Brigham Young allegedly said that those who take offense are fools, when the offense was not intended, and those who take offense when intended are even bigger fools…
Brigham Young’s quote suggests that taking offense is a choice that reflects a lack of wisdom, whether the offense was intended or not. He seems to advocate for emotional resilience, implying that choosing to ignore offense renders the intentions of the “adversary” powerless. This approach encourages members to adopt a personal detachment from potentially harmful or trivial provocations, emphasizing self-control and mental fortitude.
He who takes offense when offense was not intended is a fool, yet he who takes offense when offense is intended is an even greater fool for he has succumbed to the will of his adversary.
Brigham Young
It is reported that President Brigham Young once said that he who takes offense when no offense was intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense was intended is usually a fool. It was then explained that there are two courses of action to follow when one is bitten by a rattlesnake. One may, in anger, fear, or vengefulness, pursue the creature and kill it. Or he may make full haste to get the venom out of his system. If we pursue the latter course we will likely survive, but if we attempt to follow the former, we may not be around long enough to finish it.
Elder Marion D. Hanks, Assistant to the Council of the Twelve, Forgiveness: The Ultimate Form of Love, Ensign, January 1974
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1974/01/forgiveness-the-ultimate-form-of-love
Trouble Attributing the Quote to Brigham Young
Innumerable times I have heard a quote mentioned in church that is attributed to one Brigham Young:
He who takes offense when none is intended is a fool; he who takes offense when offense is intended is a bigger fool.
An Ensign article from 1974 mentions that Mr. Young apparently said this, but when I Google the quote, the top result says that Confucius said it. Eh…Confucius, Brigham Young—basically the same person, right? I always get them confused, personally.
https://byuiconoclast.blogspot.com/2012/04/bigger-fool.html
Even if we don’t have the exact source for the quote, it seems to fit the personality of Brigham Young, and the church continues to reference the supposed quote. Perhaps if the quote source were properly found the talks on offense in the church would reference it even more.
What have the Church leaders said about choosing to be offended? There’s a Mormon lore anecdote floating around that Brigham Young said those who take offense are fools, whether or not offense was intended.
https://latterdaysaintmag.com/youre-choosing-to-be-offended/
However, this quote can embolden those who seek to offend, as it is a simple way to push the blame onto those who receive the offense. This is classic victim-blaming, but it comes from President Young, so we’d have to expect President Nelson would have to take it seriously. We have to remember Brigham Young is a dead prophet, and church doctrine (living leaders) states that the words of our living leaders always trump or supersede the words of dead ones. So if, say, living prophets and apostles said something different about taking offense, we are required to forget what previous leaders said and consider the new material official church doctrine.
Russell M. Nelson on Being Offended
Russell M. Nelson is wary of offending God, which is why he’s made it a personal crusade to stop the world from using the offensive nickname of the church. He claims that using the nickname is a major victory for Satan, and when we remove the Lord’s name from the church, he is offended.
Would President Russell Nelson be interested to know what President Brigham Young would say to him? Would Brother Brigham outright call Nelson a fool here, or a bigger fool? Why does Nelson take such umbrage with the Mormon nickname? Or rather, why does he say God takes such offense?
David A. Bednar on Being Offended
We also have David A. Bednar, who contradicts the church President when he says it is impossible for someone to be offended by something someone else does. Well, maybe this doesn’t apply to God, since He is omnipotent after all. Bednar’s talk on being too easily offended is aimed at struggling church members who are offended when discovering the horrid things the church has done and covered up, or perhaps by the marginalization they experience in their local ward. Bednar wants those who are offended to second guess themselves and learn to sweep even offenses under the run, or at the very least onto their shelf.
Or we could consider that it’s not God who is offended by a simple nickname, but Russell Nelson himself. This puts Nelson into a quandry though. If being offended is a choice we make, and a sign or a greater spiritual malady, how great is Nelson’s own spiritual malady for choosing such an offense? Interesting to see church leaders speaking direct contradictions, and this is only about taking offense, it doesn’t even mention the numerous church Presidents, and even the church founder, who have stated that the Mormon nickname is no big deal. They’ve declared that Mormon means More good!
In contrast, Russell M. Nelson’s statement regarding the Church’s use of nicknames, or that using terms like “Mormon” offends God and implies that avoiding these terms is crucial to maintaining respect for the Church’s divine authority. By framing the use of nicknames as a “victory for Satan,” Nelson attributes substantial spiritual risk to this choice of language, which differs from Young’s individualistic, stoic approach. This highlights a tension within the church’s own teachings: while members are encouraged to ignore offense for personal resilience, the Church simultaneously emphasizes God’s reaction to perceived disrespect, asking members to feel responsibility for God’s potential offense.
It seems Brigham Young is calling President Nelson a fool one way or the other. This difference highlights the double standard that leads to confusion and cognitive dissonance for those who wish to balance emotional resilience with a duty to defend church identity.
More reading: