Robert McKay of Utah Missions to Mormons Dismal Performance on Brigham Young

Brigham Young: The Goofy McKay Way

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

I was browsing the websites and found this one which struck my fancy as I have been delving quite a bit into Brigham Young this year, since we are studying his teachings. I was amazed no end at the brass of the argument below. Do critics honestly think that in three or four short and miscontexted quotes we can understand Brigham Young better? Here we have one of the few men in history who claim the privaledge of personally occupying, settling, and placing the stamp of his own personality on a large part of the earth's surface. He founded hundreds of communities over thousands of square miles, and after more than a century they are still in existence.[1] Critics cite absolutely none of the relevant research on Brigham Young from Leonard Arrington or Hugh Nibley, not to mention numerous other articles and books. Brigham Young gave over 1,000 recorded sermons in the Journal of Discourses and all the critics come up with is three miserable quotes, and one entire paragraph without references? Are they serious? Apparently they are. So, in order to get the full gist of the argument (a mere minute worth of reading, I swear) I present the entire entry below and afterwards provide a thorough rebuttal using the Journal of Discourses which are, after all, on computer disk these days not to mention CD-ROM. It is rather a pathetically easy thing to simply type in a key word and have each and every single instance of the use of that word in anyone's sermons. If Robert McKay thinks we are simply going to take his word on things, he is woefully uninformed on how Mormons do research. But first, McKay's argument:

From Robert McKay's website at: http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/larrying/umi7.htm

A Closer Look at Brigham

The following is from the publications of Utah Missions, Inc. and is offered here for your information and discussion. There is no attempt to bash any individual LDS member but to deal with Mormonism from a Christian perspective. Since people are involved in Mormonism it may be necessary to examine the writings of some LDS leaders and show that there is difficulty, from a Christian perspective, with their statements. If anyone desires a FREE one year subscription to The Evangel it can be requested by leaving your name and address here or by calling toll free 1-800-654-3992 and we'll keep you on the **cutting edge** of Christian Apologetics.

Michael Reynolds Director, UMI

UMI.MHR@juno.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Closer Look at Brigham Young

Many people today are familiar with the name of Brigham Young. The school that bears his name is in the Western Athletic Conference and regularly produces athletes who make it into the professional realm. One of them today even bears his last name - Steve Young of the San Francisco 49rs. But who was Brigham Young? Just what did this second prophet of the Mormon church with well over 30 wives really teach? One of the summary type statements made by this patriarchal man was when he said, PQ -- Inside the IC --"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture."(PQ Only -- Brigham Young) Young has often been called an "American Moses and for a time he ruled Utah and the Mormon world with an iron hand. Let's take a closer look at this man the Mormon church called a prophet and just what he really taught.

An Apostle of Who?

If we're to believe Brother Brigham, he was not an apostle of Jesus Christ. He said in 1856, "What an uproar it would make in the Christian world to say, I am an Apostle of Joseph. Write it down, and write it back to your friends in the east, that I am an Apostle of Joseph Smith" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, pg. 212). This is not a Christian statement. The apostles of the New Testament, such as Paul or Peter, would never have claimed to follow anyone other than Jesus. But Brigham Young clearly thought it was perfectly okay to be an apostle of a mere man. This is indicative proof that Mormonism is not Christian.

The First Vision

The Mormon church looks back to Joseph Smith's First Vision, where he alleged that God and Jesus appeared to him, as a foundational point. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught that the LDS church rests on Joseph Smith and this vision. Brigham Young's account of this alleged important event was not the official version. In fact, he flatly denied the official story. Young said, in the Journal of Discourses, that "The Lord did not come . . . But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith, jun." (Vol. 2, pg. 171). And Young wasn't saying anything revolutionary - several other General Authorities also explicitly denied that Joseph saw the Father and the Son. Indeed, in several versions Joseph himself even denied the official story.

Adobe Turning to Stone

The most famous Mormon temple sits in the heart of Salt Lake City. While it is built with granite this was not the building material of choice by Brigham Young. As recorded in the Journal of Discourses, Young said, in an official General Conference sermon, that the Salt Lake temple should be built of adobe. He claimed that while granite, sandstone, and limestone would decompose over centuries and be destroyed, adobe would grow stronger and eventually become stone, thus making a superior building material. The problem with this is that adobe is literally nothing more than mud bricks - and rain and weather will tear down an adobe building without much constant maintenance. Isn't it amazing that the Mormon church claims to be led by revelation. Can you really trust this kind of revelation to lead you to eternal life?

Who Was that Sinning in the Garden?

On April 9, 1852 Brigham Young began to teach that Adam was God. He stated that Adam ". . . is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do." It is recorded in the first volume of the Journal of Discourses for all to see that the statement is in context. In fact, in those journals and other sources it is clear that Brigham Young, the prophet of the Mormon church, taught for over 25 years that Adam was God. If the prophet was right, then it means that it was God himself who sinned in the Garden of Eden. Today the Mormon church clearly and officially rejects this teaching saying that folks like me take Young out of context or misrepresent what he said. Yet, when we read the original words of the Mormon prophet we find that he did indeed teach that Adam was God. (The above article is taken from excerpts of CultWatch radio programs heard daily on KMOC radio in Wichita Falls, Texas. Robert McKay contributed to the content of this article) -- MHR

END ARTICLE--------------

Kerry's analysis of McKay's argument:

I want to first look at the statement (unsupported by any reference) about the "revelation" of Brigham Young to build the Salt Lake Temple from adobe or brick. The only place in the entire JD's where this is talked about (I just typed in the word "adobe" and my handy dandy CD-Rom whisked right to it) is in a sermon delivered by Wilford Woodruff:

"When in the western country, many years ago, before we came to the Rocky Mountains, I had a dream. I dreamed of being in these mountains, and of seeing a large fine looking temple erected in one of these valleys which was built of cut granite stone, I saw that temple dedicated, and I attended the dedicatory services, and I saw a good many men that are living to-day in the midst of this people. And I saw them called of God and sent forth unto the United States and to Babylon, or what is called the Christian world, to bind up the law and seal up the testimony against the nations of the earth, because they had rejected the testimony of Jesus, and of the establishment of the kingdom of God upon the earth. When the foundation of that temple was laid I thought of my dream and a great many times since. And whenever President Young held a council of the brethren of the Twelve and talked of building the temple of adobe or brick, which was done I would say to myself, "No, you will never do it;" because I had seen it in my dream built of some other material. I mention these things to show you that things are manifested to the Latter-day Saints sometimes which we do not know anything about, only as they are given by the Spirit of God."[2]

Note this. Woodruff says that "...whenever President Young held a council of the brethren of the Twelve and talked of building the temple of adobe or brick..." Does Robert McKay seriously propose that this is a revelation? Does Robert McKay even know what a revelation is? In our Mormon understanding of this wonderful idea, revelation is God communicating to man, whether by dream, vision, the still small voice, or a personal theophany, or other ways. We believe we can make the case by an appeal to the Bible if that is really necessary. Is it not odd that a Christian leader cannot tell the difference between a revelation and men gabbing?! Revelation is not necessarily horizontal, more likely from vertical descent from Deity to man. Men are allowed to gather and talk and try to learn from one another and bounce ideas off each other in brain-storming sessions without the constraints of revelation to guide them exclusively. That McKay asks if we are silly enough to be guided by this supposed revelation when it is only a group meeting of the brethren more than gives away his worthless argument. That he fails to site the source is just plain lazy. Note what else is missing from McKay's cheap analysis. Woodruff had a dream about the temple being built of some other material, nay even "cut, granite stone" and it was! now here, if anywhere was a revelation, though personally to Woodruff, and it was correct! You didn't get that from reading McKay's ideas did you....

McKay's argument on Brigham Young flat out denying the First Vision is pathetic. Consider that his quote was the exact same quote that the Tanner's have in their little pamphlet called "Joseph Smith Speaks on the First Vision," discussed by Hugh Nibley in his masterful analysis of the various versions and arguments against the First Vision in his text Tinkling Cymbal and Sounding Brass, Consider also how seriously distorted the quote is that McKay uses so dishonestly, let alone wrenching the entire thing so out of context as to insult his own Christian readers' intelligence assuming they would accept this from one of their own Christian leaders. I will emphasize, by underlining and italicizing the parts that McKay deliberately suppressed in order to make his pointless point.

But as it was in the days of our Savior, so was it in the advent of this new dispensation. It was not in accordance with the notions, traditions, and pre-conceived ideas of the American people. The messenger did not come to an eminent divine of any of the so-called orthodoxy, he did not adopt their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong...

Notice what McKay has done to this! I can do no better than quote Hugh Nibley who noted years ago that the Tanners had done the exact same thing as McKay does, so what is siad to them, I repeat to McKay: "By suppressing most of the first sentence, which explains that as in ancient times the Lord did not come himself nor send his messengers in visible splendor, our critics make this sentence appear to say that he did not come at all. And by further juggling, it is made to appear that the Lord sent an angel instead of coming himself, and that it was the angel who told Joseph Smith that all the religious sects were wrong. Actually the statement "the Lord did not come" is promptly followed by the fuller specification "nor send his messengers," which our critics have carefully omitted, since that makes it perfectly clear that Brigham Young is denying neither class of heavenly manifestation, but simply stating that they did not appear in a particular way; for in the next sentence he goes on to specify that God "did send his angel to this same obscure person," and God (not who!) informed him that he should not join any of the relgious sects. God both instructed Joseph Smith and sent his angel - but he did not do either in visible splendor."[3]

So in order to make an argument against Mormonism, the critics have to literally suppress over half the information in quotes from Mormons? Then I say the critics, such as McKay here are woefully bankrupt. In fact, I'll go one up on Mr. McKay. If he can make his case stick that, to quote him, "several other General Authorities also explicitly denied that Joseph saw the Father and the Son. Indeed, in several versions Joseph himself even denied the official story." I say, if McKay can demonstrate who those other several General authorities were as well as showing some proper context for more of Young's and even Joseph Smith's statements that they did in fact (again to quote McKay) "denied the official story," I WILL QUIT MORMONISM. If on careful analysis and full discourse McKay can prove his point, he has my soul. I will minister with him side by side against Mormonism for the rest of my days.

Again in his section "An Apostle of Who?" McKay blunders very badly. Again he is misquoting and distorting what it is Brigham Young was saying. In this sermon Brigham is discussing the joy of learning and how apostasy from the Church of Jesus Christ is the cessation of learning. Denying God the Father is the cessation of learning (JD, 3, p. 202f). "We shall never cease to learn, unless we apostatize from the religion of Jesus Christ." (p. 203). Leonard J. Arrington, one of Mormonism's premiere historians, and one whom McKay blissfully ignored, demonstrated how "Brigham was most attracted to the Restored Gospel's universality, its willingness to embrace truth wherever found."[4] He continued saying "treasure up in your hearts that which tends to virtue." (p. 204). Also "Learn the will of God, keep his commandments and do His will, and you will be a virtuous person." (p. 204). Then he goes on for page after page after page explaining various incidents with Jesus and his chosen Apostles. He describes what makes an apostate, and asks concerning their testimonies of the Apostles of Christ. They were witnesses to Christ through revelation from God. And then Brigham ends his discourse:

"I want to talk a little more about the witnesses. I am a witness--of what? I have told it here and in Nauvoo. I know what I am a witness of, and I know my Apostleship. I am a witness that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. What an uproar it would make in the Christian world to say, I am an Apostle of Joseph. Write it down, and write it back to your friends in the east, that I am an Apostle of Joseph Smith. He was a man of God and had the revelations of Jesus Christ, and the words of Jesus Christ to the people. He did build and establish the kingdom of God on earth, and through him the Lord Almighty again restored the Priesthood to the children of men.

Brethren, I am a witness of that; not by my laying hands on the sick and they being healed, nor by the revelations which are given of him in the Bible, but by receiving the same Spirit and witness which the ancients received; by the visions of the heavens being opened to my mind; by my understanding that which is revealed in the Book of Mormon, and that which Joseph revealed as comprised in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.

I am a witness that those are the revelations of the Lord through Joseph Smith, in this the last dispensation for the gathering of the people; and all who reject my testimony will go to hell, so sure as there is one, no matter whether it be hot or cold; they will incur the displeasure of the Father and of the Son.

I am a witness of this; and all who will hear the voice of the servants of God, pay attention to what they say, and obey the commandments given to the people, shall receive a testimony and know that we tell them the truth, that Joseph is a Prophet of God, and did actually finish the work which the Lord gave him to do, sealed his testimony with his blood, and has gone to dwell in the world of spirits, until he gets his body. All will have to acknowledge that this is true.

There are many other things that might be noticed, and much more might be said upon this subject. I have merely hinted at the witness, at the privileges, blessings, and duties of the Saints, and at what makes a Saint, but I feel as though I had talked long enough, or as much as I should to-day. I have a bad cold, and could cough as well as the rest of you, but I have been enabled to refrain from coughing since I have been here, and during the brief time I have occupied while addressing you this morning.

I hope and trust that we will order our lives so as to be worthy of the blessings promised to us, and live to the glory of God, that we may have a glorious resurrection, and enjoy each other's society in the kingdom of our God. This is our constant prayer concerning you, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen."[5]

He is emphasizing the fact that his witness is of Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God. Not that his apostleship is after the man Joseph Smith. The entire context displays this admirably, but McKay, true to form, blundered yet once again.

For his final point McKay brings up the Adam-God doctrine yet once again, and that by misquoting the first volume of the JD's, and then commenting that everyone ought to be able to get the JD's so as to see the context! Oh rich irony! What is worse, McKay demonstrates no knowledge whatsoever concerning the various discussions on the Adam-God which I will leave in a footnote.[6]

Overall, I'd say this is the most dismal, dishonest performance on the Internet from an Anti-Mormon. What is truly sad is that McKay is supposed to be a Christian leader. Rather than insulting Mormons here, McKay is really insulting his Christian followers for which I feel sorry for them. He assumes they are either too stupid or too lazy to check out his sources and see if what he is saying is accurate and represents Brigham Young's thoughts. The Christians apparently, are assumed to be just blindly following along, tra,la,la,la,la without thinking through things themselves, but merely accepting blindly and dumbly what their own supposed righteous shephards are telling them. McKay slaps his Christian readers intelligence in the face with this farce, and they ought to be howling for blood about it.

Endnotes

1. Hugh Nibley, "Brigham Young on the Environment," in Don E. Norton, Shirley S. Ricks, eds., Brigham Young Challenges the Saints, Collected works of Hugh Nibley, vol. 13, Deseret/FARMS, 1994, p. 23.

2.. Journal of Discourses, Vol.21, p.299 - p.300, Wilford Woodruff, August 1st, 1880.

3. David J. Whittaker, ed., Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass, Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol. 11, Deseret/FARMS, 1991, p. 90. Cf. Orson Hyde's discourse, Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.124, Orson Hyde, October 6, 1853.

4. Leonard Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses, Knopf, 1985, p. 27. He gives several of Brigham's quotes on pp. 27f to that effect as well.

5. Journal of Discourses, Vol.3, p.213, Brigham Young, February 17, 1856.

6. Van Hale, "What About the Adam-God Theory?" in Mormon Miscellaneous, July, 1982; Elwood G. Norris, Be Not Deceived, Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1978; David John Buerger, "The Adam-God Doctrine," in Dialogue, Spring 1982, pp. 14-58; Carl Broderick, Jr., "Another Look at the Adam-God Doctrine," in Letters in Dialogue, Vol. 16, #2, Summer 1983, pp. 4-7; Hugh Nibley, "The Expanding Gospel," in Nibley on the Timely and Timeless, Provo, Utah: Vol. 1 in the Religious Studies Monograph Series, 1978, pp. 21-47. For an interesting cosmic view of Adam and mankind. Cf. Nibley, "Before Adam," in Old Testament and Related Studies, Provo, Utah: Deseret/FARMS, 1986, pp. 49-85.