From our abundance of discussion this week, I have chosen to highlight our thoughts on three topics: clothing, death/healing, and Zion.
I still need to trim it down a bit but here’s a good start.
Clothing
From Karen: The commandment “thou shalt not be proud in thy heart” is followed by only one example: “let all thy garments be plain, and their beauty the beauty of the work of thine own hands.”
I’ve been impressed that often the first thing the Nephite people do when they begin to be proud is to wear fine clothes (see Alma 4: 6 and 4 Ne. 1: 24).
From Joe: Yes, and I suspect that the Book of Mormon tradition here is drawing on Isaiah, where the connection is also drawn.
From Russell: One possibility is, of course, that clothing is the most immediate, outward way of communicating our identity, interests, and/or intentions to others, and hence is central to our ability to invite, manipulate, calm, provoke, or otherwise influence others.
…I think, however, the better possibility, or at least an important supplemental one, is contained in the line “the beauty of the work of thine own hands” … Specifically, the idea that one’s “beauty” (which should be a “plain” beauty, not an ostentatious or outrageous one) should be connected with one’s own work, not the work of others. Given the frequent association clothing is given with pride, and the fact that pride is always about enmity and competition on some level or another, I would suppose that the deeper meaning here is actually a very simple one, one that has been firmly expressed by Elder Holland and Sister Tanner recently: do not hand your appearance, your identity, your image, over to the world; keep it your own (or, since we are talking about a consecrated community here, presumably within the community of faith).
As I so often do, I think Rousseau (and Marx, to a degree) are helpful here: contemporary forms of production and relation and exchange–which shopping for clothes certainly involves–involve elements of alienation and dependency. Who is making my clothes? Who is judging my clothes? Who is deciding what’s in style and what isn’t? Who is even setting the terms for what I or my community accept as “plain”? So often the answer to all of the above is “I don’t know, but it’s not me, and not anyone I know personally or have any relationship with.” But the Lord, through Joseph Smith here, is I think struggling to get us to understand that a community of consecration is not going to be durable–is going to be poisoned by pride–if its notions of “beauty” itself is tied up in something made and decided upon and judged by others than ourselves.
From Jeremiah: Status is a social good, which people sometimes seek through the purchase and display of expensive, ugly, useless stuff—often, the more expensive and the more useless the better.
But we might notice that it’s much more complicated than that in the most advanced commercial societies. Most people I know can’t identify extremely expensive clothes.
…But at any rate, I can see why clothing is mentioned in verses we’re discussing. Costly apparel can at least be an effect of pride, if not an additional motive for it too. Moreover, aside from humility, there seems to be a sense of the virtue of seemliness—“proper order and limit”, even in appearance and physical form (Cicero)—in the reference to plainness and cleanliness and industry.
From Nate: I am fascinated by Russell’s suggested answer to Karen’s question, namely that there is something about how we understand beauty that is at issue here. If I understand the claim correctly, it is that the prohibition on costly appearal can be understood as rejecting the notion of beauty created by distant outsiders. Instead we learn that “the Lord, through Joseph Smith here, is I think struggling to get us to understand that a community of consecration is not going to be durable–is going to be poisoned by pride–if its notions of “beauty” itself is tied up in something made and decided upon and judged by others than ourselves.”
What we have here is the beginning of a link between the idea of Zion and aesthetics. I would like to see this fleshed out.
From Robert: I really like Russell’s emphasis on beauty in the “work of thine own hands” verse. This relation between beauty and clothing is fascinating to me, esp. b/c it is given such import in Isaiah’s writings (viz., “put on they beautiful garments, O Jerusalem[/Zion in Moroni 10:31---see this and other verses using this phrase here]” in Isa 52:1).
From Karen: What about “garments of the laborer” as being a sort of uniform – not in that everyone is wearing the same thing, but in meaning that they are excluded from the community of laborers? Almost like the virgins without oil could not enter the marriage feast. Those who do not labor now will not wear the clothes of those who “labor for Zion” (to quote 2 Ne 26). And, is there any reason to connect this to Adam receiving a garment? To the temple garment? Does this labor = working, such as physical labor, or are we referring more to a “labor for Zion” ideal?
From Robert: I’ve been thinking about this as the garment given in the Garden, with the accompanying injunction (effectively) to labor “by the sweat of thy brow” in order to earn a living. Not quite sure what to do with that thought, but I do think the symbolic allusions are rich—Zion as a return to the Garden, perhaps, through the pre-ordain plan, perhaps? I feel like we’re missing something significant here, but I’m not sure what….
From Joe: [Joe quoted from Arrington’s City of God to show that the demise of Orderville stemed from coveting fashionable clothing and homes:]
Orderville’s neighbors suddenly found themselves able to buy imported clothing and other store commodities. The Saints in Orderville thus became “old fashioned.” Their floppy straw hats, their “gray jeans,” their “valley tan” shoes, and their crowded shanties suddenly became objects of ridicule and derision. Orderville adolescents began to envy the young people in other communities, and their discontent spread to the older members of the Order [which led to several important changes, and then to the dissolution of Utah's longest standing United Order].
From Russell: Look again at the wording here: “let all thy garments be plain, and their beauty the beauty of the work of thine own hands.” It is possible, I suppose, to understand “beauty” in the second instance of this passage to refer to some neutral, objective description, but I don’t think so; I think both uses of the term are communicating the same idea: “the thing that makes the plain clothes beautiful is the fact that plain clothes which you yourself, or which members of the community that you are part of, have had a hand in producing are by definition beautiful.”
——————————————————————————————————————
Death/Healing
From Karen: [Verse 41] It seems unlikely that “all things” refers to the clothing mentioned in the last verse, and rather to all things conducted by a Zion people. In D&C 90: 36 God will chasten Zion until she is “clean.” Isa. 52: 1 promises that “there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.”
From Karen: [Verses 49-51] In Isaiah 35:5-6, we have reference to blind, deaf, and lame in the same order: “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart” and this as they “return, and come to Zion” (v. 10).
-Question: What is the connection between a Zion being established and the healing of the blind, deaf, and lame? The reference to Isaiah is striking because these will “come to Zion.” In the Book of Mormon Christ comes to set up a Zion people and he heals those who are afflicted (3 Nephi 17:7-6). Other references containing blind, deaf, and lame include: Matt. 11: 5, Luke 7: 22, Mosiah 3: 5, 3 Ne. 26: 15, 4 Ne. 1: 5, D&C 35: 9, D&C 58: 11.
From Joe: In the 1831 version of the text, it was clear that verses 30-39 were meant to establish a communalistic endeavor of some kind, and so these instructions would quite straightforwardly have followed: the individual order (a given “united order”) was to provide itself with clothing and food (so as to be independent from outside communities, etc.), and was to ensure that nobody in the established community was idle (since they would, if they remained in the community, be nonetheless provided for). Putting these statements into the context of communalism perhaps makes more sense of them. (It should be added that united orders in especially late nineteenth-century Utah followed these rules carefully.)
I think that the bearing with the infirmities of the “faithless” falls into this same camp: they are not to be thrown out of the order or of the community.
From Russell: Whatever our other ruminations on D&C 42, it seems clear to me (following up here on Joe’s comment above) that the central take-home lesson of our discussions thus far is that the original revelation had an egalitarian, communal, tight-knit, self-sufficient order in mind, but as early as 1835 that order was already being compromised, though that hardly means the communitarian aspect of it all was being entirely. Today, however, we have no such order in the offing whatsoever (unless we choose to build one through our own resources, which perhaps is exactly what we ought to do); instead, we have a command to build Zion and purify our hearts through aiding the poor and striving for self-sufficiently, but without an explicit material within which to do so. So does that mean this particular line is meaningless? I don’t think so. We can keep in mind the deep point about avoiding dependency and seeking some plain, collective “sovereignty” over our own choices, including our choices as dressers. Perhaps we don’t make our own clothes, but can we support those who do? Can we fight against the pervasiveness of advertising and fashion which shapes how we think and what we choose to buy? Can we develop standards of dress (and I for one think standards of dress, professional and otherwise, are important; “uniforms< as it were, matter, and can even be virtuous in a limited way) which do not reach beyond their place and oblige us to spend our money and time on and copy what the world does? Because if we cannot, then we’re not moving towards a Zion where all are treated the same, I think.
I love the way the author (presumably Mormon) put it when talking about the Nephite community soon after the death of King Benjamin and the establishment of reign of judges. You mention this verse above, but the whole passage is fascinating, I think:
And when the priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned diligently unto their labors; and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength.
And they did impart of their substance, every man according to which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely.
And thus they did establish the affairs of the church; and thus they began to have continual peace again, notwithstanding all their persecutions. (Alma 1:26-28)
Equality, shared labor, devotion to the word, support for the poor and needy, and an embrace of that which is “comely” but the avoidance of anything costly or fine (something that would presumably have been designed at a high-end New York fashion firm and manufactured in oppressive sweat shops in the Third World). It all fits together, I think.
From Nate: If I understand the claim correctly, it is that the prohibition on costly appearal can be understood as rejecting the notion of beauty created by distant outsiders. Instead we learn that “the Lord, through Joseph Smith here, is I think struggling to get us to understand that a community of consecration is not going to be durable–is going to be poisoned by pride–if its notions of “beauty” itself is tied up in something made and decided upon and judged by others than ourselves.”
What we have here is the beginning of a link between the idea of Zion and aesthetics. I would like to see this fleshed out. It seems that Russell is making two claims here that are potentially very interesting. First, the notion that what should count as beautiful should be tied up with the ethical and especially the economic circumstances of its creation. What are the implications of this? Does it mean, for example, that the paintings commissioned by decadent Renaissance Popes are less beautiful because of the nature of their origins? If the pyramids or the temple of Karnak made with slave labor are they less beautiful? (BTW, my understanding is that the pyramids were most likely made by contract, wage labor, but maybe they were wage-slaves ;->)
From Nate: [verse 45, on the commandment to weep] Part of what is happening here is an attempt to bridge those two worlds. We have a vision of society that is organized around non-familial and in some sense impersonal and formal relationships, e.g. the office of bishop, the formal procedure of consecration, etc. This objective and impersonal world is then bridged by a criteria of rule following that pushes one into the personal response of tears.
From Robert: 1. Regarding the laborer, I’m struck by the potential parallels with 2 Nephi 26, esp. the end of the chapter warning (to the, presumably latter-day, Gentiles…) against priestcraft (v. 29), preceded by a “without price” phrase (v. 29), and followed by a discussion of “the laborer in Zion” (vv. 30-31)—”for if they labor for money [cf. riches in D&C 42:39] they shall perish” (v. 31).
2. Regarding the shift from then to now, I wonder if we can’t think of the relatively recent emphasis on the family by Church leaders as a kind of “new type” of the United Order, perhaps paralleling the shift from the 1831 to 1835 textual changes that presaged a shift from a more isolationist way of building Zion to the more integrated mode that is more common today (i.e., being an active part in local neighborhoods, communities and political districts, as well as local families, wards, etc.).
3. I really like Russell’s emphasis on beauty in the “work of thine own hands” verse. This relation between beauty and clothing is fascinating to me, esp. b/c it is given such import in Isaiah’s writings (viz., “put on they beautiful garments, O Jerusalem[/Zion in Moroni 10:31---see this and other verses using this phrase here]” in Isa 52:1).
From Karen: Robert, expound on your kind of “new type” of the United Order. Are you suggesting that the family is a separate community that can create its own Zion? Fascinating idea. Or, are you suggesting that a family should work together with other families and create a network of sorts?
From Karen: Yes, Robert, I do think that 2 Ne 26 is very important to look at. (Note he begins it all by saying “and the words which he shall speak unto you shall be the law which ye shall do.”) There are some interesting insights here into what Christ taught the Nephites in 3 Nephi, before their “Zion” time in 4 Nephi.
From Joe: Ooh. That’s nice. That’s very nice.
From Karen: What about “garments of the laborer” as being a sort of uniform – not in that everyone is wearing the same thing, but in meaning that they are excluded from the community of laborers? Almost like the virgins without oil could not enter the marriage feast. Those who do not labor now will not wear the clothes of those who “labor for Zion” (to quote 2 Ne 26). And, is there any reason to connect this to Adam receiving a garment? To the temple garment? Does this labor = working, such as physical labor, or are we referring more to a “labor for Zion” ideal?
From Robert: I’ve been thinking about this as the garment given in the Garden, with the accompanying injunction (effectively) to labor “by the sweat of thy brow” in order to earn a living. Not quite sure what to do with that thought, but I do think the symbolic allusions are rich—Zion as a return to the Garden, perhaps, through the pre-ordain plan, perhaps? I feel like we’re missing something significant here, but I’m not sure what….
From Robert: First, to try and weave together a few thoughts from the discussion above, one reason I wonder if a notion of family-as-Zion isn’t quite interesting is because of how it maps up with Old Testament and Jewish themes of exile, but exile in a way that plays an immediately redemptive role, without risking the eternal deferral of a more eschatological perspective where we think of Zion as only being what is build in Jackson County. And so, if there is a shift of caring for the poor from a communally-mediated to an individually-responsible approach, then carrying out the trajectory of this idea leads us to something that Adam Miller described in our first, Abraham seminar as “ethical bricolage” where the idea is that we are effectively called to labor in the part of the vineyard in which we reside, to redeem what we can, rather than being called physically flee out of Babylon into a new promised land of Zion. So, if we take this “stakes of Zion” / ethical bricolage approach, and apply it to community networks and aethetics, then I think we have a vision that fits quite comfortably into the modern culture and discourse of Mormonism (i.e., families who are good and active citizens, community members, and neighbors who live modestly, ecologically, and simply, finding beauty in the simple wonders of everyday family and community living, etc., etc.).
From Robert: Verses 49-51: The only other connection between see, hear and leap that I could find was in Isaiah 35:6 (Zion and cleanliness are also mentioned in that chapter…).
