millerjamesc

Oh? Then I'd be interested in an explanation of how and why Brigham
Young comingled his personal fortune with that of the church. His
comingling of funds created considerably problems after his death in
determining what was actually his and what was in fact the property of
the church [Allen, James, and Leonard, Glen, "The Story of the
Latter-day Saints," second ed. 1992, Deseret Book. p. 385; Arrington,
Leonard (at one time LDS Church Historian), "The Settlement of the
Brigham Young Estate," 1877-1879 in the "Pacific Historical Review,"
Vol. 21, no. 1, Feb. 1952, pp. 7-8; Hirshson, Stanley, "The Lion of
the Lord," p. 247; Johnson, Jeffrey, "Defining 'Wife': The Brigham
Young Households," in "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought," 1987,
Vol. 20, No. 3, p. 62.] Indeed, in the legal battle that ensued after
Pres. Young's death, Young's estate executors said " ... much of said
estate was held by the testator in trust for the Church ... and that
Brigham Young was largely indebted at the time of his death 'and
justly owed to said church over $1,000,000.'" [Roberts, B.H.
"Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints," BYU Press 1965, Vol. 5, pp. 524-525].

At least as far as assets were concerned, then, Young was not only the
functional equivalent of the Church, he literally WAS the Church.

But more importantly and germane to this discussion, you won't find a
professional historian who would claim the Utah Territory under
Brigham Young was much different from the Church. A number of
respected history books including one by a former LDS Church Historian
refer to the State of Deseret created in 1849 and the Utah Territory
which followed a year later as theocracies and kingdoms. Volumes have
been written about the Mormon theocracy in which Young made little
distinction between the Territory and the Church and refused to permit
Federal appointees to take up their positions and how it was Governor
Young's refusal to relinquish any power which led to U.S. President
James Buchanan sending an army in 1857 (the "Utah Expedition") to
depose Young and seize power back from him and the church. [See
Alexander, Thomas, ed. "Great Basin Kingdom Revisited: Contemporary
Perspectives;" Arrington, Leonard, "Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic
History of Latter-Day Saints 1830-1900;" Bigler, David, "Forgotten
Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847-1896;" West,
Ray, "Kingdom of the Saints: The Story of Brigham Young and the
Mormons"].

James C. Miller
millerjamesc@earthlink.net

david bowie

From: "Douglas Lang" <douglaslang@comcast.net>

: The Chruch was against Slavery. Joseph Smith taught to bring slaves to
: America and to free them, teach them, and so forth.


Not exactly--Joseph Smith's policy position on slavery was that the government
should buy the slaves, return them to Africa, and set them free there.

David, who's read some interesting what-ifs on this
--
David Bowie http://pmpkn.net/lx
Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.

peggy rogers

This seems to have been the position of a lot of thoughtful people in the
mid-nineteenth century -- among them Harriet Beecher Stowe. (At least,
that's how I read some parts of _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ last year.) I think a
lot of us don't realize how radical and out-of-control the Abolitionist
movement seemed to the American mainstream in those days. And although a lot
of the early church members avoided slaveholding and were against it in
principle, they did not want to be perceived as Abolitionists. From our
present-day perspective, getting rid of slavery seems to obviously the right
thing to do that it's difficult to project ourselves into a time when that
wasn't quite so obvious.

Peggy