I’d strongly disagree… Brigham… isn’t ultimately that interesting. Rather… Liberation Theology… would be tremendously helpful. Likewise I think philosophical grounding… [is] often misleading …, [b]oth in terms of American culture as well as broader thought… Joe Swick… has to draw things together.

His thousands of sermons, which did not speak on Adam-God or polygamy, seem to be ignored by Saint and Gentile, alike.

Well there was that lesson manual from a few years ago…

But since Young himself was largely unaware of the categories of elite European religious thought, such training strikes me as not being the sine qua non of the matter.

I’d strongly disagree. I also don’t think one need only be aware of the categories of “elite European thought.” I’m not saying look for theological influences on Brigham (which frankly isn’t ultimately that interesting). Rather one should seek understanding in many areas. One interesting area that I think has been touched on at times is Liberation Theology. (Hardly an elite European category) But I think having some idea of Christology and so forth would be tremendously helpful.

Likewise I think philosophical grounding – especially in such things as pragmatism and idealism – is very necessary if one wants to understand what Brigham was grasping at.

The problem is that most treatments have been fragmentary, focusing on one allegedly shocking area of divergence from the contemporary Mormon majority at a time as if different aspects of Young’s thought existed in airtight containers. We need integrative work that puts all of the pieces together and shows how it all fits, as well as how it drives the man’s pragmatic decisions.

Yes, and these fragmentary studies are also often misleading precisely because they lack that more holistic grounding. Both in terms of American culture as well as broader thought. Although I am eagerly awaiting the Masonic studies that purportedly were supposed to be coming out for some time. Joe Swick had one partially written although he reportedly dropped it once Nick Literski’s (sp? yeah – too lazy to look it up. Sorry Nick.) was doing his. I think that will be a very necessary first step.

But eventually someone has to draw things together. (For instance I’ll lay good odds that by looking primarily from a Masonic POV Nick will inadvertently distort BY’s thought much like similar studies on Joseph and the broad area of hermeticism has done)

Theologically, Ill take BY over Robert Millet anyday of the week.

…no disrespect to Robert Millet, who I’m sure is a fine man and Latter-Day Saint.

On a side note, I would have preferred seeing a hardcover version.

On the Moses/Joshua thing, I think the Moses analogy is used because of the Exodus and purification in the wilderness aspect, rather than the lawgiver component.

BTW, while the world calls him the “American Moses”, I’d note that is technically incorrect. Moses never entered the promised land, but only prepared the people for it and gave the people the laws of God. In this sense, Brigham would have been the “American Joshua”, and Joseph Smith would be the American Moses.

The book also has other non-narrative segments, such as a chapter that lists world leaders and other random facts from the period of Young’s life, as well as a collection of “Fun Facts” consisting basically of paragraph-length decontextualized humorous stories about Young.