There is an apologetic tactic among many Mormons, especially liberal and internet Mormons that goes something like this: Yeah, the LDS church has some problems today, but those are all the doing of Brigham Young. If you just go back to Joseph Smith, you get to the real Mormonism, and it's that real Mormonism that we are defending.

I have never understood this strategy. Just suppose that it's actually true, that Brigham messed things up that Joseph got correct. That still means that the LDS church is screwed up. Moreover, if this guy was really bad, doesn't that mess up the chain of authority? A weak link in a chain breaks the chain, it doesn't matter if it's the first, second, or 53rd link in the chain. And since LDS authority relies on an unbroken chain, this defense of Joseph by throwing Brigham under the bus seems to self-destruct.

But I don't think the defense actually works because Brigham didn't do anything worse than Joseph Smith, in fact in some ways he was marginally better.

• Both Brigham Young and Joseph Smith had identical views on the importance of polygamy. Joseph kept it secret and underground. Brigham made it public, which made the practice at least open and a bit more honest.
• Brigham is criticized for running a theocracy in Utah. However, Utah was just Nauvoo on a larger scale. While the council of 50 was kept alive throughout early Utah history, it never did anything as far as we can tell. Joseph seemed to have much bigger plans for secular rule through the council of 50.
• As far as I know, Brigham didn't marry other men's wives. Nor did he send men on missions in order to marry their wives in secret.
• Brigham ran church finances like it was his own personal savings and loan. But did Joseph really do anything different in Nauvoo? Brigham was simply better at it and had a good business sense while Joseph did not.
• Brigham never pretended to translate ancient Egyptian documents or any other documents for that matter.
• Brigham seemed much more willing to offer temple ordinances to all LDS members. For Joseph, you had to be part of the Quorum of the annointed.
• Brigham Young taught the kooky Adam-God doctrine. But the King Follet discourse had its own kooky ideas, those are just never mentioned.

The list goes on and on, but you get the picture. There is one event that is held up as proof that Brigham was worse than Joseph, the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Let's assume that Brigham gave direct orders for it to happen, so the blood is on his hands and Joseph never did anything like this himself. I'm not so sure, Joseph loved militaristic adventuring, such as Zion's camp and the Nauvoo legion. He styled himself "General Joseph" in Nauvoo. It's mostly just luck and happenstance that more bloody conflict did not come out of this stuff. In Missouri it did. The modern LDS church has invented a narrative where Missouri was nothing but evil Missourians hating Mormons, but Richard Bushman's biography makes it clear that there was plenty of blame on both sides. He also makes it clear that Joseph Smith most likely had a lot to do with the Danites. Plus, if Joseph does escape culpability for the events in Missouri, it's mainly because he went M.I.A. for this period of time, which sound to me like a bit or cowardice.

The bottom line is that the myth of the Brigham Young who was more evil than Joseph Smith, who screwed up the pristine LDS church is simply false. The evidence doesn't support the conclusion, and even if it did, it still doesn't help LDS apologetics.

The LDS Church started losing its 'pristine' nature as soon as JSJr had to in February 1832 insist that he alone could receive revelations from god for the church in order to consolidate his power and control, and/or upon his first extra-marital dalliance.

Didn't he do both with Zina?

You could argue that Brigham Young was responsible for the priesthood ban, whereas Joseph Smith allowed blacks. Like you said though it doesn't help their case.

Mormonism started out as a scam. Joseph Smith was good at changing the doctrines and practices to suit his needs at any moment. Brigham settled the doctrines more or less and turned the church into more of an institution. Still a scam.

I stand corrected, it appears he did both with Zina.

He still can't hold a candle to Joseph in this particular category.

I forgot about this one. I suspect this is probably the driving force for throwing Brigham under the bus.

I see this as a plus for Brigham, at least it should be in the eyes of the LDS. If it wasn't for Brigham, the church would not have survived. There's little doubt in my mind that had Joseph lived another 20-30 years, he would have destroyed the church, or at the very least it would be a much smaller and less influential church.

The church probably would have survived but definitely not the way it does today. Brigham held it together with an iron fist. Smith wasn't disciplined enough for that.

Getting killed the way he did was the best thing that could have happened to Joseph Smith. It made him look like a martyr. Just imagine how they would have had to spin things if he just fell off the roof or died of syphilis or something like that.

Who was Zina? I wasn’t aware of her.

Thanks. The article states that she was sealed to Joesph Smith first. So was she also sealed to BY I wonder?

I agree with this (and the other posts so far).

I feel that you can tell a lot by how the saints seemed to have felt about these two men. Say what you want about Joseph Smith, but the people loved him. He was charismatic and personable and also a whole lot more fun to be around than BY (at least that's my impression). The saints feared BY. He seemed to be a tyrant.

Just study the Reformation period (starting in 1856) and how BY insisted all the members be re-baptized, etc.

If I had to choose to have one as my leader or go to lunch with one of them, I'd choose Joseph Smith over Brigham Young.

I also believe that much of what we have to deal with today in the church came from leaders later than BY. Like the emphasis placed on temple attendance and the WofW.

I will agree with this. I'll bet he was fun to hang around with, drink beer and listen to him spread his BS. Unless he had the hots for your wife.

I could just see him standing out in front of the Nauvoo house with his friends with a beer in his hand.

Joesph: "Hey watch this... Hi Brother Hyde how is your "wife" doing? (everyone else snickers)

She was sealed to Brigham 'for time.' I'm not sure what the justification is for being sealed 'for time' to a woman that was already married. Many of Joseph Smiths widows were sealed 'for time' to either Brigham Young, or Heber C. Kimbal.

Funny I went on the new family search website and they only show him married to 14 women and Zina was not one of them. When I went to the ordinances tab it shows that he was sealed to the 14 women but it does not show the details (dates locations etc). You would think they would know when BY got married. Why would they not show his other wives?

It is odd that it is unlisted as I don't think anyone disputes it. From an article by FAIR
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf



The way they try to spin the details is quite amusing.

"Henry, while undoubtedly heart broken, went on to faithfully serve in the Church despite what seems impossible circumstances from a detached modern-day perspective

Yeah becuase from an attached 19th century perspective it all makes perfect sense.

It's a nice little attempt to shift the blame to the reader if he's bothered by it.

Everyone knows that 19th century Americans were much more liberal and tolerant of wife-swapping than people are today.

Fix't.