To advance his goal of achieving some degree of acceptance and tolerance for Mormonism in a rabidly anti-Mormon America, Joseph F. steered the church away from polygamy to monogamy; from the political and economic kingdom to the status of a denominational church; from Joseph’s Smith’s last revelation (plural marriage) to his First Vision; and from isolationist retreat from American religious pluralism to participation in pluralistic America. It’s quite remarkable. And quite remarkable that he doesn’t have more prominence in our thinking. How strange that there is no good biography of Joseph F., at least none that I can think of.

I wonder if Professor Flake is in agreement and if so, would care to elaborate on the central role of Joseph F. to the modern church. This may be overstating things a bit but based on my reading of Flake, I’d be inclined to accept the argument that:

The modern Mormon church is the church that Joseph F. built.

If the press had been present when Peter was heard to deny the Saviour three times, what would have been the political fallout? What would have happened if he hadn’t? How does President Smith’s experience differ from Peter’s, if at all, in terms of “lying”?

1. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was once viewed as something like historical trivia, but in recent years became active and relevant precedent when the Senate in our day had to run an impeachment trial. Do you have any sense that the Smoot hearings might likewise become suddenly relevant at some point?

2. I have sometimes felt that the experience of President Joseph F. Smith travelling to Washington and testifying before the committee — which receives remarkably little comment in traditional histories of the Church — was the key event in transforming the LDS position (the real one) on polygamy, rather than a spiritual prompting toward the Second Manifesto (I haven’t heard the story told that way) or more practical considerations relating to politics and the Smoot question. What was the impact of Pres. Smith going to Washington?

Thus, my question: To what degree do you view the hearings as legitimate use of governmental power? And how would you characterize the motivations that lead to them?

The basic insight/claim is that theology should focus on the narrative expression of faith (usually but not necessarily expressions in scripture) rather than on developing a metaphysical system that is often assumed to be the structure underlying scriptural and other narratives of faith.

For a good overview of narrative theology, see this paper.

Having finally seen Hero (and being tired of artistic tragedy that is unnecessary — vs. the historically necessary heroic sacrifice) I’m also curious how anyone could find that sex scene as objectionable as the ones more common to movies and what that says about LDS culturally.