Webmaster, In my investigation of the church, I have heard, time and time again, three central arguments against the church that I cannot seem to refute. One, I fall short of explaining out of lack of familiarity with the subject while the other two I feel I cannot adequately address, only partially. First, I've heard Brigham Young described in a variety of negative ways, most notably "evil". I feel this word and probably most of the negative labels placed upon him may not be completely accurate if at all. What support do these negative interpretations have and what can be said against them? Second, many feel that the women of the church are in some way suppressed. I am always assaulted with the assertion that women have no leadership in the church hierarchy (other than the relief society). This policy is addressed elsewhere in your site, but I find it difficult to explain to others that only men are given the priesthood. Lastly, I am often presented by opponents of the church with the issue of homosexual marriage or, more accurately, homosexual sexual relations. You explained it in a way that placated me on your site, but then I was presented with the questions: "Could you live your life without fully being a partner to a person you loved? Is a gay man accepting the church as true denying themselves of a life of love? " It's difficult to answer the question when phrased like this, I was hoping you could help me. Thank you for your time, I know the questions were extensive.

Anonymous, 11/7/2009

Webmaster from La Jolla, California:

Hi friend. These are some very interesting questions! Let me try to tackle each of them. This answer is going to be a novel! :)

Was Brigham Young Evil?

Mormons do not believe that any human being is perfect, with the exception of Christ alone, who was both man and God. In the Mormon conception, prophets are holy men of God who try to transmit God's will accurately, but they are not themselves infallible or perfect. Brigham Young was a man of strong opinions who, like all of us, made some mistakes and was in part a product of his times. But to describe him as "evil" is not at all accurate. In fact, he was in many ways inspiring, worthy of his nickname, the “American Moses.”

Anti-Mormons usually attack Brigham Young in one of three ways. First, some claim that Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows massacre. I've written about this tragic event in Mormon history elsewhere on my site. Simply put, the leading scholars who have studied this massacre do not believe that Brigham Young authorized it. In fact, a letter written by Brigham Young has been discovered in which he explicitly told the Saints in southern Utah to avoid any confrontation. Here's the text of his letter:

"In regard to emigration trains passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know of. If those who are there will leave let them go in peace. While we should be on the alert, on hand and always ready we should also possess ourselves in patience, preserving ourselves and property ever remembering that God rules."

The claim that Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows massacre is simply not based in fact.

Some of this video is relevant, and some isn't...take it for what it's worth.
I for one don't want movies dissing Islam either...
Anti-Mormons also attack Brigham Young because he practiced polygamy. They want to portray him as a sex-crazed Sultan, complete with his harem. In reality, Brigham Young practiced polygamy only reluctantly; he practiced polygamy only because he felt that God obligated him to do so. When asked to describe his feelings about polygamy, Brigham Young said the following:

"Some of these my brethern know what my feelings were at the time Joseph revealed the doctrine; I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin, knowing the toil and labor that my body would have to undergo; and I have had to examine myself, from that day to this, and watch my faith, and carefully meditate, lest I should be found desiring the grave more than I ought to do."

Finally, some attack Brigham Young because of statements he made about African Americans. It is unfortunately true that Brigham Young made some racist remarks. This is particularly disappointing because Joseph Smith's ideas about race had been so ahead of their time. We should not be too quick to judge Brigham Young, however. Racism was widespread in America at the time, and Brigham was simply a product of his times. In fact, Brigham Young was much less racist than many Protestant preachers in the South at the time. For example, consider these Brigham Young quotes about African Americans:

After a black member of the Church was excommunicated for adultery in 1847, Brigham said, “It's nothing to do with the blood for of one blood has God made all flesh, …we have one of the best Elders, an African [i.e., Walker Lewis] in Lowell.”
In 1860: "[African Americans] should be treated like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes [animals]. For their abuse of that race, the whites shall be cursed, unless they repent."
In 1863: "For their abuse of [the Black African] race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent."
Again in 1863: "Men will be called to judgment for the way they have treated [African Americans]."

Clearly, Brigham Young was a complex character.

Having described the anti-Mormon charges laid at Brigham's feet, let me finish by sharing a story from Brigham's personal life. I'll quote from the book "The Mormon Experience: History of the Latter-day Saints," by Leonard Arrington and David Bitton:

“One problem encountered by the Mormons in relation to the Indians was the rather extensive slave trade in the Great Basin. Various groups of Mexicans and Ute Indians circulated through the territory buying or stealing children of the weaker tribes for sale to Mexicans. … The whole business was repulsive to the Mormons, but there was no easy solution, inasmuch as stopping the trade would suspend an important source of Indian revenue. The nature of the dilemma was illustrated during the winter of 1848-49 when a band… came into the Salt Lake Valley desiring to trade. They had previously taken two girls about four and five years old as prisoners and wanted to sell them. When the Mormons declined, the enraged chief took one of the girls by the heels and dashed her brains out on the hard ground, “after which he threw the body towards us, telling us we had no hearts, or we would have bought it and saved its life.” Charles Decker, a young scout and brother-in-law of Brigham Young, moved quickly to prevent the same thing from happening to the other girl, and purchased her with his rifle and pony.

[John R. Young wrote]: She was the saddest-looking piece of humanity I have ever seen. They had shingled her head with butcher knives and fire brands. All the fleshy parts of her body, legs, and arms had been hacked with knives, then fire brands had been stuck into the wounds. She was gaunt with hunger, and smeared from head to foot with blood and ashes. After being washed and clothed, she was given to President [Brigham] Young and became as one of his family. They named her Sally.”

In my opinion, no man that would help rescue a child so abused and destitute can be rightfully called "evil."

Are Mormon Women Suppressed?

I've heard some make this claim, but based on my own interactions with many strong, independent Mormon women, I have a hard time buying it myself. While it is true that women do not receive the Mormon priesthood, it is not true that they are banned from leadership positions. I'm a member of my congregation's presiding council, and on that same counsel there are many women. Women routinely preach sermons in Mormon worship services, even on the worldwide (general-conference) level. Mormon women also have prominent roles outside of the chapel. For example, the president and CEO of Deseret Book Company, the premier church-owned publishing and distribution company, is a woman named Sheri Dew.

It's also important to clarify what is meant by "priesthood." For many Christians, the word "priesthood" is synonymous with the word "clergy." In these churches, a woman who preaches sermons and gives public prayers on Sunday, who ministers to others by visiting with them in their homes to share a spiritual message, and who prepares regular Sunday-school lessons, would in fact be considered a member of the “priesthood.” The LDS Church places far more ecclesiastical power in the hands of women then do many other Christian churches.

While I don't fully understand the doctrine, it may be that in the next life women will hold the priesthood in the same sense that the men do. John Taylor once said, “You have been ordained kings and queens, and priests and priestesses to your Lord; you have been put in possession of principles that all the kings, potentates, and power upon the earth are entirely ignorant of; they do not understand it; but you have received this from the hands of God.”

Bruce R. McConkie once taught, “If righteous men have power through the gospel and its crowning ordinance of celestial marriage to become kings and priests to rule in exaltation forever, it follows that the women by their side (without whom they cannot attain exaltation) will be queens and priestesses.”

Perhaps others who understand this doctrine better can explain it to me. :)

One Mormon convert, quoted by the Mormon historian Claudia Bushman (herself a prominent Mormon woman), said the following: “I've never seen such active, liberated women as in the church. I've never been to any other church where women spoke equally with the men. I think it is a good thing that men have a separate priesthood and women aren't permitted to participate in it. That must sound strange because I'm a feminist, but look how the women run the Relief Society. Can you imagine if they ran the church? The men would be totally out of a job.”

Is it Wrong to Oppose Gay Relations?

Here's how I would answer the questions you pose:

Question: “Could you live your life without fully being a partner to the person you loved?”

Answer: “Yes, if I thought that's what God wanted me to do.”

Question: “Is a gay man who accepts the church denying themselves a life of love?”

Answer: “If they only believe in sexual love, a limited form of love that the Greeks called eros, then yes. I personally would readily forego eros if that's what were necessary to achieve agape, the ability to feel the powerful love of God in my life.”

The truth of the matter is, God expects us to do hard things. That which is easiest for us is not always what is best. Homosexuals are hardly the only people who have to sacrifice personal comfort in order to follow God. Let me cite some examples.

I know one man whose wife suffered a stroke at a fairly young age. In a single day, she went from being intelligent and independent to being severely mentally handicapped and dependent on others. Through no fault of her own, she was not able to be a full partner to her husband. How easy it would've been for him to get a divorce and to put her in a home! She probably wouldn't have even understood, and no one would've blamed him. But he remembered the covenant he had made to her and to God in the temple, and so he stayed married to her for many years, taking care of her many needs. She finally died a few years ago. What an example of a man who for many years was not able to have a “full partner” but who, nevertheless, chose God instead of choosing what would be convenient.

I know another sister whose life provides a similar example. Through no fault of her own, she has not been able to marry. She is a dedicated member who might have an easier time finding a husband if she looked outside of the church, but she wants to be married in the temple, as God has counseled, and so has put off finding her “full partner.” She chose God over what is convenient.

I could cite many other examples, some from people I know personally who are dear to me, but I think I've made my point. It's not always easy to follow God, but I know from personal experience that it is always worth it. As I've written elsewhere, there are many people who deal with same-sex attraction who nevertheless choose to be faithful members of the church. These Mormons, like many others who may deal with different challenges, recognize the spiritual benefits of choosing God over self. In my opinion, they are some of the most remarkable members of the Church because of what they're willing to sacrifice.

Hope these answers help! Let me know if you'd like any further clarification.

Would you like a free copy of the Finding Faith in Christ DVD?

Pamela Dean from Clarenville:

I want to say something more about your second question, as it has been on mind since you first posed it.

Let me tell you a little about me. I have always been open-minded, outspoken, and inquisitive. I have always studied things out before making decisions, finding out all the positives and all the negatives that I possibly can about a subject before making an informed decision as to what I believe. Before I joined the church I was a staunch feminist... And I still consider myself to be so. But people often do not understand what that means. Being a feminist does not mean that one believes that women *must* have the right to do *exactly the same* as men do. That sets unrealistic expectations on women, creating standards that can be reached by few, and is, *I* believe, also detrimental to men. This belief has led to many women trying to be 'supermoms' - holding down full time jobs, raising families, and still taking on the bulk of household duties. Look at the data for the general population. The Journal of Family Issues Sept 2007 published a study they conducted in 28 countries with 17,636 respondents. In all cases except the Czech Republic, women reported doing far more household tasks than men.

	Men	Women
Australia	39.1	70.3
Czech republic	32.2	28.6
France	30.9	78.3
Israel	29.7	75.1
Mexico	36.2	70.4
Russia	35.8	68.6
Sweden	36.3	67.3
United states	37.3	70.6

The Childcare Resource and Research Unit at the University of Toronto states in its fact sheet data regarding the percentage of mothers in the paid work force in Canada in 2007 that 69% with youngest child 0-2 years, 77% with youngest child 3-5 years, and 84% with youngest child 6-15 years work outside the home. Compare this with the data from 1995, which shows 61% of mothers with children 0-2 years old, 68% with children 3-5, and 76% with children 6-15. More women are working while raising children. (In Utah, only 53% of *all* married women work outside the home, whether they have children at home or not, and whether they are members of the church or not.)

Statistics Canada information clearly shows that while women continue to take on more and more responsibilities as they age, they continue to give up personal and leisure time to do so. Women aged 25 to 54 were averaging 4.4 hours per day on paid work activities in 2005, up from 3.3 hours per day in 1986. In contrast, there was only a marginal change in the average hours men in this range age were spending on the job in the past twenty years. Women spend about an hour a day more on basic housework chores than their male counterparts. In 2005, women aged 25 to 54 averaged 2.4 hours daily cooking, cleaning and doing other basic unpaid household chores, compared with 1.4 hours per day for men in this age range. Women also continue to devote an average of almost an hour more per day than men on other unpaid household chores including primary child care and shopping. (Summarized from “Are Women Spending More Time on Unpaid Domestic Work than Men in Canada” by Colin Lindsay September 2008.) Society in general is expecting women to take on more and more responsibility for both paid and unpaid work. Some men are also rising to that challenge, but according to Sheryl Ubelacker, they are only “inching forward”.As a result of societal changes in what “family” and "responsibility” mean, in Canada there are 1.4 million children living in poverty – about 15% of all children in Canada. 81% of single mothers live in poverty. 30% of fulltime dual income families live in poverty. How can any of this be the Lord's plan? Now, with all that said, I mean absolutely no disrespect to any man or woman. But when I look at what our church teaches, I cannot help but believe that the prophets have got it right. In a nutshell, they teach: Men and women are equal; mothers and fathers are equal partners. Both parents have the duty of rearing their children and providing for their needs. Since men cannot physically bear children, it is just common sense that women must be responsible for bearing children, and therefore men must do their part in ensuring that his wife and children have everything they need during these years. Both partners are to assist the other however possible.

I cannot think of a guideline for a more equal partnership than that! Is that not the true essence of what equality is? As for holding the priesthood... I don't need to. Being married to a worthy man frees me from trying to be the supermom described above. President Hinckley stated once that there is *nothing* more sacred than a mother teaching her children. He and other prophets and apostles have stated time and again that motherhood and womanhood are the pinnacle of God's creation. How is this “suppressing” women? A man cannot use his priesthood to bless himself, only to serve others. In our church, *every* man is expected to live his life as a priest. How many other churches can say that? Yet, we are not alone in our beliefs that men are the ones to be the priesthood holders. The Catholic Church does not allow women to be priests. Until recently, neither the Anglican Church, which resulted in a huge chasm among their congregations. Orhtodox, some Luterans, and Southern Baptists also do not allow women to be ordained as clergy. Except in special circumstances, Muslims do not have women as Imams for the general congregation. Hindu women are still considered the property of their husbands, a state that is being fought against by some. Jehovah's Witnesses do not allow women leaders. Ba'hai claims equality, but finds that many women find unhappiness in trying to be ‘supermom'. The Salvation Army gives women leadership, but expects them to curtail their activities during their childbearing years. Pentecostal churches believe that women have the same gifts as men, but some branches believe that women should only preach under conditions controlled by men. Because so many other faiths also limit women holding the priesthood, I tend to become defensive when someone singles out *our* church for not giving the priesthood to women. Bottom line? As a feminist, as a latter day saint, and as a woman, I am grateful that Heavenly Father has provided clear roles for men and women based on their gender. I do not feel suppressed or oppressed. Rather, I find peace and comfort in that knowledge.

Webmaster: Very interesting! Thanks Pamela.

Pamela Dean from Clarenville:

I am sure someone else will have extensive commentary for you, and I look forward to reading that myself. Myself, I would encourage you to read the following articles.

Re: Brigham Young. David B. Haight, “Faith of Our Prophets,” Liahona, Jan 2002, 24–27

Re: Women in the Church. Gospel Topics: Women in the Church. I would also add that the proclamation on the family has extensive information on what we believe the roles of each gender is.

Re: Homosexuality. “My Battle with Same-Sex Attraction,” Ensign, Aug 2002, 48–51

Return to the "Question and Answer" Page

All About Mormons