It’s beyond strange for the Afore to be clutching his pearls. Kish’s critiques of Becoming Brigham have been mild to the point of being polite, if you can even call them critiques. And, lest we forget, Kish was one of the lone survivors who actually enjoyed Six Days in August and gave it a good review. Whatever the Afore is smoking, I’d love to know the brand, because its clearly sending him into an alternate reality.drumdude wrote: ↑Tue Feb 03, 2026 9:19 pmI don’t know why Dan can’t just use Kish’s chosen pseudonym.“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
For the sake of the Afore’s delicate sensibilities, someone should probably stage an intervention before he reads the Deseret News comments from TBMs. If the Afore's fragile ego is this bruised by Kish’s mild praise, the comments from the Becoming Brigham article might actually cause him to spontaneously combust.
happened to notice that DCP should not have used the opening scene to represent the date and time in which Smith was shot at Carthage. It was a graphic oversight on his part and everyone needs to know that.
