The Nehor wrote:That's the thing I have a problem with Harm. So many of my ancestors knew Joseph and/or Brigham very well. They spoke highly of them and not in the sense that LDS today think of President Hinckley. They knew them. They had private conversations with him. They don't seem like morons. I find it highly suspect that critics think they know him better than those he led and lived with.
Your ancestors were not the only contemporaries of Joseph and Brigham who knew them very well.
Some of those who knew Joseph and Brigham best were such Mormon luminaries as Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon (and his daughter, Nancy), John C. Bennett, and others. I'm sure that your ancestors were fine, devout LDS who were not morons, but I doubt they knew Joseph and Brigham anywhere as well as did Mssrs Cowdery, Rigdon, Bennett and others.
These contemporaries, whose much closer association with Joseph and Brigham probably allowed them to know Joseph and Brigham better than did your ancestors, came to far different conclusions about the doctrines and personal behavior of Smith and Young than did your ancestors. They ended up NOT speaking highly of Smith and Young's doctrines and behavior. As far as I can tell, they considered Smith a fallen prophet. And I note that Emma Smith, who likely knew Joseph and Brigham better than did your ancestors, along with Rigdon, Bennett and Cowdery, chose NOT to follow Young to Utah when he took over from Joseph.
So forget today's critics who didn't know Smith or Young. Consider that many of Smith's and Young's contemporaries who likely knew them better than did your ancestors, came to far different and considerably more adverse conclusions than did your ancestors.
James Clifford Miller
millerjamesc@cox.net