Inasmuch as “political” means “statist” or “related to dispute and advocacy over inclusion,” I don’t think Mormonism will (maybe I should say: should) ever be political. But inasmuch as “political” has reference to fidelity to an (ahistorical) event, I think Mormonism is through and through political.

This is not, of course, to suggest that Mormonism somehow escapes the political, but that it doesn’t work according to it, that it effectively ignores it. But everything Mormonism does can still, of course, be read or interpreted politically. There is inevitably a politics of Mormonism, but to sever that politics from the apolitical fidelity of Mormonism to the event (of Adam-ondi-Ahman, for example) is to miss what orients that politics.

So will the Kingdom be built in the midst of a historico-political world? Absolutely. In fact, I think it must be: fidelity to the event amounts, in the end, to a radical reworking of the situation, and hence, of the historico-political world. The new Mormon history is thus doing the right project the wrong way: we very much ought to be writing history, but we ought to be doing it radically.

I’m just trying to get you, Joe, to respond to the earlier question about politics, by sketching what I expect is a counter view for you to respond to (a view that I think used to be somewhat common, say during Pres. Benson’s tenure, but probably much less common now)….

Very good points, and I certainly agree with your last statement. In fact, I not only agree that the First Presidency doesn’t portray itself as otherwise than a bona fide First Presidency, I would go further to say that it isn’t otherwise: I entirely believe that the First Presidency is a bona fide First Presidency. My point is to suggest that there has been a shift in structural function between what Joseph called and what we usually call the First Presidency. I anticipate that changing when (if? as some people suggest) we eventually involve ourselves again in a Missouri-located Zion, etc.

But to respond more directly to the Woodruff/Cannon/Grant/et al discussion: yes, I agree. And I have not looked closely enough at Lorenzo Snow’s revelation in the Salt Lake Temple at the time he became the president of the presiding Twelve. What might Christ have said (we have the story only because a daughter of President Snow recounted his mentioning it to her)? And again, Jan Shipps’s reading of the unique role of Joseph F. Smith in the history of the Church—something that can’t really be denied, I think: D&C 138, the second manifesto, the Smoot hearings, the three First Presidency statements on doctrine, the first signifiant post-Brigham changes to the endowment, the revelation on correlation, etc., etc., etc., all point in the direction of a kind of rehabilitation of the Church under President Smith). And yet, until there is a Standing Council, I’m not sure that the First Presidency can be what it was under Joseph. That is, we are and remain an unanchored Church in the wilderness, under the direction of the Twelve because we are abroad still.

Much to think about. But I do hope this much is clear: I do not see any of the differences I’m asserting, nor our distance from Jackson County, Missouri, to be the sign of any kind of apostasy or failure on the part of the Brethren! In fact, I say all of this, as I understand things, to their defense against claims like Quinn’s in The Mormon Hierarchy: The Origins of Power, where there is a kind of muddle at the time of Joseph’s death, followed by advocacy and dispute, and settled by a quasi-veiled change in hierarchical structure. I think things are much clearer, honest, and straightforward than that, if we only take a look at the scriptures, etc.

Hope this is clear.

“…an “Acting-as-First-Presidency,” which has continued down until the present.”

By not sure, I mean that I’m not sure whether at some point the 12 collectively said, “Okay, this First Presidency thing we have going now is from now on to be regarded as the same as the original one that Joseph headed.” Surely this topic at least came up during the Woodruff/Canon/Grant/et al “disputation” era. At any rate, the First Presidency today does not portray itself—and the Church as a whole does not view it—as anything different than a bona fide First Presidency.

Brent, a brief word of response.

The First Presidency was organized in 1832, three years previous to the organization of the Twelve. It was understood then (and ought still, I think, to be understood) as a quorum entirely separate from the Twelve, this latter having its parallel in the Standing Quorum in Zion. The First Presidency was understood as a quorum that presided over the two governing quorums of twelve (the Twelve Apostles and the Standing High Council). After Missouri essentially disappeared for Joseph, he more or less disassembled the First Presidency, albeit through a series of steps. When Joseph died, the Twelve became the presiding quorum of the Church because there was no Standing High Council and no First Presidency. The Church then went three years without a First Presidency at all. In 1847, when the issue began to be raised, many of the apostles were very opposed to it. Discussion went on for some time, and the question was whether there could be another First Presidency after Joseph’s death. The issue was settled and Brigham became the president of the Church when it was understood that it would only be a temporary quorum: the quorum of the presidency would disband when Joseph’s successor was prepared to take the position. Brigham in fact often made statements about David Hyrum Smith, who he understood to be the next president in line, saying essentially that he was only holding the place until David would repent of his connections with the RLDS Church and come join the saints.

What seems, then, to have happened (and I’m always very open to counterargument! I’m only piecing things together all the time, so don’t take this as a definitive argument by any means!) is this: the Twelve, as a united quorum, decided to create what might be called an “Acting-as-First-Presidency,” which has continued down until the present. If that is to point to some distance between the First Presidency in which Joseph stood as president and the First Presidencies since then, it is not to point to much of one: the acting president of the Twelve is no less authoritative than the actual president. So what I’m saying should not be taken in any way as a suggestion that the Twelve did something inappropriate, or that the First Presidency today or yesterday is somehow “less true” than the one Joseph set up. It is merely to point out that there is some difference in its structural relationship to the priesthood and in a few particulars of office.

Does that make sense?

At the same time, I’ve been wondering a fair bit about the sense in which the Kingdom of God can simply be built in the midst of the worldly kingdom. I’ve been reading Bryan Christopher’s Render to Caesar: Jesus, the Early Church, and the Roman Superpower. Christopher has an interesting and well-supported thesis that the OT and NT are consistent in teaching that worldly powers are “ordained by God” in the sense that we should obey them, but that they also have responsibilities to establish justice and peace, and if they do not fulfill these duties, then the prophets will call them to repentance and they are subject to critique (and, possibly, disobedience in such cases).

But Christopher focuses on the Christian’s duty toward worldly power, not the reverse case which you are asking about, and I’m anxious to draw more thoughts from you on this. More specifically, I don’t understand how you can suggest that persecution is inevitable, and yet you don’t want to call those who want to build Adam-ondi-Ahman a party—in what sense is it not a party if others take up the opposite position (of wanting to oppose those who build Adam-ondi-Ahman, doesn’t the opposition de facto create two parties?)?

I am teaching this lesson a week from Sunday, and I appreciate your insight and enthusiasm for this chapter. I was feeling a bit underwhelmed after the first reading.

I am now feeling that the whole message of truth tends to be polarizing with little if any middle ground. To understand the message of the restoration is to understand that one must take one side or the other eventually. In a way, I think perhaps that enemies of the churh may ‘understand’ our message better than those who think the church is a ‘good’ church – or one of many belief options.

Anyway, nice review.