Normally, Evangelical/Ex Mo presentations of these issues focus on shock value and decontextualization, and so would probably be easy to dismiss by LDS. The standard, faithful presentations we’ve already gone over.

Even so, I think the issue isn’t so much access, but initiative. First, lack of initiative to learn anything past the standard story (and this doesn’t have to be negative. How many people really have time to look up info on BY’s thought when both parents have to work full time to make ends meet, kids have soccer, etc). What’s the incentive to dig?

That friend you mentioned is very atypical, in my opinion. Anomalous may be a better word. You’re anomalous too, David That is, because of what you know. Here, you’re comparing two informed individuals and making that your example. If we want to talk about how informed individuals view BY, then you’ve got something. But if we’re talking about the membership in general, even across racial lines, I stand by my assessment.

So, I think there’s just too little known about BY in general discourse for there to be cultural differences in how BY is viewed. I think black converts on the African continent would feel the same largely as what I described. This probably also because discourse on BY has been and continues to be dominated by American/English Speaking constructs. What does a black African from South Africa know about BY? What the priesthood manual told him. The same for South Texas and South Provo for that matter.

Once BY’s complexity becomes (and it will become) more common knowledge, there might be differences. For now, I think BY hasn’t been digested well enough generally for this type of analysis. I’m not just being cynical when I say it.

Jordan: I agree that in order to understand BY’s place in our collective memory we must also look at how we cast JS. The two must be understood together. I also think that we should look at BY’s image historically. I would argue that BY used to be much more prominent in the stories that we shared with with others, largely because of the RLDS challenge. When there were major competitors to JS’s legacy we had to explain what made us different. But as the RLDS have changed, we have changed too in the ways that we present ourselves.

So I agree that we don’t talk about Brigham Young much in public, except to mention the Pioneers, his role in settling the West and to defend him from accusations (like Mountain Meadows). What does it tell us about ourselves (and the place of BY in our memory) that we choose these instances from his life to share with those outside of our own circles and ignore the rest of his life?

Now that I know something about these issues and Brigham Young, it’s a little harder. I’m sympathetic to some of his doctrinal innovations but not all (whereas before I didn’t know he had any “innovations”). Which were from Brigham and his environment, and which from God? Ultimately, for me, it comes down to that. In discourse with others, if they’re informed about these issues, we’ll talk about them on these terms. If not, I don’t bother. I talk about him the way I used to before I knew about these issues. Either way, I love Brother Brigham, and revere him as a mighty prophet.

E.B.W., this is a blog devoted to the scholarly study of Mormonism, wherever possible we try to use the words the scholars use. At worst, you learned a new word.