Talk:Brigham Young/Archive 1

The Lion and the Bee

I see the new mention of The Lion House in the article. What about the (nextdoor) Beehive House? Wasn't that another of his residences? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:09, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

That's correct. I'll try to write an article for that. (Buildings and sites of Salt Lake City, Utah are a pet project of mine right now.) CHL 17:22, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Autocracy discussion

In the paragraph discussing whether or not Young is an autocrat, we have: "He encouraged independence and self-sufficiency." I'm probably missing some context here (in which case, so's the article), but this doesn't seem to leave much doubt.

Numbers Game

The numbers introduced by User:66.182.95.52 "18,000 out of 20,000" are not accurate. No such numbers exist. The previous text was more accurate and I think we should revert to it. --John Hamer 05:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree - I have never seen numbers like that before - I do think the wording before that most members left the church is also not referenced or accurate. Trödel|talk 14:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Second Prophet

I think that the Mr. Young's notation as second prophet/President of the Church of Latter Day Saints should be changed. Offically Mr. Young is not considered by the courts or Community or Christ, RLDS, Restorationists to be the successor of Joseph Smith in the most legal sense. The legal courts showed that in 1890 that the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints was the true successor to the church that Joseph Smith created. Therefore calling Mr. Young The second Prophet/President is irresponsible. He should be recognized as the first president of the Mormon Church. After going out to Utah with his follwers he rebaptized and reordained every member of that church which means he formed a completely new faith. I would like to see this changed if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.221.34 (talk)

The purpose of rebaptism in the Great Salt Lake Valley was to recommit to living the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Re-baptism was to signify that the members would (again) start anew in a different land with a revitalized commitment to building up the Church. The purpose was not to become baptized into a new faith. Given that the primary leadership of the Church(the apostles, the general authorities, and bishops), which existed before Young's leadership as a prophet, migrated to the Salt Lake Valley, it should be fair to say that this was, in fact, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints--the same Church that existed in Nauvoo, Illinois. The term "Mormon" is a secular term that was originally used as a derogatory means of identifying members of the Church by non-members during the early years of its development while they were still in the eastern New England states--prior to moving to the Salt Lake Valley. This logic suggests that it would be contrary to refer to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints alone as "Mormons", although it has grown to be commonly accepted, even among church members themselves. 70.117.240.220 04:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Brandon Jay Bingham

I beg to differ with the contention that Brigham Young was not the second prophet. The fact that remains that he was the second leader of the organization called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". If someone wants to contend that some other organization under some other name is the real successor of Joseph Smith's movement, write up another article about that and put a link to it under Brigham Young. Hersbruck (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo

I changed the image from the photo of a statue of young (Image:Young.jpg) to a photo of Young himself. There are a number of good PD photos of young; I will try to add another later. Mwanner 15:36, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Death to the president?

"and I prophesy in the name of Jesus Christ, by the power of the priesthood that's upon me, that any President of the United States who lifts his finger against this people, shall die an untimely death, and go to hell"

Did Brigham Young really say this? (unsigned by an anon)

Not that I could find in any source document - however it was reported to congress and to President Filmore that Young said this - in a "Report of the three officers to President Fillmore, Ex. Doc. No. 25, 1st Session, 32d Congress" on the 24th of July 1851 [1] [2], [3]. The original source is missing from any statement by Young (which is suprising due to the meticulous record-keeping of the saints) It may appear in an 1851 entry Journal History of the Church (which is unpublished), but I've not seen it in my research. I doubt he said it, although it would not be inconsistent with his rhetoric.

The closest I've seen is the following remark from HC Kimball, nearly 6 years later :

To gratify some who cry, "Oh, don't say anything, brother Heber,--don't say anything, brother Brigham, to bring down the United States upon us," we have at times omitted printing some of the remarks that might offend the weak-stomached world, and we have made buttermilk and catnip tea to accommodate the tastes of our enemies; but the poor devils are not pleased after all. Would they come any quicker if we told them that they were poor, miserable, priest-ridden curses, who want a President in the chair that dare not speak for fear those hell-hounds be on him?

God knew that Zachary Taylor would strike against us, and He sent him to hell. President Fillmore was the next man who came on the platform, and he did us good. God bless him! Then came President Pierce, and he did not strive to injure us. We hoped that the next after him would do us justice; but he has issued orders to send troops to kill brother Brigham and me, and to take the young women to the States.

The woman will be damned that will go: she shall dry up in the fountain of life, and be as though she never was. But there ain't any a-going--unless they are whores. If the soldiers come here, those creatures will have the privilege of showing themselves and of becoming debauched.

I tell you there is not a purer set of women on God's earth than there is here; and they shall live and bear the souls of men, and bear tabernacles for those righteous spirits that are kept back for the last time, for the winding-up scenery.

Will the President that sits in the chair of state be tipped from his seat? Yes, he will die an untimely death, and God Almighty will curse him; and He will also curse his successor, if he takes the same stand; and he will curse all those that are his coadjutors, and all who sustain him. What for? For coming here to destroy the kingdom of God, and the Prophets, and Apostles, and inspired men and women; and God Almighty will curse them, and I curse them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, according to my calling; and if there is any virtue in my calling, they shall be cursed, every man that lifts his heel against us from this day forth. - Journal of Discourses, Vol.5, p.134, Heber C. Kimball, August 2, 1857

That said, it is interesting to note the Presidents deaths/legacies of the time period -

• Zachary Taylor died in office (Untimely - apparent fullfilment of alleged prophecy)
• Millard Fillmore who was kind to the Mormons died when he was 74 years old of a stroke (Could be untimely, but was kind, so should have lived longer? Could be fullfilment of alleged prophecy)
• Franklin Pierce drank himself to death at the age of 65 after not being re-elected, and is known as one of the worst presidents in history (disputed as untimely - died from drinking - could be untimely, but was 65, which is older - could be fullfilment of alleged prophecy)
• James Buchanan was also not re-elected. Also known as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. Lived to be 77. One of the most controversial presidents up to his time. (Not untimely, apparent not fullfilment of alleged prophecy)
• Abraham Lincoln was assasinated by Booth - he was allegedly going to focus on Polygamy the other "twin relic of barbarism" as part of the reconstruction, however had no formal policy toward mormons. (untimely, however disputed as fullfilment of alleged prophecy, as policy is unclear)
• Andrew Johnson was "associated" with Lincoln, and lived to a ripe old age of 67. He had no formal policy toward the Mormons that I can recall, however he was impeached. (cannot be counted in the alleged prophecy).

For the historical ranking of Presidents, see Historical_rankings_of_U.S._Presidents

So, if it was a prophecy, it could be as high as 4/5, more likely 2/5 or untimely means something different than what it means to us. I'd say HC Kimball's statement or curse is more accurate, as it deals with being "tipped from his seat," which did happen with every president who has had a policy against the Mormons, and have not be re-elected. Of course no president between Jackson and Cleaveland (1838-1893) was president for two full terms, and it wasn't until Teddy Roosevelt (from Jackson in 1838 until 1901) - that the president was elected for two consecutive terms. You've raised an interesting question. I wish we had more detail on this statement, but the bottom line and answer to your original question is we don't know if Brigham Young made the statement or not. Ther is no record of it that has been published aside from a hearsay report to the US that led to the Utah War. The same document has other strange things that have later been proven false - and I do find it a bit funny that Young said "Hell" with Mormon theology of the spirit world and the kingdoms of glories. Anyway , long answer to say, "who knows." Thanks for the fun excercise and good question. -Visorstuff 20:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The answer isn't "who knows," it's "of course not." God didn't strike down U.S. Presidents for their policies towards Mormons. Get with it.

Glaring Inaccuracies

Is the Mountain Meadows Massacre the most important part of Brigham Young leadership of the Mormon church? It seems to fill the entire article. (Is wikipedia an Anti-mormon front?)

I am appalled to see that Young's involvement in the Mountain Meadows Massacre is just glazed over, as if the LDS had written this themselves. (Is Wikipedia a Mormon front?)

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/mtn_meadows/11.html "If the United States send their army here, and war commences, the travel must stop," Young told the Saints in August 1857. "To accomplish this, I need only say a word, for the Indians will use them up unless I continually strive to contain them."

Young created the atmosphere that made the massacre possble, if not planning the entire thing. As far as his letter to "leave the settlers alone," arriving too late... well, for good reason. It wasn't composed until after the murders took place!

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/mtn_meadows/16.html "Lee immediately reported the slaughter to Brigham Young, who quickly issued a letter dated before the slayings ordering the southern communities to take no action against any immigrant trains." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.131.244 (talk)

Thanks for your comments. This has been a source of Mormon, non-Mormon and Anti-Mormon debate for many years. All evidence surrounding the event is inconclusive and anyone stating otherwise is not telling the truth or is not truly familiar with the primary documents. We hope an upcoming book and the release of documements that are supposed to be made available at that time will shed further light on the events.

Your first quote "for the Indians will use them up unless I continually strive to contain them" was said by young, as showing that the Indians hated and wanted to kill many of the whites who used the various trails to california (indians seemed to like the mormons whose policy was to feed them, and disliked the rude california gold seekers, and oregon land claimants), but they were spared because of an agreement between Young and Chief "Walker" (Wakara) - so I'm not sure why you are pointing to this as evidence against Young - it actually is a strong support against your point.

Second, the letter was composed the second day of the massacre, if I remmeber correctly. There is no way for word to have travelled 600 miles within that time for "Lee immediately reported the slaughter to Brigham Young" and then Young to have "quickly" issued a letter (Lee didn't see Young for months after the event). Even the descendants of the fancer party and most western historians doubt Young's knowledge of or involvement in the Mountain Meadows Massacre until about five days after the event.

Having said that, there was a lot of rhetoric of the time by Young and other church leaders that lead to such a paranoid group of "Mormons" where this took place. This have very unfortunate ramifications and likely contributed to the events. But to tie the two so closely together as you are trying to do is drawing conclusions where there is no evidence or records or support for it. Especially with the outspoken nature of many within the Fancher party claiming to have aided in Joseph Smith's death. Someday we may very well find out that Young was involved (though it is unlikely from my own research), but for now, we don't. There is not evidence to support and is actually evidence to the contrary. There's more evidence to support various John F. Kennedy assassination threories than your point.

For some good Non-LDS views of the MMM, visit [4] or [5] or check out the upcoming Walker-Turley-Leonard book that opens many new documents to the events. I'd say there is only a couple of dozen folks who've really been able to spend time researching and understanding the MMM. Juanita Brooks definitely went against the grain of Mormon leadership in her works on the subject, and they seem to be the most accurate and throrugh up until this time - and they definitely didn't tie anything but Young's and other church leaders' rhetoric to haveing been a contributing factor. Happy editing -Visorstuff 17:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Famous Quotes" Section

In general, this section is lacking. Sources to these quotes need to be documented; I'll take a look into what's offered online through the official LDS website, but it may not have all of them available. Concerning the controversial quote regarding Young's views on African Americans, a comment has been made in the History that it is not notable for the time period. I disagree, especially due to the significant issue of race in the Church. Keep in mind that just because the quote may not be highly regarded or popular within the Church (and with good reason, of course), it doesn't make it any less notable or important. Deadsalmon 07:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, after some searching on the LDS site, it's not pulling up much. The search engine doesn't seem to work well for advanced text searching, and in any case, some of the more important books necessary, such as the Journal of Discourses, aren't available. I'd imagine that the book used for the Sunday School course on Brigham Young a few years back (from the rotating series on presidents of the Church) would be an excellent resource; however, I'm not able to get to one at the time being. Without proper documentation, I've removed the entire section for now. I'll try to find the sources, but if someone wants to take a shot at documenting the quotes in the meantime, just look for the edit in the History page corresponding in time with the timestamp listed here. Deadsalmon 07:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My last revert - can this be verified?

I reverted out the claim that Young had 51 wives and 70 children because the contributor (165.138.79.133's contribs) made this contribution a few minutes earlier. Normally I would just ask for some verification instead of reverting. Claimed wife is "Abigal Howe 1816 (13 children, in will)" Trödel•talk 17:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows

The cause of the Mountain Meadows massacre was the murderous activity of the Wagon-Train migrants, who killed Native Americans ("Indians") at every opportunity, poisoned wells, and committed other atrocities. The Natives decide to launch a counterstrike against the migrants who were murdering them, and pressured the Latter-day Saints in the area to join in the attack. Das Baz 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, okay... --TrustTruth (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa... seriously? I can't believe what I just read. Listen here, it is absolutely true, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Mormons planned and executed the massacre. This isn't something to be proud of, obviously, but it is part of Church history. Just like the Catholics murdered tons of Protestants, the Mormons also murdered Gentiles. It happened. It's terrible, but it happened. It's something we need to move on from, but it happened. There are many reliable sources that testify to this, and evidence shows the Church tried to cover it up. I wish it hadn't happened, but it did. The question is not whether Church officials planned and executed the massacre, the question is if Young was involved, and if so to what extent. The evidence here is inconclusive, but there is no way any educated person can deny who was behind the massacre itself.

I could name various well reliable sources, but for now, I'll mention "American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857" by Sally Denton, ISBN 0375412085.

Yes, I think it has been established that individual Mormons were involved, and a few probably planned the massacre. It is not established that the Church as a whole was involved or supportive-- in fact, quite the opposite. Note that the people involved worked very hard to hide from Brigham Young's notice when he investigated. Note that Brigham Young's firm direction when he first heard about the brewing trouble was for the Mormons to do nothing, i.e. go back home and let the migrants travel through. Unfortunately his directions did not reach the area until after the massacre. I used to work for the power company that covers that area, and have some direct knowledge of it. It is _very_ inaccessible from the outside. It took many days by horse for a message to get from the settlements around the Mountain Meadows to reach Salt Lake (where Brigham lived) and the same amount of time for a reply to get back. Even in the 1980's and 2000's there are huge portions of southern Utah where law enforcement officials (and power company crews) are out of radio contact once they get more than a few miles from a town. There is no way Brigham or other general church leaders could have known about the passing migrants in time to organize a massacre, unless one claims that God informed Brigham and somehow supported the massacre. But I don't think anyone seriously thinks that. If we quote sources that contradict geography and the communication means of the time, we undermine Wikipedia's credibility. Hersbruck (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The man came to the valley in 1861 and destroyed the burial markers of the massacre victims, saying "Revenge is mine, and I have taken some". If that isn't support, I don't know what support is. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

[Citation Needed]... Speculative citations don't count. A lot of people hated Young. What you just described never happened. 69.169.135.244 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There's More to this Story

There's much more to this story.

• Why did the Mormons get run out of two states (Illinios, Missouri)?
• What was there intent when they went west?

Both of these questions center on political interaction between the new Mormon communities and the existing non-Mormon communities. Remember the Rajneeshies in Oregon? The Mormons got into trouble when they began to exercise political power in the established states of Illinois and Missouri.

• Their cities and towns were growing. They had organized militias. They were a direct political and military threat to the established power structure of these two states. They weren't persecuted so much as defeated in battle.
• Brigham took his people to Utah to get away from the United States. They had no intention of re-joining it. Indeed, the Meadow Massacre can be looked at more in terms of one action in a low-intensity war, than as a single crime. Is there anything here about the Utah Expeditionary Force?
• Polygamy began early in Mormon history. I personally am descended from Brigham Young’s first polygamous marriage to Lucy Ann Decker. They were married on June 14th, 1842, in Missouri.
• Polygamy was used as a political diversion to the anti-slavery movement.
• Polygamy had a definite theological basis.

Any comments on any of these points and how we can properly discuss them? DJohnson53 10 July 2006

• Three, if you count Ohio.
• Their intent, rather than "there" intent.
• The content of Mountain Meadows is the genocide of Caucasian settlers against Native Americans. That is what led to the massacre. It was basically a Native American counter-attack, with the LDS joining in from Native American pressure.

No, that's not how that happened. I question anything else you have to say on ANY subject if you're not willing to admit the way things really went down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.85.179 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• In Ohio, the LDS were persecuted, not defeated in battle.
• In Missouri and Illinois (not "Illinios"), the LDS were persecuted and defeated in battle - like the Hugenots in France.

Das Baz 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This article should focus on Brigham Young and not the beliefs and or accusations of John D. Lee. (which I might add, oviously did not hold up in a court of law) I have removed the following quote:

I have always believed, since that day, that General George A. Smith was then visiting Southern Utah to prepare the people for the work of exterminating Captain Fancher's train of emigrants, and I now believe that he was sent for that purpose by the direct command of Brigham Young.

It is sufficient to state what Brigham Young actually did rather than speculate on what some believe he did. Especially as no first hand account has been recorded. 76.8.204.2 (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Alimony claim

I am not saying I don't believe this to be true, but on this page it deserves a better explanation and a page-specific reference; I just added a needs citation notation to it. --Matthew K 22:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The comment I mentioned here was deleted between the edits of 06:20, 24 July 2006 and 06:47, 24 July 2006. I feel that this information could prove useful or interesting to some visitors to the site, but could get too in-depth for most. As it was, it was misleading:

"Young was perhaps the most famous polygamist of the early church. Young married some 50 women and had 57 known children. These marriages were not recognized as legally binding according to U.S. law, and in response to a suit for alimony from one of his "ex-wives", Young successfully argued in court that he owed no alimony because they were never legally married."

I have found a citation for the above, but as I noted, there is a "rest of the story." She was married to another man before she married Young (and had concealed this fact from him). So, not only was she not legally married to him because bigamy was illegal (for him according to US law), but she was not married to him because bigamy was against church marriage rules and US marriage law (for her). This information seems to be from a pro-church source: Comprehensive History of the Church of The Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by B. H. Roberts. Another source that discusses the case seems to have Comprehensive History of the Church as its only reference for this story: Zion in the Courts by Edwin Brown Firmage & Richard Collin.

I do not know how long the sentence remained in the article, but feel that undiscussed deletions like this are a terrible bane to a page that has the controversy potential this one does. Even though I do not personally miss the statement (the article seems better overall for the changes that have since been made), I just figured I would comment here that after putting a "{fact}" marker the line was deleted without comment. If someone that is more invested in this article would like, I would be glad to add it with a bit more information and the needed reference. --Matthew K 17:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sobriquets

Warren Jeffs reveres "Brother Brigham" and often quotes him in his speeches to FLDS members...his seclusion from this section is pov - as many of the other sobriquets are based on LDS members views on him...a different church, but still (Young) was just as influential in development and growth as he was in the more prominent LDS church. Also FLDS considers Young and Smith to both be prophets - which should be included in this article as well. Wick Griffon 13:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually - that should be mentioned in the article about Jeffs with a link back to this one --Trödel 01:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, a great deal of the FLDS belief is structured around polygamy - and is a direct result of the teachings of Brigham Young, to not include them here goes against Wikipedia standards for trying to be as truthful and knowledgable as possible...why should you include many sobriquets and tidbits in the beginning that are only in relation to Brighams LDS church...to be fair, other religions and povs should be included.Wick Griffon 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

...uh - not sure what to say here? You're complaining that the article includes information about a church that some claim that Brigham started, and others claim is the legitimate successor to JS's????? That is exactly what it should include -things Brigham did in his life, including the leadership of the church. --Trödel 03:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Not including this here has no other argument other than "it makes mormons look bad"...unless you can actually make a substantive claim why this shouldn't be included, I will continue to change it back. Wick Griffon 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately not - there are plenty of criminals that use the writings of others to justify their crimes. The articles on the authors of those writings do not include the information about the later criminals because the article should have information about the subject, not information about some idiot who lived 150 years later who happened to justify his/her actions based on the writings of a historical figure --Trödel 03:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

He is a criminal who is living the life that Brigham told him to...in all reality, the FLDS church has more in common with Brigham's actually teachings (polygamy, racism) than the modern LDS church does.Wick Griffon 13:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Again that belongs in the Warren Jeffs article --Trödel 02:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Every single (previous) sobriquet was pov (provided by his own churchs assessment) and therefore does not live up to wikipedia's neutral pov standards. If we were to include other, actual media based sobriquets we could add things like "Brigham the Butcher" for his role in the Mountain Meadows massacre.Wick Griffon 13:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand what WP:NPOV is about. If a person (or place, or thing, or whatever) is commonly referred to by a nickname, then it's not an editor's personal POV to include it in the article. Otherwise it would be problematic to mention others, such as noting that New York City is referred to as The Big Apple, George W. Bush is sometimes nicknamed Dubya, or, for a especially pertinent example, the Latter Day Saint movement is often called Mormonism. If you have a legitimate reference referring to Young as "Brigham the Butcher", then it may be included as well. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 01:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wick Griffon added the following sentence: "In the Ex-Mormon community, he is often referred to as "Brigham the Butcher" (http://www.angelfire.com/az2/arizonadry/false.html)." The citation of its use on one Web page, however, does not meet the standard of verifying that this sobriquet is "often" used by members of the ex-Mormon community. I used Google to check this sobriquet and the others cited:

• "brigham young" "brigham the butcher" - 1 reference (the one cited by Wick Griffon)
• "brigham young" "american moses" - 9300 references
• "brigham young" "modern moses" - 780 references
• "brigham young" "mormon moses" - 304 references
• "brigham young" "lion of the lord" - 339 references

According to WP:V, the "burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." For this edit to remain, evidence is needed that the sobriquet is often used by members of the ex-Mormon community. Sanpete Slim 15:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Brigham's wives

Most should be deleted - each person on wikipedia needs to be notable in their own respect - and most of them are only notable becaue they were married to BY. --Trödel 18:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The exceptions I see are:

• Eliza Roxcy Snow
• Zina D. H. Young
• Ann Eliza Young (maybe) - That name would probably would be better as a redirect to the article about the book 19th wife or to, David Ebershoff, the author of that book

---Trödel 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is an objection I plan on redirecting - or proposing for deletion - the articles which have no unique content in the next few days. --Trödel 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Similarly inane articles have been started for all Joseph Smith's wives. I fully support deletion for most. Mary Elizabeth Rollins is notable outside of her marriages, and should remain, though there has been little effort in developing her article. Dr U 07:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The redirects are probably fine, but I would like to note that redirecting these wives to this page (from this page) is rather silly. It might be wise to remove the "[[]]" link markers from the ones that just point to redirects to this page (otherwise someone wanting to research Brugham Young's wives will have to click on each of these links to see if there is content there or just another annoying redirect to this same page). I will do that if no one has any objection. --Matthew K 18:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed Caricature

An unfactual cartoon doesn't help the cause of truth. --Coldblackice 22:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I concede that the image was intended to be derogatory and is somewhat silly; nonetheless, the cartoon itself could be seen as a factual representation of public opinion of Young in his own day. If everyone thinks it good to delete this image, out it stays. Does anyone feel it best to leave this here? --Matthew K 18:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The image is definitely of historical value and does inform readers of what some contemporaries felt of the man. However, i don't think it fits with focus of this article. This would be an excellent example in an article regarding 19th century political satire. --68.51.72.144 (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Death

There needs to be an entry made on this article in regards to how and when he passed away.

I second this. I came here specifically looking for how he died and did not find it.

Guys.... 52 wives - He obviously died from nagging.70.189.213.149 (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hickman jilted?

As I was reading the article, this sentence struck me odd: "This indictment was based on the testimony of William Hickman, who also felt jilted when 8 of his 9 wives left him, after Young had him excommunicated."

This sentence seems to imply that the only reason Hickman made those claims was to get back at Young for excommunicating him. Is there any evidence that this was the case, or is this just an editor's opinion? I think we should rephrase this sentence, or even the paragraph, because Hickman's confession was not the only reason that Young was indicted. Suspicion had been swirling for years among US government officials that Young was behind the many Danite attacks -- which even led to the brutal beating and death of one governor. It's just that with Hickman, officials felt that they finally had enough evidence to take the case to trial.

So, unless someone here can provide convincing evidence that Hickman invented the claims out of petty spite, I think we ought to rephrase the sentence. I don't have any specific ideas right now, but I'll think about it, and come back with something. KevinM 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln working with Young

I'm not saying it's impossible for an American President to bypass an elected or official representative and work instead with local religious leaders, but can this instance be sourced? Anynobody 06:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Transcontinental Railroad

Brigham Young was one of a group of original shareholders of the Union Pacific Railroad (and the only one of the original group that paid for the stock). He and his community were instrumental as subcontractors to construction on both the Central Pacific and Union Pacific grades within Utah. This was the largest construction project of the century, and had a remarkable effect on the United States, and Brigham Young was an early supporter and influential throughout the construction. This article would benefit by including a section on this. --Bozokansas 23:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Made the intro similar in wording as Hendrick and Bickerton in order to clarify that there were many claimed successors of the church at that time. Jcg5029 20:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity

This article on Brigham Young has some major problems. It comes across as if a close minded Mormon steamrolled this out. There is so much history that was left out and ignored, and as a result this current article has little objectivity.

Here are some of the details left out:

Brigham Young and blood atonement The MMM, and his invovlement John D Lee as I understand it was his adopted son, this should be explained The Journal of Discoures what is it? What did BY teach in the JofD More details on his background, history, role in the church, political history.

If you are a student of Western History so much was affected by BY, that it should be explored. For example his roll as Gov of the Utah Terrority, the building of the transconintal railroad, and the Mexican-Amercican war all affected Utah, and BY. Lets hear more about that aspect to.

This article needs balancing, too many sources quoted a Mormon sources, which will be slanted favorbly. This explains why so much has been neglected. Juanita Brooks, Sandra and Gerlad Tanner have also contributed a lot that we know about BY. Lets be fair here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUEagle (talk • contribs) 05:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Needs balancing indeed. I was surprised to read this article. It barely has a semblance of objectivity as it nows stands. I guess we're still far from the day when these Wikipedia articles are actually fair, informative, comprehensive, and unified, and don't end up looking like battlegrounds between viewpoints. Anyway, Brigham Young is very poorly defined when the work of very much of his lifetime is confined to a tiny paragraph labelled "Other Notable Actions", while the remaining 95% of the section is largely used up on tiny fringe controversies that, in fact, already have ample coverage in their own articles. I come away from this article feeling like I've learned very much about how his detractors view him but embarrassingly little about the man himself. I suggest summarising and grouping BY's "controversies" at the end like in most other biographical articles, and pointing to their main articles, instead of devoting the huge majority of the BY article to them to the exclusion of the bulk of his ministry. Bravo-Alpha (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

references in literature

i donot understand why these wiki administrators are deleting my edit on brigham youngs and history of mormons as mentioned in arthur conan doyles a study in scarlet. there objections are following: 1-poorly written- why delete it for it? just improve the language. 2- lack of source- the source is ofcourse self evident. 3- deals only peripherally. so what? if you start deleting everything that deals peripherally then you will end up deleting half of wikipedia. for your information, there is a section on many articles titled trivia. 4- unverified information- so what? i donot claim the information is correct, i am only saying a famous writer described him so and so and i am even not claiming the writer himself claimed the factuality of his story. he may simply have wanted to weave fiction with some reality. and anyway, it is just a mention of the story.

My concern with the edit is that is contains POV. It also is not balanced with the retraction made later on at [6]. But really, it's just a quote from a fictional novel and is not based in fact. But I'm glad this is being discussed on the talk page instead of edit warring. Alanraywiki 14:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My reasons for removing the material were essentially the same as those mentioned by Alanraywiki and as briefly summarized in my first removal. I'm sorry I didn't see this before—I've deleted the information after this was added to the talk page. I've deleted the info. 3 times now, so I don't think I should continue to do it if added, but that doesn't mean I think the material is useful in this article. I don't really think it is. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 23:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your comments, but nowhere in the article you referred has it given that arthur conan doyle himself apologised. only his descendants did. for your imformation , bantam books carries a foreword by loren estleman, which describes why such an attack on the mormon church went so lightly in the time of its original publication: that the church was very small, he goes on to say it would have never been possible to write about it in such a free manner had the church not been so rich and powerful as it has been today. even arthur conan doyle himself in the same story, wonders about those lawless days of utah(the dace of 1850) writing in late 1880.it seems very likely his descendants decided to change their views on utah for the obvious reasons. although you may dispute with my views, and claim as the present view on the starts of the mormon church in utah are much more favourable. but that is besides the point. each generation and time can his its own views,but the reference in my edit was what the views of sir arthur conan doyle was at the time of writing the novel, and i would add his views expressed inside the novel have a special place and meaning attached to them. the consider this, suppose the article about brigham young was very long, then you would have no objections in placing some "reference in literature" but as the article on him is short perhaps my edit which you find peripheral in nature stands out. but is that a logical objection? besides in time his article will become lonnger. besides i have given the edit under a specific reference to literature section, so how can that be confusing? if you want to improve it, why donot you add the apology to it? i donot think we should try to hide sometruthful point about any article in wikipedia for the fear it may give a wrong impression. it is not for us to decide what gicves what impression. the only purpose, as i understand, for wikipedia is to state the truth in a coherent, elegant and readable manner. i hope you give reply to my objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chait2001 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Chait2001 - Why do you insist on reverting the better written and better sourced version of this reference for your own POV version? The overall reference is still there against the judgment of other editors, but you keep putting your own version in with no reasons in the edit box. You appear to have an agenda. No one is trying to hide anything, we are just trying to make the entry encyclopedic. Alanraywiki 13:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I should explain my revert as well. The following passage is highly qualitative evaluation, and really should have a named source to insure against original research: " He has used the name of Young without any changes and given the exact circumstance of their entering Utah after abandoning their temple in present day Illinois. In the novel he paints a very unflattering picture of Mormons and a very cruel and harsh of Brigham Young. He has accused Mormons of running a covert organisation which ruthlessly eliminated any dissent from within by secretly kidnapping and probably assasinating the rebels. Though he describes him as an able leader and administrator."

2. According to the footnotes of this book (assuming deep links to google books work), Doyle himself apologized when he visited Utah in the early 20th century. I'll try to find a solid source to nail it down, but honestly I think all this material belongs in A Study in Scarlet, not here. Cool Hand Luke 17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

let it go and accept the correct edit.

Let what go? I just told you that the edit is incorrect as a matter of policy and probably fact. Do you have a better argument than reverting the article? Cool Hand Luke 16:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

better argument? just read my arguments above, has anyone replied satisfactorily to my arguments, worse no one has attempted, you have just kept on repeating the same argumens over and over as if shouting makes for a good argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chait2001 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You've added a long uncited qualitative evaluation of a fictional novel to this biography of a real historical figure. This is WP:UNDUE, and it's written to be WP:OR, especially in light of your repeated contention that any retraction is only because the LDS Church is more powerful now. Cool Hand Luke 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a message suggesting to Chait2001 that consensus is against having the Conan Doyle reference in any more detail than is currently in the article (although I'm not wedded to keeping that, either) with the aim of halting the ongoing editing war discord. I live in hope etc. --Kateshortforbob 21:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

mr. Kateshortforbob you are an editor and it your right to edit whatever material you may find unsuitable, and to block users you may find unsuitable. ans as a user it is my right to post edits i find suitable. but kindly donot post those paternalistic comments on my talk page. i am smarter than you guys think.

You've added a poorly written block to the article six times that fails to capitalize "Arthur Conan Doyle" and has other misspellings. In the whole time, you haven't even bothered to proof read your own contribution. You are an apparent WP:SPA, and if you persist in this sterile, pointless campaign, you will be blocked. Cool Hand Luke 18:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

looks like you will have to lot more than blocking my account. apparently it is rather easy to make a new account in wikipedia. i assur you the edit on brigham young will stay as it as long as i desire.

Knock it off Chait2001. You may try to bully changes into the article against consensus, but creating other accounts after you are blocked won't help you. Look up "Sock puppet." Bochica 14:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

looks like wikipedia has a lot of technical issues at hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenincheslong (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The information about the mention of Brigham Young in a Sherlock Holmes book was pushed by a single person last year. Can we revisit the References in literature section to determine if it adds value to this biography article? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Personality and Character

I think the "personality and character" section is a poor way of trying to push POV on to the page. What individuals thought about Brigham Young really doesn't matter much in an encyclopedia article. We are looking for facts and not opinions about his personality. I think I am correct in my assumption and I am for either removing the section or renaming and expanding. I didn't want to do it without consultation on the talk page as I want to avoid a forseeable edit war. JRN 16:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Facts and not opinion about personality , you say? Psychologists determine personality characteristics by observing the concerned persons' behaviour and infering it according to the school of psychology they belong. It would necessarily involve opinions.And as far as i know Brigham Young never underwent any psychological testing.

Well since I really don't understand that last comment and it is unsigned, I can't really respond. JRN 12:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

I added a POV tag to the teachings section - this article suffers from a heavily sympathetic Mormon POV. I tried to add a few things to treat some of the more glaringly missing topics, but we still need to add information on the following teachings:

1. Adam God theory
2. Blood Atonement
3. The conception of Jesus Christ by physical intercourse between God and Mary

All of these teachings have a lot of sources in the Journal of discourses and should be treated before I would agree to removing the POV tag.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. How do you propose we do that? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "how" - just getting it done. I added a bunch of quotes and a few more sections, and removed the POV tag for now. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, again. Great work! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This section should reflect what historians and other scholars have said about Young's teachings, not quoting or drawing from primary sources, with an editor's view of what they mean. Too much primary material and OR _ Original Research here, as in other articles about the Mormons.Parkwells (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on dates

Due to the edit warring on dates which I frankly don't understand, I've protected the page. Disagreements should be discussed and not simply reverted. Will remove protection as soon as the parties come to an agreement. Until then, I hope you'll find that the Wrong Version has been protected. Cool Hand Luke 05:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My aim was to convert succession box to the newer standard, s-ttl template. Now that's done and it looks like it's not going to be reverted, I'm unwatching. Bazj (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there IS an "edit war" going on. I accidentally reverted a plethora of changes made by Descartes. I tried to straighten it out myself, but by that time, Descartes had already reverted the change. I never meant to revert Descartes's wonderful changes, and I have told him so. My aim was to reinclude the months and days for Young's religious positions. THAT issue may have been an "edit war," but it was not intended to be, and it shouldn't have been. Bazj at one point was insisting on the omission of month and day for Young's listings as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, Quorum President and President of the Church, rationalizing that it was the year template that was being used. I acknowledged that he/she was correct, but I added the fact that ALL leaders of the LDS movement have month, day, and year listed (though all are using the "year template") and that just including the year for Young would probably not be acceptable unless it was discussed here FIRST. All I wanted was for a chance for the consensus to decide on this issue. However, the fact that all the other LDS leaders list day, month, and year for their positions indicates to me that for this article to be uniform, though the year template is being used, day, month, and year MUST be included. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'd be happy to be told about it. Anyways, that's how things look from MY perspective. I didn't consider it an "edit war," and I don't think it was. I accidentally reverted Descartes changes, but I explained all this to him/her, and I hope he/she understands. Clear as mud? Good. :) --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am a "he". ;) --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes two of us. Gender is always a difficult thing to determine unless the user names give it away. Of course, even then sometimes it's hard to tell. At any rate, Descartes, I never meant to revert your changes, and I hope you understood what I told you on your talk page. I think the "edit war" thing has been explained well enough, so I'd suggest that this topic can be honorably closed, and perhaps even archived. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. The history made it look like the dates had been reverted three or four times. It was clearly a misunderstanding, not an edit war. My mistake. Cool Hand Luke 08:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nationality to lead

I added nationality to the lead per WP:MOSBIO, thank you, --Tom 17:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

MMM monument original research

I've removed the following about three or four times now:

"Brigham Young stated in public forums that God had taken vengeance on the Fancher party but he could not wait for a similar action to deal with the monument that served as a reminder of his role in the tragedy."

IMO, without a reference, this is OR - and I've tried to express that in the edit summary. User:Pipey1 has readded it just as many times as I have removed it with only edit summaries that are empty or do not seem to acknowledge an understanding of the disagreement. However, this statement of Young's intentions needs a reference to attribute it to a specific historian, or to Young himself in his own writings. Neither Denton or Bagley, whom we usually cite for this event, give this reasoning. Without a proper reference or discussion as to why this is not OR, I will continue to remove it. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Teachings relating nature of God and Adam

The LDS faith does not teach that Adam and God are the same individual. It teaches that some individuals, including Adam, were appointed stewardship or called to duties in the pre-earth life (preexistence)that extended into their lives on earth. Some teachings suggest Adam was given stewardship for all mankind under God and his duties extended to aspects of creating the earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about what the LDS Church teaches today. It is about Brigham Young, so it includes things he taught. According to historical records, one of the things he taught was that Adam and God are the same person. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please use historians' work, not your interpretation of historical, primary records.Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Extensive quotes

Is there any agreement that the fairly extensive section of quotes can be removed? I think this all got started when some editors added quotes about Young's beliefs about black people, and then Adam–God quotes were added, and then other editors added some less controversial teachings to balance it out and to demonstrate that Young taught more conventional doctrines as well. How can we go about pruning these back? How about if we eliminated all the direct quotes and then included a sentence that mentions his controversial teachings (with wikilinks to the main articles on these topics), and then also include another sentence that points out he also taught many conventional Christian/Mormon doctrines (with reference to the LDS Church priesthood manual of his teachings, for instance)? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was the opposite - it first started with some really watered down pro LDS quotes, and then the more controversial stuff was added later (some of it by me - in an effort to balance it a little). Anyway, I agree with you - that section is kind of pointless.--Descartes1979 (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that all of the quotes should be removed and links added to the related articles.--^StormRider 06:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of balance

As I reread the article it seems greatly out of balance. The section titles are more a summary from an anti-Mormon website than a summary of this man's life. Then, at the very end of the article is a throw-away section entitled, "Other notable actions", which amounts to 60 words covering the opening of two institutions of learning, which became universities, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and stating that a marble statue of him now resides in the US Capitol.

When writing articles how is balance achieved and who determines what is balanced? An anti-Mormon is only going to want to talk about a few controversial subjects: Polygamy, Adam-God theory, Blacks and the priesthood, and the Mountain Meadows massacre. What does this article talk about? Exactly those subjects are the focus with the inclusion of conflict with the US Government. The Utah War is not even mentioned. His role in causing the settlement of thee west is given short-shrift so that the focus and almost all of the verbiage can be focused on the concerns of critic (read anti-Mormon).

Also, the article is still full of quotes. The polygamy section is almost entirely a quote and the Blacks and the priesthood section is a tear-out from an anti-Mormon website with three, highlighted quotes. Somehow these were judged to be so important they were retained Descartes deleted all the other quotes.

Am I off base or is the article really neutral and properly, proportionately written? --^StormRider 19:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always found this article to be sub-par for many reasons, some of which you mention. To me, it reads as if the vast majority of the information was taken from google searches—the quality is essentially what you could come up with in 30 minutes or so of internet searching. I doubt very much that any of the numerous well-written biographies of Young were consulted very much in the writing of the sections. In my opinion, the article as a whole needs a really good reworking. I've never had the courage to take it on, partly because I only own one good biography of Young. I for one would welcome someone with the resources taking a stab at rewriting/expansion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in a similar situation as you and do not feel capable of really editing this article in a competent manner. Currently, all I can do to improve the article is delete the remaining quotes, reorganize some of the sections and wait for knowledgeable editors to come to the rescue. I will wait to do anything and hope that Descartes will return and delete the rest of the quotes. Family life and polygamy sections could easily be merged making family life a subsection. Cheers. --^StormRider 21:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look too closely at the quotes in the other sections - I just deleted that one section that was nothing but quotes. Anyway, it looks like StormRider cleaned up a few things since his last comment. Per this discussion, I am going to reassess this article as "start" class instead of "B" class for the LDS, Utah, and Biography projects. Maybe that will raise its profile to someone who can work on it. If it isn't done in the next few weeks, I will see if I can get a couple of free days to do some serious work - but don't wait for me - busy season at work has kicked in....--Descartes1979 (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a little bit of editing this evening, but nothing that I have done should be perceived as final. II think that one long quote by BY on polygamy may be useful, but kept in-line so that it can be read in the references. I shortened the MMM section. This should really just be a concise summary and allow the main article to address the controversy. Quoting Carleton here is not acceptable; his opinions do not hold too much water given his hatred of the Mormon people. More importantly, there are numerous neutral historians that can and and are quoted in the main article. --^StormRider 11:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

the massacre and weasel words

the massacre's short section is full of weasel words (allegedly, supposedly, reportedly, etc). I'd really prefer these are removed, but I don't know enough about the subject matter to know which words to remove, or sentences to remove. At any rate, there is guidance at WP:AWW. ... aa:talk 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected Source Request

Under the Mountains Meadows Massacre section, there's a line about Brigham Young which follows:

"But he had also allegedly told local Native American leaders that they had his permission to steal cattle from these wagon trains."

Can a source be found for this?

Natemesis (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll add the request to the text of the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

lacks citation

Much of this page lacks citation. Consider the almost burning of Salt Lake City, or the state of several of Young's wives. We need citation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.232.128 (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

One sentence contesting a reliably sourced book has cited an 1874 newspaper as the source. How are we supposed to find that? And where, exactly, in the May 2nd 1874 newspaper? Also, according to the Tribune's wikipage, 1873 was the year anti-Mormons bought the paper. It sounds fishy that they would go out of their way to describe their biggest rival as not destroying a monument to a massacre. I'll just go ahead and remove that sentence, unless someone comes up with an obtainable source. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Young was from Vermont and Smith from New York. How,when did Young get involved with this new religion, or was it the other way around. IE Was Young a Mormon while living in VT. Local legend/old interviews state that the locals were glad when he left - accused him after he left of many minor crimes - interesting to know if this is supported by old court records,etc or just talk about an unpopular new ploygamist group. 159.105.80.220 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Twelve → 12 → Twelve

A recent cleanup on this article included changing references to the Twelve Apostles (and/or the short form of the Twelve) to 12 Apostles (and/or just 12). This is incorrect; this term is a title, not strictly a numeric value, so it should not have been changed this way. This article is semi-protected, so I am unable to fix this myself. Would someone fix this?

Also, should this usage be explicitly be mentioned in wp:MOSLDS &/or wp:NCLDS? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually this is already addressed at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Numbers_as_figures_or_words. It reads "Write Proper names, formal numerical designations, and other idioms comply with common usage." for example "Fourth Amendment, Seventeenth Judicial District, Seven Years' War." etc. Since AWB is a bot, I think that this was just a case of a computer not knowing the, in this case, "Twelve" was a "Proper name" and not a number, so I have undone the changes.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Brigham Young Similar To Smith Sentence

Good Olfactory - By removing the quotes we may have a etiquette concern. If quotes around the portion that quotes Quinn were replaced, I over course would end up requesting that the Quinn sentence be quoted in its entirety. As the sentence is now it runs on poorly, redundantly, and awkwardly. I suggest replacing the sentence with what you had previously.Mormography (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it becomes an "etiquette concern", but it would be fine with me if it read how it did previously or how it does now. I don't think it's a situation in which a direct quote is necessary or particularly helpful as the concept can be easily summarized in fewer words. If particular quotes are wanted for some reason, I think the footnote is a good place for them, since it has a number of other quotes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"Etiquette concern" was probably my attempt at being moderate, some would call it an ethical concern, others would call it bplagiarism. Anyways, I do not see any objections so I will replace the sentence.--Mormography (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. At least with me, it's OK on a talk page to just call a spade a spade. If you think there are plagiarism concerns, then you can say so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fun with polygamy

Before:

The modern church no longer tolerates polygamy.

After:

The modern church no longer practices polygamy.

"No longer tolerates" implies that the Church never approved of polygamy but didn't stop its members from practicing it. This is not true. I think "no longer practices" gives a better impression of the fact that polygamy was at one time practiced and, generally, endorsed by the Church. —Zulugrid 12:56, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps also the ages of the wifes of "Bring'em Young" should be written down in this article, don't you all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.203.89.252 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, a church can't "practice" marriage of any kind—polygamous or monogamous—so we might want to choose a different word, like "the modern church no longer authorizes its members to practice polygamy". As for the ages of Young's wives, detailed information is contained in List of Brigham Young's wives, which is linked to from this article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that I look at the article more carefully, I can't even see where it states anything about what the modern LDS Church practices, tolerates, or says anything about polygamy. Are you sure you're commenting about the right article? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as the English languages is used, "no longer tolerates" means just that; it once tolerated polygamy and now it no longer does. It does not infer that it never tolerated; exactly the opposite. -^StormRider 12:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)