Introduction
Brigham Young had several different ways he spoke, and I always found them useful in understanding prophets.
They were logic, speculation, revelation, by authority and pastoral. He had two styles, prosaic and hyperbole.
Foundations of Speaking: logic, speculation, revelation, authority, pastoral
Logic, the “pure kenning” speeches are the most famous (or infamous).
The interesting thing about those is that he was extremely open about the logic – and those who disagreed with him were remarkably free from retaliation, though they would sometimes challenge him on whether or not he was speaking by revelation (which is how I learned about the use of logic without any spiritual basis – Brigham Young was more than clear when he was speaking from unassisted logic).
From logic we get his public addresses about the value of pigs, how everyone should own one, and how everyone should eat them – and other talks about how no one should eat pig meat and how he was unwilling to eat donuts fried in pig fat. His position changed a good deal on pigs. He also spoke on his thought that there were men living on the moon and on the sun and how that had nothing to do with revelation and everything to do with pure logic. He also addressed the Utah legislature on race issues in a hotly contested debate, but his authority was logic, not revelation or inspiration.
Speculation.
Like Joseph Smith, he cherished an audience who was attuned to the spirit and would speculate on a point and attempt to listen to the feedback from the spirit that he received, adjusting and approaching the same point over and over again. Often those talks are dramatically different in view point. They make interesting comparisons.
For example, on his repentance/restitution talks, some verge on 12 Step “being willing to be willing” and others are “make complete and total restitution, including giving up your life” and everything in-between. Taken in isolation they can lead to some real conflicts in trying to figure out his meaning. Taken as speculation, circling around an uncertain center point, they point directions without conclusions.
Revelation.
His speculation was often coupled with revelation. He claimed by revelation that the name “Adam” was actually a title that had been, and could be, used by many different individuals. We have a great deal of speculation from him as he tried to determine what that meant and how it could be applied. It is surprising, though, how little of what he preached he actually claimed had a basis in revelation.
He also claimed by revelation that women were equal to men, but that at the specific time and place he was in they were not equal because men had not given them the opportunities for learning and experience that were due women. He then applied logic to conclude that since women were not equal to men a number of theological points should be made.
Directive or speaking by authority.
His authority directions are interesting. In the Utah colonization, given how slender their financial resources were and how desperate the circumstances, unified action was critical to avoiding disaster. He became very directive over time, especially as to people keeping their word. He tried to give specific and direct instruction.
His most famous directive story involves a rail road line that was competing with the one he was involved in. The locals (Mormons) had decided the deal wasn’t good enough and were backing out. The outsider (non-Mormon) appealed to Brigham Young. In the end, after all the arguments, Brigham Young asked only one question of either group, after they had both talked until they were talked out. “Did you give your word?” He followed that with “Then keep it.”
He felt very strongly a responsibility to keep the saints from starving to death or otherwise being destroyed.
Pastoral addresses.
The pastoral addresses were rarely recorded, but show an interest and a care in others. He also was a strong proponent of the environment and was often cited for that point by Robert Redford and Hugh Nibley.
One constant theme he had was taking joy in the pure physicality of life and the natural world. Plays, theater, music, physical exercise and exertion, he felt all of these merited respect and had value.
Styles: prosaic and hyperbole
Prosaic style — his private face.
A good example of prosaic addresses can be found in his pastoral letters (such as those to his sons). To many who have read Brigham Young otherwise, these are almost boring by comparison. They are very prosaic.
Hyperbole — his public face.
As for the hyperbole, we know it was a style he was using because he complained a number of times that his audiences liked hyperbole and refused to listen to him unless he used the style. From that it is also clear that he was speaking in hyperbole rather than direct literalism (that is, he was exaggerating what he was saying, and the exaggeration was intended as exaggeration and expected to be understood as exaggerated by his audiences).
What I learned from studying the variety of foundations and expressions of Brigham Young
First, it struck me just how much of what he thought and concluded and believed was the result of pure logic – and just how free he felt to change his mind whenever his conclusions were the result of pure logic. His pure logic addresses are also useful because they are the source of the most push-back – people felt free to disagree and argue with him on points of pure logic (or why there was such freedom in some of the Utah legislature debates).
Second, it struck me just how willing he was to tolerate push back on pure logic discussions. I think we all benefit from tolerating push back and acknowledging when we are working from logic and not more.
Third, it gave new meaning to the D&C verses that state “teach nothing but repentance to this generation” – about how speculation can affect the way people deal with things when they don’t understand the place speculation and exploration can have. It also highlighted to me the importance of recognizing speculation and acknowledging it (I love the talk by Joseph Smith where he talks of how he respects the patience of an audience that will let him speculate and not rise up and sting him to death for the mistakes that will lead him to make).
I think if we accepted how much of what we personally believe is the result of logic or speculation and brought ourselves not to be quite so attached to our conclusion from logic and speculation we might be more open to being taught more by God.
I’ve heard the catch phrase “strong opinions, loosely held” recently, and liked it.
- I wonder how many of our readers have read Brigham Young using those lenses I have described.
- How many use those to look at other discussions?
- How many use tools like that to look at their own beliefs?
- What useful things have you gotten from studying Brigham Young?
Wheat & Tares 
I had an e-mail telling me that this page kept bouncing on and off as being accessible. I don’t know why that happened. I hit “publish” and went to bed, didn’t touch it afterwards.
While my point was to focus on how we could look at our own logic and conclusions as more on the lines of speculation and mistake, opening up the chance to be more humble and teachable, that was not clear enough.
I did get an e-mail asking me about how I parsed the differences between the approaches.
This is part of my response:
“With Brigham Young, I’d put 99% of what he said as speculation/logic extensions from revelation. He was in a constant state of that (speculating to learn and applying logic to things). The way you can tell is the way his speculation and logic circle around or shift. The revelation comes a blinding flash, so to speak.
For example, on women. The temple ordinances have the shape they have now because he felt women were not equal to men and when they were debating the reconstruction of them after Joseph Smith died, he used logic and prevailed on the basis of the logic he used (and when he is using logic he doesn’t pull out revelation as a trump card, he instead insists on the logic of his position as why he is right).
He then later has the blinding flash that women should be equal to men, and it is the fault of the society that men have constructed that results in women not being equal. Inequality as a social construct (much like Joseph Smith and his assertion that Blacks were unequal because of opportunity and social injustice, not because of any native difference between the races, so that with the proper society, the Black ditch digger would instead be the doctor riding by in a carriage).
Next, after the flash he has that the inequality of the sexes is the result of society, the logic kicks in and you see all of his lectures on how women can be lawyers, doctors, politicians, accountants and business owners just like/just as well as men.
Logic, revelation, logic. Some things, though, do not get revisited. The temple is a good example of something he did not revisit in the lens of the revelation he had on equality.
Often what appears to be revelation is also contrary to other things he was teaching. His sermon where he states that polygamy is a temporary thing that will end when society is cured so that women are raised up to be equal to men strikes me as that sort of thing. That polygamy should end breaks through and doesn’t seem to affect him or his thinking thereafter in the slightest. I haven’t seen any extension on that point.
His speculation about Adam is all over the map. Once he has the revelation that Adam is a title or name, he starts speculating. Much of the speculation contradicts itself. The same on repentance and just how willing you need to be. Do you actually have to make a full, personal atonement? Do you just need to be willing? He seems to be drilling down to almost a 12 Step approach to being willing and making amends at times, other times a really Old Testament blood and sacrifice approach.
Anyway, that is my thought.
In my lifetime I have noted both obvious and possibly unrecognized hyperbole in the comments of a number of GAs including apostles and members of the First Presidency. I have not as yet found Brigham Young (or any of them) acknowledging that they were indulging in rhetorical exaggeration, let alone explaining why. I would like to believe the OP on Brigham’s acknowledgment/complaint, but would appreciate direction on where to find it. What I find instead is extraordinary hubris on one interpretation or subtle denigration of the Bible and scripture generally on another. I doubt Brigham recognized that second possible interpretation of his words:
“I have never preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.”
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 95, February 2, 1870
“Brother Orson Hyde referred to a few who complained about not getting revelations. I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations that Brigham Young has said “when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.” I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God…” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 264, October 6, 1870
or “… I have never given counsel that is wrong…” Journal of Discourses, v. 16, p.161
Brigham was a remarkable and autocratic leader – possibly just what was needed by the Church at that time despite the many casualties of his words and actions (or inactions, that is failing to implement reported insights on equality of women and men and of races, etc.) then and now. Such inaction does not suggest anything positive about his being “humble and teachable” or even willing to act on such revelation, just as he complained that some of the saints were not willing to act on revelations given at their seeking. See Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 264. To your point, I think I learn humility and teachableness better by seeing examples than by looking to Brigham.
To your questions, I do consider my own speculations and mistakes as well as occasional insights in evaluating my “logic” and conclusions. I have not gotten anything useful from my limited reading of Brigham Young. Given the volume of things to read and consider and the number of good things to do with limited time, I don’t think I’ll go looking to find needles of revelation in Brigham’s haystacks of logic (or illogic) and speculation. I have plenty of such logic and speculation of my own and in scripture and words of contemporary GAs.
JR–I’ve seen those quotes excerpted a lot (and I’m not claiming they are out of context, just noting they are often used).
But I also was struck when I read him complaining about how no one would listen to him if he did not use hyperbole and how it wore on him.
You are right that there is a tension between the need to get people to listen and act and not spend all the available time second guessing and the need to listen and change.
I was always struck by how ETB could embrace communist bishops in South America as president of the quorum of the twelve compared to his prior approach to communists.
But I think it wouldn’t hurt to have things like that be more public.
As for needles in a haystack, when I got to jury arguments and federal judges giving jury charges in the journal of discourses I started to realize just how much chaff there is.
I’ve been following the Maxwell Institute Podcast recently. Peter Enns. Womanist Theology and some other very rewarding material.
Brigham Young’s letters to his sons got boring, I have to confess.
I citation for BY’s comment on his using hyperbole could sometimes be very useful. I cannot find it.
I read it in pre internet days.
Have not been able to find it online but I did find this (unrelated but interesting):
http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/02/15/in-brighams-words/
There are a lot of things I photocopied that have proven worthless and a number of things I did not that I wish I had.
Interesting podcast and summary from ldsperspectives, including the claim that George Watt changed BY’s words from the shorthand version to the published version. It is not clear, however, who changed things or who approved the changes. In the quotation above (from the published version) BY speaks of himself as approving the copies sent out to the world. It may be that nothing more nefarious happened than has happened with much more recent general conference speeches that differ in their printed versions from what was actually said at conference.
Stephen, an excellent post. Your command of the sources is impressive and your willingness to detach your personal feelings from the subject are equally impressive. Any person is a complicated entity and a person of Brigham Young’s stature, position and influence is even more complicated. Your post is a great breath of fresh air. I will be saving this one to read multiple times.