesting, it really did nothing to increase my faith, only my knowledge of useless things.

I remember reading the details of those few excommunications (which were trumpeted about so loudly), but I saw why those people were disciplined and it had nothing to do with digging up dirt in the church. It had to do with teaching false doctrine. I certainly didn't see any "retrenching" of material, whatever that means.

It sounds like you've been reading anti-Mormon literature. There is no such thing as "true" history. Ask any historian. As Nephi said, if there are mistakes, they are the mistakes of man. Don't worry, the correlated material is true (as far as it is printed correctly). Trust the spirit, that's the true guide.

I was at the St. George visitor's center and Brigham Young's winter home last summer. They were still telling the story about the temple steeple then. Also, I was just in SLC and the tour guide at the Beehive house discussed polygamy openly and satisfactorily for the non-LDS audience she had. I think, it just depends on the tour guide's level of knowledge and understanding. The same goes for SS lessons, etc. Also, SS lessons, etc. dwell on the more basic tenets of the Gospel so that we don't go off too far on tangents. If you want more detailed discussion of non-basic things, take institute classes.

I agree with Idaho Coug and Maple Don. I found it very interesting that the Lesson Manual on Brigham Young under the Teachings of Presidents of the Church that we used in priesthood a few years back never once mentioned that Brother Brigham practiced polygamy. Why would we leave out such an interesting and large part of his life? I, too have toured the Beehive house and the sister missionaries got very uncomfortable when I mentioned that Brigham Young practiced polygamy. They immediately went into apologetic mode. Why are we ashamed of our past? I would be delighted if we had a more open approach to church history in sunday school.

Monsieur - thanks for your response. It would be difficult to go into a lot of detail regarding what I mean. But in my experience the biggest problem with correlated material has been the general omitting of certain information.

For example, most members grow up hearing one verison of the First Vision. Sure you can find an article or two about the others if you look but the reality is many members and all investigators learn one version. Another example is the omission of JS's use of a stone in his hat to translate part if not most of the BofM. You would be hard pressed to find any mention in any correlated material or church art. Similarly in Abbe Faria's example above where an entire year's PR/RS discussion of BY only mentions one wife.

In those examples the Church does not lie and say there is one and only one version of the First Vision, or JS did not look into his hat to translate, or BY did not practice plural marriage. It is the omission of relevant (potentially uncomfortable) facts in order to create what appears to be the most acceptable, comfortable version of LDS history.

When first moving to Provo so my husband could attend BYU, he talked me into attending a Ward our first Sunday there. The Relief Society lesson was about the Kingdom that worthy LDS members should strive to attain. After one's death, one would live in a lovely Kingdom where "your husband", should he attain a "Godhood" would have many wives.
If you, his wife, attained that, as well, you would "be extremely happy to live in such an environment".
Yowzers!!!!!! Get me outta here!!

I agree, the white-washed view of church history that is taught in mainstream LDS has omitted A LOT of information. I come from pioneer stock, grew up in the church, graduated from Seminary, and attended more than the average amount of institute classes.17 years of being a single adult. Ive been to all of the church history sites as well. Im a little more than uncomfortable with Polygamy.

It is arrogant and hurtful when we are told over and over again that The Spirit will guide us as the true guide. No matter how much I pray, I still feel deceived and uncomfortable. Not everyone gets the same reassurance that this was (and is) an inspired doctrine. I still feel like it is morally wrong.

Apparently, not all of Brigham Youngs wives continued to have a testimony of the doctrine either.history rumors that 10 of them divorced him. Legal document records point to at least 4 that did just that. It is hard to get the same warm and fuzzy feelings about Brigham and Mary Ann's family life that the tours tout.

Whether you agree with or don't on plural marriage. The fact is that plural marriage is PRACTICED in the celestial kingdom. Some bring up a lot of false premises and then try to say the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints covered it up. No it isn't that way at all. I come from a polgamist family. I don't care as I know that it is an eternal principle when practiced within the realm our Heavenly Father sets. Those are facts.

Brigham Young also married Eliza R. Snow temporarially but only in name. She was a wife of Joseph Smith, sealed to the Prophet Joseph. My great grandmother Amanda Barnes Smith was sealed to the Prophet Joseph after his death. I respect what others say but it is a true principle when followed by the guidelines our Father in Heaven sets. It was necessary in 1840-1899 and in some ways would be beneificial today.

Stop being rebellious about it. Accept it and let it roll of your shoulders. It isn't practiced today but that doesn't mean it never will again. The Family Proclamation is pretty clear. Some of you need to follow and accept that too.

Bill in Nebraska, you speak with such authority that one can only assume that you have had a personal tour of the celestial kingdom.

Bill - I respect how solid you are in your testimony. And I respect that you are defending an important practice of your ancestors.

I am genuinely trying to figure out what I believe regarding the LDS faith. That journey consists of daily prayer and study. I have almost completed another reading of the BofM over the past 2 months and have enjoyed it.

But there remain aspects of LDS beliefs and history that simply do not resonate as truth to both my mind and spirit. And that is difficult because I am not someone who can just place things on a "shelf" and say we will understand them someday.

Polygamy is one of those things that I struggle mightily to accept as inspired by God. Particularly the way Joseph Smith practiced it. It was riddled with private and public deception. His marrying of women who were already married (some to active LDS husbands) defies all logic. The practice left a faithful Emma and others devastated. It is beyond me how a loving, all-knowing God could command something that almost destroyed the church, caused such pain and devastation, and has caused many to reject or leave the church.

To Idaho Coug: Let me ask you what the difference is between the following and polgamy:

A man marries a woman and has children. She dies and he remarries having more children. Again this one dies and he remarries again with more children. By celestial law he is able to be sealed to each one of these wives. The other thing is that when a man dies and the woman remarries she may ask to be sealed to first man. After her death she may be sealed to the second man as well. Again, celestial law dictates here. Polgamy is a true principal when followed by the prophets with correct guidance from Heavenly Father. This is why by celestial law that a man may be sealed to many wives. In the end the woman will have a choice as to which husband she is sealed to for eternity. My mother married three times and will utlimately be sealed to each one. In the end she shall choose.

Polgamy is practiced in the celestial kingdom. Maybe you really need to sit down and read many of the things written. Have you seen the movie Emma? If not you should.

Idaho Coug, though I'm a happily practicing Mormon, there are a few issues/questions that I've never had resolved. One of those also happens to be plural marriage.

Do I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God? Yes. Do I believe he never made a mistake? No.

I'm not sure plural marriage was requested by the Lord or by the Prophet Joseph. I'm inclined to believe it was the latter and that the Lord allowed him to move forward with it. And given Church leaders' efforts in recent decades to distance themselves from our past, I'm not convinced they have testimonies that the practice was necessarily the Lord's will.

I believe the Lord allows you, me, and a prophet to make bad decisions and live with the consequences. And the Church has had to deal with the consequences of our practicing plural marriage for over 100 years since discontinuing the practice.

In the grand scheme of things, though, I don't think having more than one wife is that big of a deal--as long as the father is a good man who can be a positive influence to and provide well for his family.