It’s hard to generalize with so few historians, but I’ll take a stab. I think there are three strategies. The first, as you suggested, historians may just ignore the Young-centric story, and just write the history of the movement. Generally, though, this can only work for an RLDS audience. Whenever someone tries to write for a larger audience, he or she has to address how RLDS and LDS mutually shape each other. This may reinforce the hegemonic LDS narrative, but it also tries to see how influences go back and forth even when there is an imbalance in a power relationship (and there generally always an imbalance in RLDS/LDS relations). An author, like Roger Launius, can focus on primarily an RLDS topic (such as Joseph Smith III) but must also situate him in relation to his LDS cousins. And, honestly, with JSIII’s story, talking about his life without talking about the LDS in Utah would be a little limiting, if not crazy.

Third, people, like John Hamer, Steve Shields, Bill Russell, and Jason Smith have really tried to place what became minority groups at the center of important events and stories. Jason Smith, for instance, works on the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), and, in his upcoming MHA paper, will be showing how their apologetic strategies borrow (or at least correspond) to counter-cult arguments aimed at LDS. This complicates our notion of LDS/countercult interactions with third parties mediating some of the materials and even generating some of the arguments.

At the moment, in my own writing, I am thinking about what happens when the normally minority-status RLDS are the major agents in shaping what happens at a Mormon pilgrimage site, such as Kirtland Temple. “One person’s periphery is another’s center” is a truism from anthropologist James Cliford. Similarly, a peripheral agent in one interaction may be a gatekeeper in another. That is definitely the case with the shifting RLDS/LDS interactions at Kirtland over time.

I had a question about general trends in CofC historiography. How have CofC dealt with the tendency among Utah historians and mainstream American religious scholars to employ what could be called a Young-centric narrative that effectively marginalizes and obscures the experiences of other Restoration groups? Do CofC historians generally ignore the Young-centrism and just write CofC history, or have there been attempts to de-stablize the dominant narrative? I’m thinking of Robin Scott Jensen’s efforts to redefine the meaning and significance of both “Mormons” and “Mormonism” and shift the narrative away from Utah or at least try to broaden the framework to include Strangites and other groups.

Jeramiahs
Davids
Joshuas

or (just for fun):

Es
Js
Ps
and Deuteronomists

[grin]

By the way, I really appreciated your contribution to the recent symposium. Thank you so much for the transportation you provided to our guest. I would love to have been a fly on the wall of your car when you took him to the airport.

“At the dinner break I was invited by John Hamer to have dinner with John, Mike Karpowicz, David Howlett, Matt Frizzel and Jan Shipps. We went to a restaurant that is owned by a member of the Community of Christ. It was excellent and the food was not to bad either. David and Matt are both PhD. Candidates in theology and history and members of the Community of Christ. Matt is the Community of Christ’s “Mission Center President” (“Stake President” in LDS lingo) for Chicago. David grew up in a more conservative branch of the Restoration Movement and is an expert in that area. Our discussion was open and informative. We talked a bit about the early history of the Kirtland temple and the solemn assembly procedure. I was amazed at the knowledge at the table and the openness of the discussion, David laid out the events and I brought up the amount of wine that was used to help with the visions and manifestations. No one seemed surprised by my comments or offended.”

My experience with Ron, Mark and Lachlan have all been equally spiritual and invigorating.