[Wm says: sorry Alex, I had to remove part of your comment because it crossed the line of our comment policy. Criticism of the work is fine, but not speculations about the author or personal attacks. I'm also closing comments on this post because I'm not convinced that there will be further productive discussion here. A lot has already been said.]

You are a fired up man!

I think most of your recent comments are directed at Th. but since I think some of them are also directed at my original review I wanted to respond.

To be clear: I am sure you are a wonderful human being and I have no personal quibbles with you or your spirituality as it now stands or ever did stand.

As for a lot of LDS lit. being saccharine. Um, yeah, it is. But a lot, a lot, a lot of people like that. *I* don’t. (I also don’t like the super-edgy, out-there stuff). But a lot of people do. And they have every right to their personal aesthetic just as you have every right to your personal aesthetic. I’m glad that writing _Brother Brigham_ was fulfilling to you.

I never wanted your book to be banned. I never said it shouldn’t have been published. I never said anything personal about you or Chris Bigelow or Zarahemla Books. I just said that it was too much for me. I just didn’t feel comfortable recommending it to people. And I felt (and still feel) that other readers coming into this book would appreciate a little more information going into it because it will be too much for some people.

If you stop by again (even if it’s many, many moons from now) I hope you’ll take the time to share with us what LDS/Mormon works you feel show progress in the field. I know I’ve read a few in the last couple years that wowed me. _Bound on Earth_, _Rift_, _The Conversion of Jeff Williams_, _Long After Dark_ all come to mind.

My own sister thinks it’s great, and believe me, she about as orthodox and opinionated as they get. The fact that I’m her brother would not dissuade her one iota from telling me if she was outraged by the book.

So I think the call to warn people away or even ban the book does a disservice to a lot of people who would love it. There isn’t even consensus on whether the “edgy” parts are even all that edgy. Some are shocked and disturbed by them, some are amused that others think the book is all that edgy. It’s only edgy in comparison to Covenant or Deseret Books. That’s not saying much.

I defy anyone to quote an excerpt from the book that is sexually graphic in nature. There is none. The descriptions are surprisingly mild, short, and restrained. I’ll tell you what’s graphic about the sex scenes: your mind. If you visualized graphic images, you created them–they’re not in the words of the book.

It’s my opinion that people who say Brother Brigham is sexually graphic define “sexually graphic” as any mention of sex. That’s a definition I reject.

This is what drove me away the end, but its true that my beliefs are not exactly orthodox, even though I do still hold to a number of LDS teachings. This was caused by one thing and one thing only: through my experiences and studies I came to the conclusion that the church is not what it claims to be. It just isn’t. That had nothing to do with the intolerance of any members, or any sin I may or may not have been committing. Nor is it the result of any “dangerous” literature I’ve read or written that might or might not include evil spirits anonymously or by name. It simply has to do with being intellectually honest with what I’ve learned.

Richard Dutcher had nothing to do with it. I was already on my way out before I knew he was leaving.

He and I do share one thing in common however. Both of us have works of art we created while faithful being criticized from the perspective of where we are now spiritually. Seems a lot of Richard’s critics are suddenly very insightful about how his faithful films show his future apostasy. And I see some using my current spiritual state to snidely criticize Brother Brigham.

I consider it cheating to try and criticize Brother Brigham based on what I am now, not what I was when I wrote it.

So let me emphasize this once more: I was completely converted when I wrote Brother Brigham. I was as faithful as they get. I loved the church and defended it wholeheartedly. There is nothing in that book that is anti-gospel. There is nothing evil about the book. It follows every legitimate precept of the gospel.

True, it may violate the sensibilities of some members–maybe a not of members. But what does that matter? I’m not beholden to the sensibilities of members who are overly squeamish about the natural realities of life. Sex does happen, and by gosh I’ll write about it when the story warrants it! Evil spirits do exist, and by gosh I’ll write about them if the story warrants it! Members do make mistakes, get puffed up in pride, rationalize to justify things they want to do but know are wrong, and by gosh… well, you get the idea.

Those who criticize my book for moral reasons, in my opinion, are surreptitiously scolding me for telling the truth. Which I find a curious thing for someone who claims to be a disciple of Christ to do.

My experience with LDS literature has been limited but not absent. I have read a number of LDS books that helped form my opinion of LDS literature. I’m not going to remember them all–I’m staving off Altzheimers by the minute.

Pretty much anything by Jack Weyland has turned me off. Not only is he a mediocre writer at best, but his stories are sickening to me in their saccharine approach. I once did some editing for someone who was going to release a collection of Weyland’s short stories. OH my heck that was an ordeal!

I also read Gerald Lund’s attempt at science fiction–not quite remembering the name, starts with an A–the Alliance or something like that. A pedestrian work, tolerably entertaining I guess, but full of defects.

More importantly I’ve spoken at length with an acquisitions editor from Covenant Communication and got a thorough explanation of what type of fiction they were looking for. It was not a hopeful experience.

I’ve read a few of Covenant’s publications. Universally they’ve been mediocre or worse. I’ve read a couple books from the brief career of Cornerstone. One was actually engrossing–Linda Paul Adams’ book of the future, even though I was critical of some small elements within it. Another was gawdawful, and I won’t get any more specific than that.

I’ve also read lots and lots of reactions of LDS readers on AML List and elsewhere that I think gives me a pretty good idea of what kind of literature is out there and what kind the orthodox Mormon wants to read.

So even though my personal exposure to LDS literature is limited, I do think I have a fair handle on what its like generally. I will also confess that I think LDS literature has made great strides in recent years. I think it’s on the path to finally growing up. I’m thrilled with Deseret Book’s publication of the “Standing on the Promises” trilogy. To me that marks a watershed moment in LDS publishing.

Maybe there was something out there I missed due to my limited exposure, but it was absolutely true that I had not discovered any LDS literature at the time that interested me, so I wrote what would interest me, and Brother Brigham is the result. I cannot abide the alleged “faith-promoting” story that requires unrealistic squeaky-cleanness (no life is squeaky clean, even Mormon lives) and requires everything to turn out wonderful and requires the whole salvation and repentance and sanctification process to be spelled out in its entirety just so Mormon readers can feel confident that the Message is getting out to everyone.

My moral standards require me to tell the truth as I understand it. Literature that whitewashes the truth so the church and its members can look good is morally repugnant to me. Truthful literature is the kind that appeals to me, and the kind that I must write.

I’m not that great at staying uncivil. And my main means of ill civility is faux civility. It’s like real civility except, curiously, you get blood poured over you.

Dang.

True enough. It’s kinda difficult to be sarcastic and not sarcastic at the same time. (And that’s what usually gets me in trouble online….)