We’ve come to our final post! A note before I forget–I’m away from home and I’ve cut off my access to email. So if any of you are trying to send me email, I can’t get it until the 21st. Let’s do find some other way of getting in touch if it’s urgent, though.
A question I’ve come back to again and again in thinking about this section is the relationship between the church and the law, specifically the law that is given here in section 42. Let me put a few of these thoughts together, including some that that might seem obvious and that I’ve thrown out before:
1. The church is a group of people, gathered in the name of Christ, who wait for the law together and receive the law together (v. 1-2). The church continues to be a center of gathering, until the day that the covenant people are gathered to meet Christ at his temple (v. 36).
2. The church (at least in this instance) has been commanded to gather together, and are in agreement “touching this one thing”, presumably that they want to receive (i.e. “hearken, hear and obey”) the law (v. 3). The community is governed by the law and set apart by its obedience to the law, such that those who don’t obey it and fail to repent will be cast out (v. 23-26)
3. The church is an economic community, made up of steward-households and a central bishop’s storehouse (or storehouses) (v. 30-39)
4. The church is a community of love and feeling, such that people in it mourn for and “weep” for other members that die (v. 45).
What is this law? We’ve said a lot about it, particularly about its content (as Russell puts it, the law enjoins “collective self-sufficiency, plainness, attentiveness to stewardships, and the provision for the poor”). But what form does this law take? It surely includes some rules (as Kristine suggested in the thread to the last post). “Thou shalt not kill.” But just as much it seems to outline spiritual concepts (e.g. “consecration”, “stewardship”, “cleanliness”) with the rules intended to give a sense of a way of being and acting more than they themselves specify the complete requirement of the law.
There’s also, I think, an interesting equivocation–or an opening for an interesting interpretation–rooted in the ambiguity of the usage of shall. In the KJV, but even today, shall can be used for the future indicative, or the imperative mood. In several cases in section 42, it’s not entirely clear which sense is best. For example:
“If thou lovest me thou shalt (should/ will) serve me and keep all my commandments.
“Thou shalt (should/ will) live together in love”
“The lame who hath faith to leap shall (should/ will) leap.”
The ambiguity isn’t just rooted in a word–I think it’s a fuzziness in the idea of law-governed social life itself. The law specifies what people should do. But in most cases where there is a law, we also see that people are in fact doing it. Is the law, then, not a “regulative” ideal–something people use to regulate their actions, or something that causes them to act a certain way by giving them reasons to act that way–but rather a sort of description of how they in fact do (and very well should!) act, for reasons that existed before this most recent proclamation of the law–or how they will act in the future, for reasons not wholly provided by the law itself.
I can think of examples of both. In some cases, such as the Mosaic Law, it seems that the law told them to do things that they weren’t already doing, and it provided all kinds of punishments and other reasons why they should obey these new laws. But in D&C 42, some of the things they’re hearing they already knew. In those cases perhaps the law is given as a description of the way of the kingdom–a sort of prophecy about how the kingdom is going to operate. The law is establishing the kingdom–telling people to act in certain ways and to establish certain relationships with God and with one another. But it’s also telling them what fruits these relationships will bear and what the church is going to look like.
61 If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge, that thou mayest know the mysteries and peaceable things—that which bringeth joy, that which bringeth life eternal.
62 Thou shalt ask, and it shall be revealed unto you in mine own due time where the New Jerusalem shall be built.
My understanding is that Thou is a second person singular pronoun, (and typically a more familiar usage), whereas Ye is second person plural. You, when used with Thou, is typically second person plural, but of course in modern usage it can be singular or plural. Of course there are passages in modern day scripture that seem to use Thou in the plural (e.g. D&C 42:45, “Thou shalt live together in love…”). But it is interesting that here the Lord seems to be telling people to ask for revelation and knowledge individually and that the mysteries and “peaceable” things
“Mysteries and peaceable things” The biblical references I found to “peaceable” things were great to read. Hebrew bible references were often to a kind of gentleness or friendliness: (Gen 34:21; 1 Sam 16:5), or to really nice places (1 Chr 4:40; Isa. 32:18). Romans 12 and 1 Timothy 2 use the term to refer to the mere absence of conflict, but James 3:17 says that “the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.”
63 And behold, it shall come to pass that my servants shall be sent forth to the east and to the west, to the north and to the south.
64 And even now, let him that goeth to the east teach them that shall be converted to flee to the west, and this in consequence of that which is coming on the earth, and of secret combinations.
The revelations and things of the kingdom will be given to the church, but, through missionary work, also to those outside the church (even Easterners and Southerners!). The law and the revelations given to the church are sent out and offered to non-members as well. At least that’s the best I can do in drawing a connection between these verses and the context of this passage.
65 Behold, thou shalt observe all these things, and great shall be thy reward; for unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom, but unto the world it is not given to know them.
66 Ye shall observe the laws which ye have received and be faithful.
I’m intrigued by the idea that the church is constituted or at least distinguished by a certain kind of knowledge, specifically knowledge that is common to members of the church–things we all know and in a sense know together. It’s not immediately clear to me what kind of knowledge is referred to here. In a boring, obvious sense, members of the church tend to know about certain things that non-members don’t know about. But then again some non-members (and former members) know quite a lot about the church–the practices, doctrines, ordinances, etc. These things do seem to be at least connected to the mysteries of the kingdom–things that wouldn’t be known without the gospel and the church, and things that we know because we are members of the church. But at least in some external sense, people who don’t “observe these things” can still know them.
Perhaps there is some sense in which observing the law and living the gospel gives us some kind of knowledge that we wouldn’t have if we didn’t live these principles. I’ve been impressed for some time that I understand so many wise things that I wouldn’t have understood on my own, if I didn’t know all the church members that I’ve known and had the callings I’ve had and if I hadn’t lived in my covenants so to speak for as long as I’ve lived in them. I’m just not sure how to express that idea theologically or as an interpretation of this passage. But I think it’s talking about what I’ve felt.
67 And ye shall hereafter receive church covenants, such as shall be sufficient to establish you, both here and in the New Jerusalem.
I’m assuming, based on the sense of and D&C 28:12, that “church covenants” refers to D&C 20, in particular the institutional rules of church governance. Joe or anyone else?
68 Therefore, he that lacketh wisdom, let him ask of me, and I will give him liberally and upbraid him not.
69 Lift up your hearts and rejoice, for unto you the kingdom, or in other words, the keys of the church have been given. Even so. Amen.
The kingdom= the “keys of the church”? This is the only instance of “keys of the church” I could find in the scriptures. The more common expression, of course, is “keys of the priesthood”. What is a “key”, in a sense that applies to both expressions? Surely not “the ability to participate”–the keys of the priesthood are something more than merely having the priesthood. Is this a different sense of the term “key”?
July 14, 2009 at 7:40 am
On your last point (verses 68-9) – yes, I agree that there is a difference between having the keys and simply having the priesthood. See this talk by President Benson. What is that difference exactly? Here are my thoughts:
There is a difference between the ability to walk through a door and having a key to a door. The one person may use a door, but the other person controls the door and who uses it. That person may give people permission to use the door quite constantly, but these people do not have authority over who else may use the door.
As I’m rereading that very article I linked to, I’m realize how much more I have to learn. So I’ll stop here for now. I look forward to what other scriptures etc all of you may bring to the discussion!
July 16, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Great post, Jeremiah. Some quick thoughts I hope to develop more later:
* I love your question about how to think about the law as other than a regulative ideal. This is rich. I think the idea of the law being a measure by which we can see if our actions are symptomatic of someone who is truly converted is quite interesting, though I don’t know if it’s supported by the text very well. Also, I think the New Perspective on Paul might be helpful here: should we think of the law as a sign of the covenant? Hmmm….
* Verse 61: This introduction of the themes of revelation and knowledge seem are largely the motive for my speculation early on about the 3 societies at work here. We read elsewhere that the Melchezidek Priesthood contains the “keys of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key [singular!] of the knowledge of God” (D&C 84:19)—so I was wondering if these passages might not be chiastically linked back to the introductory verses and the “elders of my church” (v. 1). There seems to be an important distinction here between the verses discussing the law and these closing verses regarding revelation and what will be revealed in the future. (I was just reading about Deleuze’s interpretation of Nietszche’s eternal recurrence this morning—essentially that what eternally recurs is change—which got me thinking about the emphasis on ongoing revelation in Mormonism.)
* Verse 64: I find the mention of secret combinations here quite fascinating—an implicit link back to this theme in the Book of Mormon? Would a careful study of this theme of secret combinations suggest a new way to read this section, and/or the subsequent history of the Church?
* Verses 65, 67: The “world” and “the New Jerusalem” are mentioned here, again linking things back up to the introductory verses (“world” in v. 1, “New Jerusalem” in verse 9—though again in verse 35, and then in verse 62 again).
* Verse 68: I think the quotation of this verse is very interesting b/c of it’s role in Joseph Smith History. When did Joseph write that, again, and how does that compare to the various textual permutations of this section? I’m mostly inclined to think about a rich typology at work here, where Joseph is a kind of (christological?) example for what each individual of the community can experience for themselves. Joseph seemed to adamantly believe that others would have similar kinds of visions to what we had, though it seems this has changed a fair bit in the culture of Mormonism today (if these kinds of visions are common occurrences, people are very good about keeping them private as presumably directed!). How are we to make sense of this difference in culture, and yet still be true to the text and its authority (whatever that is!)?
* Verse 69: This mention of keys, along with the revelations mentioned in verse 61 makes me wonder about the curious phrase “keys of the myster-y/ies” in D&C 28:7, 35:18, 64:5, and 84:19. In the first 3 of these passages, the text is dealing with the keys belonging specifically to Joseph Smith. What is less clear to me, and therefore quite provocative, is the sense in which these keys are or are not exclusive. I’m manifesting here again my fascination/fixation on the question of the one, many and community. Historically, it seems there was a shift from a more inclusivistic attitude toward revelation to a more exclusivistic attitude as others started to have revelations that did not conform well with Joseph Smith. But in the verses I just mentioned, only the later passage (D&C 84:19) seems explicitly non-exclusivistic. What’s going on here??
July 20, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Great question: how may this mention of secret combinations relate to the Book of Mormon, and/or shed some light on history? very interesting!
The allusion to James 1:5 is striking. I wonder if it plays with all the times that their prayers have been answered, from Joseph Smith in the grove, right to this very receiving of the law, and then to future revelation. By including this verse in
“the law,” prayer and revelation are built in to the church/Zion’s very structure. This seems to suggest to me that revelation would be ongoing, even after they knew the place of the New Jerusalem, were established by church covenants, had the rest of the JST, etc.
July 20, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I’m thinking about some different ways we could define a “secret combination” (which I think was just the 19th century way of saying “secret societies):
1) A society whose holds certain secrets.
2) A society whose existence and membership is secret.
Now in the Book of Mormon (and the book of Moses), both aspects apply. Are there others? Which is most important for the definition of a secret combination? How is #1 related to the the idea that people in the Kingdom of God know things that the world doesn’t know?
July 20, 2009 at 12:27 pm
First, I really like your 4 descriptions of the church:
1. a gathering place
2. defined by a law
3. has an economy of stewards/storehouses
4. and all this lived with love
Those are fantastic points to draw out from D&C 42′s description of the church.
Second, I’m not sure I agree that verses 63-64 say that the “law and the revelations given to the church are sent out and offered to non-members as well.” It says to “teach them that shall be converted to flee to the west.” They are taught to gather, but perhaps without understanding of why or what even they were gathering to. Since they have been “converted,” I assume they were taught by the elders mentioned earlier in this section. They would have been taught “the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon” (v.12). There are verses in this section which seem to say all these laws and new scripture will be given to the world, but not yet. So perhaps it’s still a point to ponder, but I don’t know that it’s happening yet as far as the history goes.
July 20, 2009 at 1:01 pm
That’s a good point–perhaps “teach them that shall be converted to flee to the west” is more about gathering than about who is intended to receive the law. I’m trying to make sense of why this mention of gathering to the West is here. Your explanation makes more sense.
July 20, 2009 at 12:56 pm
There does seem to be an important difference between the keys of the church and the keys of the kingdom. The keys of the church are the kingdom; it seems the keys of the kingdom would then be a higher level of authority.
From a quick search on lds.org, it appears the “keys of the kingdom” refer to the sealing power. Are the keys of the church the door between the church and the kingdom, and the keys of the kingdom are the door between the kingdom and heaven? (The key to the knowledge of God…)
D&C 107:18 says the “Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church” – not one person, but the Melchizedek priesthood itself. Other places, it seems the “keys of the kingdom” are given to particular people. For example in D&C 81:2, it says the “keys of the kingdom … belong always unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood.”
I feel like I might be on to something profound, or on the other hand I feel like I might be making a distinction which isn’t there. Any ideas?
July 20, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Karen, your references to keys lead me to read keys in a less technical sense than we’re used to. The “keys of the priesthood” refer to something pretty specific in the church, namely the authority to direct the work of the priesthood in well-recognized ways, by authorizing ordinances, missionary work, etc.
But in these references the meaning seems to be more general. So it’s not necessarily true that if “the kingdom” = “the keys of the church” than “the keys of the kingdom” = “the keys of the keys of the church”, whatever that would mean. Rather a key could simply be a standard metaphor indicating that which allows psrticipation, either in knowledge or in some kind of social relationship or authority. The temple ordinances, the law, the priesthood, D&C 42 would I guess all be key in this sense.
Eliza R Snow has that memorable line in O My Father that refers to the “key of knowledge”:
I had learned to call thee Father,
Thru thy Spirit from on high,
But, until the key of knowledge
Was restored, I knew not why.
Snow’s usage connects the concept of a key with the broad Mormons themes of restoration, revelation, and spiritual learning.
July 20, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Regarding secret combinations, I’ve been wondering for some time now what the essential difference might be between a secret combination and what I’ll call a sacred combination (e.g., the temple vow to keep things sacred by not disclosing them). A key difference, it seems to me, is the promise that a sacred mystery will eventually be revealed, in the proper time and place whereas secret combinations seek to keep their secrets hidden for as long as possible, hoping that their secrets will never be disclosed.
I think this is analogous to the difference between fundamentalist-kinds of over-zealous faith in transcendent ideas versus a faith in more immanently-experienced, and open-ended kind of faith (i.e., oriented toward more light and knowledge, rather than taking the creedal beliefs as fixed).
Obviously, I need to flesh out this thought more….
July 21, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Another way to look at it–
I’m wondering if the scriptural terminology (Book of Mormon and Book of Moses, at least) has two words–”secret” and “mystery” (or even “key”!)–for basically the same thing: hidden or exclusive knowledge. The main difference is that one indicates some bad instance of knowledge being hidden and the other indicates some good instance of knowledge being hidden. So perhaps neither kind of knowledge is necessarily more hidden, indeed, more “secret” in (the everyday sense) than the other. That would help us make sense of the juxtaposition of the two things (without the word “mystery”) in v. 64-65.
July 21, 2009 at 8:42 am
Fascinating discussion, everyone. But, for whatever reasons, I’ll confess I don’t have anything really to say in response. Perhaps I need to look more carefully at the verses themselves.
July 28, 2009 at 9:09 am
Okay, I am coming shamefully late to this conversation, but let me throw out a couple of ideas. First, FWIW I published an article awhile back in the FARMS Review that looked at the term “secret combintation” in 19th century legal sources. The gist of my conclusion is that the term meant something like a covert conspiracy. Combination carried a connotation of secrecy and malfeasance.
Second, I wonder if there is meant to be a resonance here with the anti-banking rhetoric that was heating up in the 1830s and which would culminate in Jackson’s attack on the Second Bank of the United States and the resulting Panic of 1837. Banks were frequently seen — particularlly among the poor — as combination of conpiring men bent on cheating the poor out of their improvements. Of course, the bankers themselves were operating in a chaotic monetary environment and there were massive conflicts between debtor regions of the nation (west, south, and rural in general) and the creditor regions (northeast, urban). The possible link between finance and “secret combinations” is striking in light of the economic concerns of the revelation. It raises a further interpretative problem if you believe, as I do, that much of the Jacksonian anti-banking rhetoric was rather ignorant populism. Westerner and Southerners tended to create bubbles fueled by easy money policies — generally dictated by local political majorities — at the banks. The bubbles would inevitably pop when the rickety positions of the banks became apparent and they began calling loans. The local majorities that created the bubbles would then blame a sinister cabal of bankers for causing the mess that resulted from their own policies. Put another way, the revelation may be — as a historical matter — gesturing toward a bit of wrong-headed populist paranoia about finance.
July 28, 2009 at 9:09 am
Here’s a link to my FARMS article, should anyone be interested:
http://nboman.people.wm.edu/SecretCombinations.pdf
July 28, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Nate–so the article I remember seeing a while back on secret combinations is yours!
I’m not sure what you mean here, though:
“the revelation may be — as a historical matter — gesturing toward a bit of wrong-headed populist paranoia about finance.”
Your explanation seems to argue that the revelation was actually *engaging in* (not just referring to) populist paranoia about finance. I guess I should read your article, but it seems that the fact that there were conspiracy theories about banks circulated among the saints is not enough evidence to conclude that scriptural references to secret combinations are in fact about the banking conspiracies that the saints and others had in mind. This is especially true because the revelation appears to be saying that the saints will know secrets and mysteries that aren’t known to others (though I admit that conspiracy theories often claim to be secrets that oddly enough everyone has heard about), but second it doesn’t seem to fit with the call to move to the West–wasn’t the West just as badly affected by the speculative bubbles of the Jackson era? I don’t get how people would have seen the West as a refuge from banking cabals.
I remember last Spring I kept coming across the term “combination”, particularly in Adam Smith (1776). Most often it does mean something like a conspiracy—-of workers, to join together for higher wages (which was illegal in Smith’s time), but also of employers (to fix wages), which wasn’t illegal but which Smith condemns repeatedly. But there are cases when Smith uses “combination” in a more neutral sense (as in workers’ “defensive combinations”). And the OED reports that “combination” took on another, more neutral sense some time in the early to mid 19th century.
July 29, 2009 at 7:13 am
Nate, fascinating article—thanks!
On the one hand, the context of “secret combinations” here in 42:64 is a bit removed from the discussion of the poor and hence I’m leery of getting too excited about linking this term with financial speculation during Jackson.
On the other hand, if 42:64 is read as a kind of conclusion to the foregoing verses, then the occurrence of the term here suggests a very provocative context that should be applied to all of the foregoing verses. So, although financial speculation might not be a direct meaning suggested by the term—as Jeremiah warns—I do think this does raise a fascinating theological question with obvious parallels to the current financial crisis, and the debates about, say, executive compensation at the recently bailed out banks.
More particularly, I’m quite sympathetic to the idea that wealthy capitalists have a moral obligation to use their wealth in some sort of phiilanthropic activity—not just to assuage their conscience or appease the poorer masses (e.g., as many have accused the likes of Andrew Carnegie of doing), but because the principle of stewardship demands it. But, if wealth is sought simply for the sake and love of wealth and power, then it seems that those engaged in business transactions that take advantage of poorer homeowners, exploiting either their lack of financial self-discipline or their financial ignorance, would then be appropriately implicated according to the principles and themes of the D&C (contra the morally neutral perspective of economic analysis which tends to reduce all transactions in terms of economic expediency…).