LDS Brigham Young Said

[Rescued One]

We must believe that this same Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world, that is the original sin, not the actual individual transgressions of the people;
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 143

Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Eternal Father. He is our Creator. He is our Teacher. He is our Savior. His atonement paid for the sin of Adam and won victory over death, assuring resurrection and immortality for all men.
Dallin H. Oaks, What Think Ye of Christ?, General Conference, Oct. 1988
“What Think Ye of Christ?” - Dallin H. Oaks

Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, all people live in a fallen condition, separated from God and subject to physical death. However, we are not condemned by what many call the "original sin." In other words, we are not accountable for Adam's transgression in the Garden of Eden. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression" (Articles of Faith 1:2).
Original Sin

Pearl of Great Price, Moses 5
10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
Moses 5

“The Fall was an essential part of Heavenly Father’s divine plan. Without it no mortal children would have been born to Adam and Eve, and there would have been no human family to experience opposition and growth, moral agency, and the joy of resurrection, redemption, and eternal life” (“The Atonement of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, Mar. 2008, 35).

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained why the act of Adam and Eve is considered a transgression rather than a sin:

“Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: ‘I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!’ [Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. (1954–56), 1:114–15].
Lesson 11: Moses 5:1–11


1. If disobedience to God in the Garden of Eden was not a sin, why were Adam and Eve the recipients of Spiritual Death?

2. If disobedience to God in the Garden of Eden was not a sin, why did Brigham Young call their disobedience "the original sin?"

 

[Ironhold]

2. The very first statement you give says that "original sin" is "the sin of the world" and is not tied to any one person.

1. "In that day you surely will die". Remember that? It was a warning that eating the fruit would bring on the state of being human, and being human means being mortal.

 

[Rescued One]

"His[Jesus'] atonement paid[only] for the SIN of Adam and won victory over death, assuring resurrection and immortality for all men."
B. Y.

 

[mmksparbud]

His[Jesus'] atonement paid[only] for the SIN of Adam and won victory over death, assuring resurrection and immortality for all men.

Rom_5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom_5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
1Ti_4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Tit_2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

 

[Peter1000]

We must believe that this same Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world, that is the original sin, not the actual individual transgressions of the people;
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 143

Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Eternal Father. He is our Creator. He is our Teacher. He is our Savior. His atonement paid for the sin of Adam and won victory over death, assuring resurrection and immortality for all men.
Dallin H. Oaks, What Think Ye of Christ?, General Conference, Oct. 1988
“What Think Ye of Christ?” - Dallin H. Oaks

Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, all people live in a fallen condition, separated from God and subject to physical death. However, we are not condemned by what many call the "original sin." In other words, we are not accountable for Adam's transgression in the Garden of Eden. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression" (Articles of Faith 1:2).
Original Sin

Pearl of Great Price, Moses 5
10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
Moses 5

“The Fall was an essential part of Heavenly Father’s divine plan. Without it no mortal children would have been born to Adam and Eve, and there would have been no human family to experience opposition and growth, moral agency, and the joy of resurrection, redemption, and eternal life” (“The Atonement of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, Mar. 2008, 35).

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained why the act of Adam and Eve is considered a transgression rather than a sin:

“Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: ‘I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!’ [Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. (1954–56), 1:114–15].
Lesson 11: Moses 5:1–11


1. If disobedience to God in the Garden of Eden was not a sin, why were Adam and Eve the recipients of Spiritual Death?

2. If disobedience to God in the Garden of Eden was not a sin, why did Brigham Young call their disobedience "the original sin?"

You are way too tied up in semantics. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that Jesus Christ is our Savior and brings to us Eternal Life if we do as he has instructed us to do.
BY may say it awkwardly, but that is what he is saying. Jesus is our Savior. He is the same Jesus that will save you too.

So continue to focus on Jesus is our Savior instead of some one-liner that BY said in one of his journals.

 

[drstevej]

BY may say it awkwardly, but that is what he is saying....
So continue to focus on Jesus is our Savior instead of some one-liner that BY said in one of his journals.

So, it's up to individual Mormons, like you, to correct the inarticulate utterances of your prophets?

 

[Peter1000]

So, it's up to individual Mormons, like you, to correct the inarticulate utterances of your prophets?

No, we just take 100% of the utterances as a whole to get the complete picture of what BY says. Not one cherry-picked statement that seems to be awkwardly said.

That is how I also read the bible. For instance, I take 100% of what Paul says instead of 1 or 2 cherry-picked scriptures that fit my particular agenda.

Taking 100% of what a person says is the key to correct interpretation of what they mean.

 

[Peter1000]

Sorry double post.

 

[Rescued One]

So continue to focus on Jesus is our Savior instead of some one-liner that BY said in one of his journals.

The Journal of Discourses is not Brigham Young's journals.


The quote was from a "Discourse by President Brigham Young, delivered in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, July 11, 1869."
Journal of Discourses, Volume 13, p. 143.

Title page, Volume 1:

Journal of Discourses by Brigham Young, His Two Counselors, The Twelve Apostles and Others

 

[Rescued One]

Brigham Young said:

"My faith is, when we have done all we can, then the Lord is under obligation, and will not disappoint the faithful; he will perform the rest." (DBY, 155).
Chapter 8: Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ

That is exactly what we were taught when I was a Latter-day Saint.

The Lord is under obligation to the faithful.

 

[Rescued One]

Brigham Young said his discourses are as good as Scripture.
"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 264; see also page 95.)

Brigham Young compared his sermons with scripture.
"I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 95.)

Brigham Young said he had never given any counsel that was wrong.
"I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, page 161.)

 

[BigDaddy4]

Typical Mormon response in 5... 4.... 3.... 2... 1...

 

[dzheremi]

What a gigantic ego this man apparently had. Especially that last quote about how he has never taught anything wrong, so it's not possible that anyone may ever correct him. The arrogance of that is just astounding.

Meanwhile, actual Christian leaders from centuries before the foundation of the Mormon religion preached things like this:

I have entreated God, blessed and exalted be His name, and I have told you what has been made known to me; I have informed you of that which I have been successful in [attempting] to understand and know. If it is right, it is from the Holy Spirit speaking through our mouths, and uttering by means of our tongues; and if it is wrong, it is our shortcoming, weakness, error, and heedlessness. But do not take offense at our error, and may our fault not be gross in your eyes. Be content with what we have set forth for you, for we have laboured, explained, condensed and expounded, and have refrained from arguing each point and refuting [our] opponents, for these things are mentioned in the books which are suitable for them; and from God comes success and support.

(HG Severus Ibn Al Muqaffa', bishop of El Ashmunein in Egypt, in the introduction to his Lamp of the Intellect, 10th century)

Not only can he be wrong, but if he is wrong, it's entirely his fault and he takes responsibility for it, whereas if he is right he does not take credit, but gives that to the Holy Spirit, as is proper.

 

[Peter1000]

What a gigantic ego this man apparently had. Especially that last quote about how he has never taught anything wrong, so it's not possible that anyone may ever correct him. The arrogance of that is just astounding.

Meanwhile, actual Christian leaders from centuries before the foundation of the Mormon religion preached things like this:

I have entreated God, blessed and exalted be His name, and I have told you what has been made known to me; I have informed you of that which I have been successful in [attempting] to understand and know. If it is right, it is from the Holy Spirit speaking through our mouths, and uttering by means of our tongues; and if it is wrong, it is our shortcoming, weakness, error, and heedlessness. But do not take offense at our error, and may our fault not be gross in your eyes. Be content with what we have set forth for you, for we have laboured, explained, condensed and expounded, and have refrained from arguing each point and refuting [our] opponents, for these things are mentioned in the books which are suitable for them; and from God comes success and support.

(HG Severus Ibn Al Muqaffa', bishop of El Ashmunein in Egypt, in the introduction to his Lamp of the Intellect, 10th century)

Not only can he be wrong, but if he is wrong, it's entirely his fault and he takes responsibility for it, whereas if he is right he does not take credit, but gives that to the Holy Spirit, as is proper.

If you were to read the entirety of BY's words, you will see that he relies heavily on the Holy Spirit for his teachings and his counseling.
So if you are relying on the Holy Spirit for your teaching and counseling, you should not be counseling people wrongly.


He does challenge any elder to show him where he has been wrong.

A little arrogant, yes, but if you knew Bro. Brigham you would not call it arrogant.

 

[dzheremi]

If you were to read the entirety of BY's words, you will see that he relies heavily on the Holy Spirit for his teachings and his counseling.

Yes, but it is the Mormon 'holy spirit' (a false spirit), which is in service of him (just as was the case with his predecessor, Joseph Smith) whereby he can claim that he has not ever taught wrongly.

The point is that real leaders don't do that, not who or what BY claimed to listen to. Joseph Smith claimed to be visited by 'God' and 'Jesus', and we do not accept that either.

So if you are relying on the Holy Spirit for your teaching and counseling, you should not be counseling people wrongly.

I agree, and if 'brother' Brigham Young were on this messageboard right now, I would remind him of that myself. Again, the point is that this warning include BY, rather than place him above it, as he does by his very unbecoming and telling arrogance.

He does challenge any elder to show him where he has been wrong.

A little arrogant, yes, but if you knew Bro. Brigham you would not call it arrogant.

Why does he get a pass for his arrogance because/if you know him? I know lots of people, and when they act like pompous jerks, I don't say "Oh, that so-and-so! If you knew him, you'd know the repulsive thing he just said that shows how he is driven by his ego actually shows the exact opposite of that!"

For God's sake, Peter, wake up to the reality of the type of men you are following. Or if you can't do that, at least don't come here with the kinds of defenses that would be expected from an abused and beaten down wife apologizing for her drunken husband or something. "Oh, you know...that's just his way! You'd have to know him to see how this is all really fine...don't worry...despite what you obviously see, things are actually completely different once you get to know him..."

It's freaking sad. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Gordon B. Hinkley, etc. are all spiritual abusers. They say and do wrong things and you excuse them and justify them because they claim some kind of control over what you can think and say, as leaders of the organization. And you give them that control because you are taught that they have such power in reality.

"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true", says your Elder Oaks with a smile. How does that not make your skin crawl?!

This is the kind of thing that makes people think Mormonism is a cult. You are confirming it yourself with this kind of reply, Peter.

(Just for the record, I know there are plenty of Mormons out there who would not agree with Elder Oaks or you, but the attitude of servility and deference in the face of things that you agree are arrogant is really mind-blowing. Does Mormonism have any standards at all, or is this a byproduct of having a 'living prophet' and therefore an ever-evolving idea of what truth is?)

 

[dzheremi]

p.s. - Just to preempt one possible response to my post:

Yes, my Church (in common with all ecclesiologically traditional churches) has bishops, priests/pastors, etc., to whom we pay great respect in ways that may seem over the top to even other types of Christians who do not have such hierarchical structures in their own churches. The difference between this and what we see in Mormonism is that -- in the Orthodox Church, anyway -- this is in the context of affirming the authority that they are given by the Church to teach rightly in whatever official capacity in which they serve (as a priest or bishop presiding over a liturgy or other celebration, as a monk or abbot in a monastery, as a nun in a convent, etc.), which means that if they don't teach rightly or don't act according to the standards that our faith demands, we are compelled by the very same faith that they judged by to withdraw that support. The case of the chronically controversial Metropolitan of Damietta H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy, whose comments a few years ago encouraging Coptic Christian women to imitate Muslims in their dress and piety yielded him several days of protests outside of his residence from lay Copts who do not put up with such ill-considered and faulty advice, should be illustrative of this fact. And also in the liturgy, we exhort those who "rightly divide the word of truth", and proclaim our fidelity to and fraternity with "all of our Orthodox fathers" (i.e., the saints and the church fathers).

You can pay proper respect to someone and still hold them accountable for the things they say and do, but instead Mormonism encourages a passive attitude and approach that lets its leaders do and say things that would probably be rejected and condemned had they not been said or done by a leader. I don't see too many Mormons these days at least of the mainstream LDS branch defending the marriage of grown men to teenagers as a matter of principle, yet the obvious exception is made for Joseph Smith, as the "prophet, seer, and revelator" who started your religion. Why is that? Is he made out of different stuff than the rest of us, so he gets more (more wives, more money, more deference, whatever)?

Inconsistency combined with a lack of moral fortitude when it comes to confronting the falsehoods peddled by leaders guarantees continued rot to the foundations of any religion that displays these tendencies. Perhaps before defending this scheme before a supposedly hostile 'anti-Mormon' audience or world, Mormons would do themselves a world of good to reexamine their approach to their religion and make some changes to strengthen their own rights to freedom of conscience and protection from undue manipulation.

 

[Ironhold]

Point of note -

The bit about marriages?

Back in the 1700s and 1800s American society was more accepting of larger age differences. 10 or even 20 years wasn't unheard of.

Even in the early to mid 1900s you'd see this periodically. One of the all-time real life love stories Hollywood ever produced was Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall; she was young enough to be his daughter when they were first cast opposite each other, but somehow "Bogey" and "Baby" made it work. (The marriage lasted until Bogart's death, and Bacall would remarry a few years later.)

 

[dzheremi]

Point of note -

The bit about marriages?

Back in the 1700s and 1800s American society was more accepting of larger age differences. 10 or even 20 years wasn't unheard of.

Saying it "wasn't unheard of" is a bit too non-committal. A member of my own family (not Mormon!) married a 26 year old (much younger than me) a few years ago at age 62, so I've definitely more than 'heard of' it. That doesn't make it normal or generally accepted, and it seems from everything I've seen that it wasn't in Joseph's time either, if we take the actual prevalence of it to be a sign of its acceptance. Though I guess without the equivalent of modern opinion polls on the issue, you are free to claim anything you want about people's attitudes at the time.

You'd think, though, that if something were really so accepted, there would be an increase in the actual practice among the general population, which as far as we can tell was not the case, since marriage ages tended to climb over time, lowering during 'baby boom' periods such as the 1950s (when the average age of first marriage for women was notable for being 20 years and some change).

Anyway, this idea of women being married very young to older men in the old days is a popular myth about history that is not supported by the relevant data that we have. The usual range was much, much narrower than what we find in Joseph's most extreme pairings, even long before Joseph Smith was around. Here's the averages for first marriages in various places at various times, from Kulikoff (2000; full citation at link):

England, 1700s; Women: 25-26; Men: 30

New England, early 1600s; Women: Teens; Men: 26

New England, late 1600s; Women: 20; Men: 25

Pennsylvania Quakers, 1600s; Women: 22; Men: 26

Pennsylvania Quakers, 1700s; Women: 23; Men: 26

Rural South Carolina, 1700s; Women: 19; Men: 22

I can find no evidence that these ages dipped into "teenager marrying old man" territory in the subsequent years, because by the late 18th century (within a few years of Smith's birth), it was 22.7 years.

It's pretty sad that in the best case scenario, from the available data above we can say that in the early 1600s (a.k.a. as much as two whole centuries before Joseph Smith was even born), there could have been as great of an average difference as 13 years -- not several decades, as was nearly the case when Joseph Smith married Sarah Ann Whitney in 1842 when she was 17 (since he was born in December of 1805 and they were 'married' in July of 1842, he would've only been 19 years older than her), and was definitely the case when he married Flora Ann Woodworth at age 16 in the spring of 1843, Lucy Walker at age 17 in May of 1843, and of course Helen Mar Kimball at age 14 also in May of 1843.

(It seems May of 1843 was a busy time for Joseph Smith...he took at least four wives that month. Then again, I bet you get to a point when you have that many, they all just sort of start to blend together.)