Rather Convert the Devil
In 1854, Brigham Young declared he would 'rather undertake to convert the devil himself' than try to convert a Jew.
Audio coming soon
The Quote
“I would rather undertake to convert five thousand Lamanites, than to convert one of those poor miserable creatures, whose fathers killed the Savior, and who say, ‘Amen to the deed,’ to this day. Yea, I would rather undertake to convert the devil himself, if it were possible.” — Brigham Young, JoD 2:142 (December 3, 1854)
Lyrics
Coming Soon
Historical Context
The Setting: December 3, 1854 — Salt Lake Tabernacle. Brigham Young delivers a discourse on spiritual gifts, the spirit world, and the relative difficulty of converting different peoples.
The Speaker: Brigham Young — Second President of the LDS Church (1847-1877), Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.
The Context: Young is explaining why missionaries struggle in certain regions. He argues that peoples whose ancestors rejected the Gospel in ancient times carry a curse that makes them resistant to conversion. He places Jews at the very bottom — below Native Americans (“Lamanites”), below any other group, below even the devil.
The Theological Framework: Young believed Jews were cursed for “killing the Savior” and that they continued to affirm (“say Amen to”) that deed. This wasn’t unique to Mormonism — such anti-Semitic theology was common in 19th-century Christianity — but Young’s language is particularly stark.
Lyric-to-Source Mapping
Coming Soon
Addressing Apologetic Responses
“Product of his time”
This defense actually makes the point: prophets don’t transcend their culture, they baptize it. If Young was simply reflecting 19th-century anti-Semitism rather than receiving divine truth, what does that say about prophetic revelation?
“The Church doesn’t teach this today”
The modern Church does not officially teach that Jews are cursed or unconvertible. But the question remains: how did a prophet get this so wrong? And how long did these teachings persist in Mormon culture?
“Speaking as a man”
Young presents this as theological fact tied to salvation history, not personal opinion. He connects it to priesthood, curses, and the plan of salvation. This isn’t casual commentary — it’s doctrinal teaching from the pulpit.
“Jews were actually converted”
Young acknowledges some Jewish converts existed but claims they must not have “a particle of the blood of Judah” in them — essentially defining Jewish converts out of existence to preserve his thesis.
“I would rather undertake to convert the devil himself.”