drumdude wrote: ↑Tue Feb 03, 2026 9:19 pm
“DCP” wrote:An academic with whom I’m acquainted who is deeply critical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, formerly active in the Church and now, sadly, quite alienated from it but, on many occasions, far more balanced, fair, intelligent, and lucid than those who surround him where he posts, has raised an interesting objection to Becoming Brigham. I know his identity in real life, but I’ll call him Alex (sic kishkumen):
Alex is inclined to fault Becoming Brigham as an instance of “hero worship” and a manifestation of the “cult of personality” that he regards as a negative characteristic of the culture of the Church. He writes, he observes, about such historical figures as Julius Caesar and Constantine, but he feels no need to defend them as honest, or nice, or good. He has nothing invested in them. He simply follows where the historical evidence leads.
I will grant that there are sometimes elements of undue hero worship in the Church (as elsewhere). While I’m not especially offended by them, I also don’t advocate such attitudes. Still, I do believe that there are real heroes, in the Church and beyond it.
But I think that, in this regard, Alex seriously misconceives what we’re doing with Becoming Brigham and what we did with Six Days in August. These are not ventures in “hero worship.” But they are attempts to tell an accurate story, to paint an accurate portrait as we see it. And to correct inaccurate perceptions where they occur.
Why does this matter? Because Brigham Young (and Joseph Smith and the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon) occupy a distinctly different place in Latter-day Saint historical self-understanding than Julius Caesar, Constantine, Napoleon, and Attila the Hun occupy in historical understanding more generally. Nobody orients his or her daily personal life according to a conception of Julius Caesar — though, I will confess, some current public figures begin to remind me of Attila the Hun. But the claims of Joseph Smith, the Witnesses, and Brigham Young do have life-orientational implications for those who accept them — and, for that matter, for those who reject them.
Moreover, to put it perhaps another way: Joseph and Brigham and other such pivotal figures in the story of the Restoration aren’t merely historical figures. They are witnesses, the value of whose testimony rests upon their credibility and moral character. Thus, as in a courtroom, defending (or questioning) their credibility and their character makes perfect sense and is actually quite important.
Reading Alex’s objection to Becoming Brigham, I immediately thought of a passage from a letter written by Oliver Cowdery to Phineas Young, on 23 March 1846. Oliver was negotiating his return to the Church, and he had some strong requests, even demands, to make before his rebaptism. During the turbulent and unpleasant time of his departure from the Church, in 1838, some very grave and intemperate accusations had been leveled against him and his character. The accusations were untrue, and he wanted explicit clarification that they were untrue. His reasons are of interest and of relevance here:
I have cherished a hope, and that one of my fondest, that I might leave such a character, as those who might believe in my testimony, after I should be called hence, might do so, not only for the sake of the truth, but might not blush for the private character of the man who bore that testimony. I have been sensitive on this subject, I admit; but I ought to be so—you would be, under the circumstances, had you stood in the presence of John, with our departed Brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater, and looked down through time, and witnessed the effects these two must produce,—you would feel what you have never felt, were wicked men conspiring to lessen the effects of your testimony on man, after you should have gone to your long sought rest.
I have nothing invested in arguing for the perfection of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or the Book of Mormon Witnesses. But a great deal rides for me (and for millions of others) on their credibility and on their having been morally adequate to the stewardships that I believe God assigned to them. Fortunately, I believe the historical evidence to be on my side, and on theirs
I don’t know why Dan can’t just use Kish’s chosen pseudonym.
Huh. I don’t mind if he gives me a different pseudonym. He is probably doing me a favor. I doubt his readers would treat me more fairly if they knew I posted as Kishkumen here.
I appreciate Dr. Peterson’s view. I just don’t share it. The only person I think is to be counted on for a truly sterling character is Jesus Christ. I don’t expect to place any real faith in anyone else. That is where I have landed. On the other hand, I believe life demands of me that I try to do better for others than I expect them to do for me. That is being a Christian in my view. Trust in Jesus, and do better for others.
I don’t see the need to like Brigham Young to respect his contributions to the Mormon community. I don’t live by Brigham Young’s righteousness, and I don’t think anyone else should either. If they do, that is their choice.
I get that people feel affirmed to have heroes to look up to, people who make them feel good to be LDS. I expect such films to be made. I don’t take potshots at them or ridicule them. I think I am pretty fair and understanding.
But I am serious when I say that putting trust in Jesus is much, much better than lionizing the memory of Brigham Young or Joseph Smith. I am moved when I watch The Chosen. Really moved. I am just not moved in the same way by these otherwise enjoyable videos about early LDS leaders. Frankly, the things I know about the lives of these early Mormons complicate the rosy view these films depict.
I don’t have to worry about Jesus’ many wives or his involvement with the slave trade. I don’t have to ask if he made up gold plates because he believed in real ones existing somewhere. Unfortunately, these and many other such questions do come up when I think of the founding figures of Mormonism.
I don’t think that asking such questions keeps a person from being Mormon. But it may impair their ability to idealize or heroize the founders of their faith. At the end of the day, Joseph and Brigham come out looking like the flawed men they were when we really consider them in the light of historical fact. All the facts. Not slices that are curated to generate warm feelings and yet be reasonably true to history.
My faithful LDS father-in-law didn’t want to watch Witnesses, but I got him to go with me. I thought he would love it, but he fell asleep. I did enjoy it. But his reason for not liking such films makes more sense to me now than it ever did before. He told me he did not like to see films of things he holds sacred. That makes sense to me now in a new way.
I am sure there is a place for such films, and I do enjoy watching them, but the films do not do spiritual justice to the real struggle of faith that people must go through. Not for their subjects or their audiences, no matter how well intentioned the filmmakers are or how hard they try. I say this not as a criticism but to see it all in its appropriate place.
It is a very big deal that some early Mormons continued to follow Joseph Smith while holding the knowledge that he had all kinds of unusual marital arrangements. I don’t understand it, and a film will likely never help me understand it. Witnesses sure did not, as much as I enjoyed watching it. That is too big a question not to occupy a central place in how Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are depicted, and I doubt I will ever see a film that will change my mind about the issue.
You know, come to think of it, I don’t like Paul or Nephi very much either. I don’t feel the need to like them. It doesn’t matter to me that Christianity would not be the same without Paul. For me Christianity is in its teachings, not in the sterling character of Paul. Same with Mormonism. If others do need to trust in Paul or Joseph Smith, that’s them. Trusting in the good character of other people is not where I choose to invest my efforts.
As I have pointed out many times in the past, Brigham Young got one thing very right. He said that Joseph Smith’s personal character did not matter because he taught the doctrines of salvation. That was wise. I am surprised more fans of Brigham Young do not take his views on that seriously. Trust the teachings, not the people. People will let you down, but that does not mean the teachings are bad. If the teaching is bad, like, say, polygamy, then it will be pretty apparent without asking whether a good man could have come up with that idea.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
