DiscussMormonism.com

The smiles look a bit AI generated. But in a couple of them, he looks a little, dare I say smokin’. Or at least kinda cute. I would consider dating him based on these profile pics. Assuming he was non attached.

Brigham Young.. compared his sermons with scripture .“I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom . . . I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.” (JoD, vol. 13, p. 95)

Wow, very convincing stuff Deseret News! This is really going to change minds about a truly terrible person.

I certainly don't believe that Brigham Young was part of any plot to kill Joseph Smith. Also, he didn't order the killing of the 120 emigrants in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but his inaction and stonewalling prevented bringing to justice nearly all of the perpetrators.

I'll be interested to see if the series tackles head-on Brother Brigham's tendency to make up stuff and describe it as revelation. This would be quite welcome in view of the tendency of LDS writers and authorities to so often engage in spin, half-truth and omission.

Forty episodes?!!! I’ll never want to watch all that. Am I the only one?

I watched the first episode and what I learned from the older man with a historical academic degree. However, I didn’t like the format or the sarcastic portrayal of the male actor.

I didn’t like the back and forth camera shots either. If a person is speaking to the two hosts, show them all. The male host put on different faces “acting” on the discussion. That was phony. The female host acted what a normal appearance of a fact finding person.

The format needs to change of this will just go over as a joke.

I think if it requires 40 episodes of debunking to prop up the namesake of your flagship university and paint him in better light wouldn't it be easier to just change the name?

The case of the pot calling the kettle black. It only takes a little bit of historical digging to poke holes in the latest fake claims that gets regurgitated as fact.

But everyone needs a hobby... even if in involves chasing their tail, like a dog over the next so called historical controversy .
"I remember what Joseph said, a short time before he was slain in one of the last sermons I ever heard him preach. Said he, “Men are here today who are seeking my blood, and they are those who have held the (Mormon)Priesthood and have received their washings and anointings; men who have received their endowments.” I saw the faces of those men at that time, and they had a hand in slaying the Prophet.

What does it really mean to “have a hand in” killing someone? Almost anyone could be accused of that if you connect enough dots.
"I remember what Joseph said, a short time before he was slain in one of the last sermons I ever heard him preach. Said he, “Men are here today who are seeking my blood, and they are those who have held the (Mormon)Priesthood and have received their washings and anointings; men who have received their endowments.” I saw the faces of those men at that time, and they had a hand in slaying the Prophet. JOD Vol 4 149 Wilford Woodruff,

Many Mormons signed an oath to kill Joseph Smith some for adultery with their wives an when He was shot He said “Oh Lord my God.” Standing alone these words do not mean much, but Mormon historian Reed C. Durham notes on page 28 of the booklet No Help for the Widow’s Son that Smith, with hands raised, was actually attempting to give the “Masonic distress call to fraternal Masons who were present in the mob.” His call for help went unheeded

Did you know that once the Masons were officially established in Utah in the 1860s they absolutely refused to allow Mormons to join? In fact the prohibition against Mormons becoming Masons was only officially withdrawn in 1984.

There’s no question Brigham Young committed some serious sins. Putting efforts into trying to accurately judge him is the opposite of what Christ taught. Let God be the judge of Brigham Young, and focus on what Christ taught.

I agree that judging him as a person for his sins is the opposite of what Christ taught. However, I believe judging whether he was actually a prophet of God based on his claims and actions is perfectly reasonable and part of biblical teachings. If his actions and teachings that he claimed were from God, were clearly not from any God, he was not a prophet in my mind.

God’s prophets (along with all humans) have all done selfish things.

Christ was the only perfect human. Christ used God’s power to benefit others and did not use the faithfulness of his followers to benefit himself. No prophet or human can do the same.

I am not talking about just human foibles or doing selfish things. I am talking solely about what they claimed to be from God. Maybe we both agree that Brigham Young said some things were from God that were not from God.

This article just gives fuel to a conspiracy that I never heard of before I read this. When I read the headline, I thought the effort would be to somehow prove that he wasn’t a womanizer. He's got more of a reputation for that than for being a murderer.

Streisand effect.

The first episode of a new video series plainly states one of its provocative missions: Prove that Brigham Young wasn’t part of a conspiracy to kill Joseph Smith. I have never even heard that accusation from anyone ever. If this video series doesn't deal with any of the actual known controversial claims about early Latter-day saint history, it will have been a completely irrelevant waste of time and money.

I have never heard of this either. With his known (factual) history being so sullied, making up stuff as a distraction can keep folks from ever facing the truth. It appears a lot like our current occupiers in the White House who bury truth by telling repeated untruths, thereby keeping accountability at bay.
I don’t pay any attention to the rights and wrongs of the LDS religion leaders. The past Prophets are often criticized of the views the ideas in previous years.

"American Moses"?

Yeah, you poll 100% of Americans to name the American Moses and 99.9 will have no answer. The .1% will be from Utah.
I would just add that Harriet Tubman was known as the Moses of her people.

There is even a play titled "Harriet Tubman: An American Moses" that depicts her heroism in leading people out of slavery.

IMHO, Brigham Young does not look as stern in his younger pictures.

Yes. The smile does seem a little photo shopped. Also---like so many other posters, I had never heard of this conspiracy and I tend to think that the Tad-ster is trying to create Beehive State Buzz where it doesn't really exist.

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 01, 2026 7:19 pm

It seems to be going down as well as Six Days In August...given that a film about Brigham Young was a massive box office bomb (taking less than $390,000 at the box office), why on earth would anyone think that members would want a 40 episode run of more of the same and so it’s worth throwing even more money into trying to rehabilitate the character of an obnoxious tyrant?

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 01, 2026 7:19 pm

It seems to be going down as well as Six Days In August...given that a film about Brigham Young was a massive box office bomb (taking less than $390,000 at the box office), why on earth would anyone think that members would want a 40 episode run of more of the same and so it’s worth throwing even more money into trying to rehabilitate the character of an obnoxious tyrant?

huckelberry wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 02, 2026 12:06 am

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 01, 2026 7:19 pm

It seems to be going down as well as Six Days In August...given that a film about Brigham Young was a massive box office bomb (taking less than $390,000 at the box office), why on earth would anyone think that members would want a 40 episode run of more of the same and so it’s worth throwing even more money into trying to rehabilitate the character of an obnoxious tyrant?

Well compared to all the other Mormon leaders except Joseph Smith, Brigham is interesting, creative, important and the others are not. If one wants to be Mormon I cannot imagine not wanting to know about him. Even people who are not Mormon sometimes are curious about him.

huckelberry wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 02, 2026 12:06 am

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 01, 2026 7:19 pm

It seems to be going down as well as Six Days In August...given that a film about Brigham Young was a massive box office bomb (taking less than $390,000 at the box office), why on earth would anyone think that members would want a 40 episode run of more of the same and so it’s worth throwing even more money into trying to rehabilitate the character of an obnoxious tyrant?

Well compared to all the other Mormon leaders except Joseph Smith, Brigham is interesting, creative, important and the others are not. If one wants to be Mormon I cannot imagine not wanting to know about him. Even people who are not Mormon sometimes are curious about him.

The description of a "faith-based docuseries" is an oxymoron by definition. Proof of that fact is found in the statement that they "...deliberately tried to look at the hard questions".

If you have to TRY to address the problems, then you aren't actually addressing them. "Try" is not "Do".

Also, Dan Peterson was one of the most helpful apologists when I reconstructed Mormonism. His blatant gas-lighting and bending of the truth showed me very clearly what Mormonism really was, is, and will be - a faith based on lies and falsely-told "history" of incredibly horrible things that both Smith and Young did.

Dan Peterson! Wow! I haven't heard his name since they threw him out of the LDS Apologetics Dept...or whatever. You can count on him being the same old liar he's always been. My apologies to any real Mormon apologists out there that have to work with him.

Sounds like a bunch of faith promoting dreck, to me. In the style of "I don't always like what he says or does, but I like his policies."

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 02, 2026 8:38 pm

Ouch

The description of a "faith-based docuseries" is an oxymoron by definition. Proof of that fact is found in the statement that they "...deliberately tried to look at the hard questions".

If you have to TRY to address the problems, then you aren't actually addressing them. "Try" is not "Do".

Also, Dan Peterson was one of the most helpful apologists when I reconstructed Mormonism. His blatant gas-lighting and bending of the truth showed me very clearly what Mormonism really was, is, and will be - a faith based on lies and falsely-told "history" of incredibly horrible things that both Smith and Young did.

And

Dan Peterson! Wow! I haven't heard his name since they threw him out of the LDS Apologetics Dept...or whatever. You can count on him being the same old liar he's always been. My apologies to any real Mormon apologists out there that have to work with him.

And

Sounds like a bunch of faith promoting dreck, to me. In the style of "I don't always like what he says or does, but I like his policies."

People aren’t holding back, it’s brutal.

I think if it requires 40 episodes of debunking to prop up the namesake of your flagship university and paint him in better light wouldn't it be easier to just change the name?

Dr. Sunstoned wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 03, 2026 12:01 am

I thought this was gold (and good advice):

I think if it requires 40 episodes of debunking to prop up the namesake of your flagship university and paint him in better light wouldn't it be easier to just change the name?