http://mormontheologyseminar.org/

University Forum
11:00 – noon

Lunch in the campus dining hall
Noon – 1:15

Session 2 – 1:30
- 1:30 – 1:50, First Paper: Russell Fox (Friends University), “‘Thou Wilt Remember the Poor’: Liberation Theology and a Radical Interpretation of ‘The Laws of the Church of Christ”
- 1:50 – 2:10, Second Paper: Robert Couch (Willamette University), “Consecration and the End of the Poor”
- 2:10 – 2:30, Discussant (TBA)
- 2:30 – 3:00, General Discussion

Break
3:00 – 3:30

Session 3 – 3:30
- 3:30 – 3:50, First Paper: Karen Spencer (Independent Scholar), “To Teach or Not To Teach: Three Possible Interpretations of D&C 42:12-14″
- 3:50 – 4:10, Second Paper: Kristine Haglund (Dialogue), “‘The Beauty of the Work of Thine Own Hands’: On the Possibility of an Aesthetic for Zion”
- 4:10 – 4:30, Third Paper: Joseph Spencer (University of New Mexico), “Remnants of Revelation: On the Canonical Reading of D&C 42″
- 4:30 – 4:50, Discussant (TBA)
- 4:50 – 5:15, General Discussion

Break 5:30 – 6:00

Dinner in Lexington 6:15 – 8:15

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”?

Verses 53-56 add an important clarification to the ideas of consecration and stewardship, by making a distinction between the system being revealed here and fully common ownership.  I stumble a bit at the idea of Saints paying each other directly, rather than having all transactions go through the storehouse.  Is there some secondary economy contemplated, in which people could buy and sell laterally? And “pay” introduces some questions–are we talking about a monetary transaction, or system of bartering?  Does it matter?  Ultimately, though, it seems to me that this clarification makes it possible that one should “stand in the place of [her] stewardship”–setting up the requisite confidence in personal ownership to motivate careful and efficient care and husbanding of  resources.

Verse 56 seems like an abrupt interjection of a new and, at first glance, unrelated topic.  The traditional interpretation of these verses asserts that they refer to Joseph’s “translation” of the New Testament that was underway at the time this revelation was received.  This seems historically reasonable, but hermeneutically unsatisfying.  We have to wonder why these verses are included in this important revelation, and whether they are intended to have a wider valance than a strictly historical interpretation of the text can render (which is to say that,  to a lit. crit. wannabe, practically everything looks like an invitation to grandiose speculation on the place of The Text in the large scheme of things).

I don’t think I have anything like a coherent interpretation of these verses, so for the sake of getting discussion started, I’ll just throw out some sets of related questions.

1) What is the place of textual production and reception within a Zion community?  It’s interesting that the discussion of receiving/translating/interpreting scripture follows a proscription against idleness and an enumeration of healing works.  What does it mean about revelation if receiving it is considered work or part of a stewardship?

2) What is the function of scriptural texts in representing the community to the world?  Why is it important for this particular iteration of scripture to be received in full before being discussed, when the process of revelation, revision, and canonization was otherwise ongoing and fairly public?  Do the consequences in v. 60 attach to those who have been taught in every nation, kindred, and tongue, or is there a turn in verse 59 from scripture that is to be taught to everyone and scripture that becomes law and is exclusively binding upon the church?

3) What does it mean that these scriptures are denoted “law”?   In particular, if this passage is referring to Joseph’s midrash of the New Testament, where do we find “law” in the NT?  We (or at least I) generally think of the Old Testament and the Doctrine & Covenants as the site of enumerated laws, and the New Testament and Book of Mormon  as something different–textual sites devoted mostly to working through of abstractions, the theoretical underpinnings and soteriological context  of those laws and their fulfillment.   Obviously, that’s an oversimplification, but does this passage potentially illuminate that distinction (or eliminate it)?  (Perhaps this is an invitation to Nate to tell us why it’s all law!)

4) Where does the authority that saves or damns (v. 60) inhere?  Some of the earlier versions of the text leave room for an interpretation of v.56 that suggests that receiving the scriptures means that the people of God will be preserved in safety.  Is the Word itself salvific?  Or is the Word a source of a set of rules (a “law”?), adherence to which is the mechanism of salvation?  Is it particularly Joseph’s mediation of the New Testament that creates this law, or is it the extant text, merely clarified by Joseph’s interpretation? Or, looking ahead to v. 61, is it the project of receiving and codifying revelation, and creating a community devoted to this project, that brings joy and eternal life?

Extra credit: Assign antecedents to the pronouns in these verses.  Golly!

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

EXEGESIS:

40 And again thou shalt not be proud in thy heart; let all thy garments be plain, and their beauty the beauty of the work of thine own hands;

-There are of course many times where pride is condemned in the scriptures. It is worth noting that here, the warning against pride comes after the law of consecration and before a talking about clothing, cleanliness, and idleness.

41 And let all things be done in cleanliness before me.

-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.”

42 Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.

-The wording of this verse appeared to reference a story elsewhere, I assumed it was perhaps in Proverbs or a parable, but I could not find one.

-The phrase “thou shalt not be idle” is used only here.

43 And whosoever among you are sick, and have not faith to be healed, but believe, shall be nourished with all tenderness, with herbs and mild food, and that not by the hand of an enemy.

-Part 1 of instructions on healing. A person has not faith to be healed, but believes. The words “have not faith to be healed” are likely referring to the gift of the spirit (see D&C 46) rather than a person having not enough faith. The phrase “faith to be healed” is only used three times in scripture: here, D&C 46, and Acts 14:9.

44 And the elders of the church, two or more, shall be called, and shall pray for and lay their hands upon them in my name; and if they die they shall die unto me, and if they live they shall live unto me.

-Note this is still talking about those who “have not faith to be healed.” The command to call the elders appears, in this verse, to be when a person is near the point of death.

45 Thou shalt live together in love, insomuch that thou shalt weep for the loss of them that die, and more especially for those that have not hope of a glorious resurrection.

-“Hope of a glorious resurrection” only shows up here and in D&C 138.

46 And it shall come to pass that those that die in me shall not taste of death, for it shall be sweet unto them;

-To not “taste of death” usually refers to the change in body of those like the three Nephite disciples or Elijiah. However, see these curious verses:

John 8: 52: “Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death”

and Heb. 2: 9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”

47 And they that die not in me, wo unto them, for their death is bitter.

48 And again, it shall come to pass that he that hath faith in me to be healed, and is not appointed unto death, shall be healed.

-Part 2 of instructions on healing. A person has faith to be healed. The sentence hinges on the reminder that God can appoint someone a time to die, even if they have a gift to be healed. It is not mentioned whether this is with or without a priesthood blessing.

49 He who hath faith to see shall see.

50 He who hath faith to hear shall hear.

51 The lame who hath faith to leap shall leap.

-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).

52 And they who have not faith to do these things, but believe in me, have power to become my sons; and inasmuch as they break not my laws thou shalt bear their infirmities.

-Part 3 of instructions on healing. A person may not have faith, but IF that person believes the people should bear their infirmities (mentioned earlier as using herbs, etc.). This seems to imply that if the person breaks the commandments, the people are not bound to do so. (See theological questions below for further discussion.)

-There are three other places where the exact phrase “become my sons” (/daughters) is used:

D&C 39: 4: “But to as many as received me, gave I power to become my sons; and even so will I give unto as many as will receive me, power to become my sons.”

Ether 3: 14: “Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.”

Moses 6: 68: “Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen.” (This is after Adam’s baptism.)

THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS:

40

-Question: What might the Lord be teaching us by using clothing as the only example of not being proud? 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.” Why the connection between pride and clothes? The Book of Mormon mentions this connection quite a bit (see Alma 1: 6, 27, 32, Morm. 8: 36-37, Jacob 2: 13, Alma 4: 6, Alma 5: 53, Alma 31: 28, 4 Ne. 1: 24). In fact, I’ve been impressed that often the first thing the Nephite people do when they begin to be proud is to wear fine clothes:

In Alma 4: 6: “And it came to pass in the eighth year of the reign of the judges, that the people of the church began to wax proud, because of their exceeding riches, and their fine silks, and their fine-twined linen, and because of their many flocks and herds, and their gold and their silver, and all manner of precious things, which they had obtained by their industry; and in all these things were they lifted up in the pride of their eyes, for they began to wear very costly apparel.”

Also, in 4 Ne. 1: 24: “And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.”

-Question: Is the command here for the people to make their own clothes a command about sewing, or a way to keep plainness and humility in the people? What does the text imply? How do we think of this direction: “and their beauty the beauty of the work of thine own hands” today? Am I commanded not to shop for my clothes? It would be easy to say, “No, no, of course not Karen, you are taking it too far…” But am I? How seriously are we to take this? If it were always cheaper to make our own clothes, then I could be persuaded that it was “smart.” But I don’t have a sewing machine, I don’t know how to sew, and since I usually shop sales and thrift stores, it would probably cost me the same to buy the fabric and make clothes. But, if I did, would I be able to lose the fashions and styles of the world? Or, would we all just copy the fashions of the world when we sewed anyway? I can follow the command to “let all thy garments be plain” even as I shop, but what about the rest?

41

-Question: Is there any significant addition here to our understanding of Zion? There are far too many references to being clean in the scriptures to discuss them all here. It almost seems too obvious that being clean would be a requirement for Zion, but it felt too important to leave it out. Any further comments on this?

42

-Question: How does this verse relate to our discussion of helping the poor? Who is idle? How can you judge? Can you justify withholding help if someone is idle? Based on this verse, should the Bishop withhold assistance? (Is this verse prescriptive?) Do we (as a people, fortunately or unfortunately) generally consider someone without a job idle? Is someone without a job idle? Is this perhaps just a statement of future inevitability, that this is the idler’s natural outcome? (Is this verse descriptive?) Is the verse talking about short term or long term outcomes? What of the scriptures which say, “Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price” (2 Nephi 26:25, also in Isaiah 55:1, 2 Nephi 9:50)? Is everyone who is working justified? Consider Jacob’s words from 2 Nephi 9:51: “Wherefore, do not spend money for that which is of no worth, nor your labor for that which cannot satisfy.” Can you be laboring and idle? What does “idle” mean?

-Question: Why clothes? Does it mean simply that if people do not sew they have no clothes? If they do not make clothes themselves they cannot take them from others? Or does the phrase “garments of the laborer” refer to specific clothes, almost like a uniform that designates them as a worker?

-Question: Where else in scripture do we read about people working for bread and garments, and how are each of those passages different? When Adam and Eve leave the garden they have to work for their food, but God clothes their nakedness. Later the Israelites are given manna by God. Here people should work for both food and clothes. Are there other noticeable variances on this bread/clothes theme in scripture?

46

-Question: Why this imagery of taste? The verse says if it is sweet, they do not taste it. Why can’t they taste something that is sweet? It then seems taste here is a negative image. Why?

I love this line from Hebrews: “that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” If death is bitter, then, do the righteous have a death that is “sweet” because they don’t have to taste death itself (because Christ tasted it for them)? I’m not sure how to articulate this.

48

-Question: What do we learn from the words “and is not appointed unto death”? Perhaps it is a reminder that a gift is just a gift, and not something we can demand or control. How does this affect the giving and understanding of priesthood blessings? Do we assume that the elders would not bless a person to be healed if they were appointed to death? Or do we assume a person may die even if they are blessed to be healed? Does this verse assume a person received a blessing, or that their faith (as a gift) would be enough? Any clues from the text to help here?

51

-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.

52

-Question: Are we under no obligation to help the unrighteous? This seems to be an odd, unfeeling question. I am not suggesting we ignore sick who are not perfect members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are plenty of statements otherwise; think just of the Good Samaritan story and all of Joseph Smith’s words on charity. In fact he says, “[A member of the Church] is to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all, wherever he finds them” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, chapter 37). Then why have this phrase “and inasmuch as they break not my laws”at all in the verse? What is it saying?

-Question: How does this reference to having power to become God’s sons change the verse? This seems to me to be a rich, powerful phrase to add in here. It certainly does not give anyone license to condemn someone for “not having enough faith.” Is it just to clarify that being ill or afflicted is not a sign of punishment from God? (See chapter 33 of Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith.) Why use this particular phrase? How significant is this wording? If it is a genuinely significant phrase, how does its presence affect our understanding of D&C 42 in general?

37 And it shall come to pass, that he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out of the church, and shall not receive again that which he has consecrated unto the poor and the needy of my church, or in other words, unto me—

38 For inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these, ye do it unto me.

39 For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel.

Verses 36-39 have four distinct thoughts, such that it took me some pondering to see the relation between them, and to the verses in the rest of the section.  Most my post, therefore, will be discussions of each individual verse.

From the outset, however, I’m struck by the way that the Doctrine and Covenants (here in section 42, but in some other notable sections, e.g. section 133) speaks through the scriptures, as it were, making frequent reference to them with key phrases and notions that bring to mind—here in section 42:36-39—Malachi 3, Matthew 25, and Isaiah.  One effect seems to be to draw the scriptures together, such that all the fragments are gathered up as it were, and none are wasted.  The new revelations of the Restoration, on the structure of the church, is given with strong reference to that fullness of the gospel found in the Bible, forming a coherent body of scripture, whose parts testify of and gain meaning from each other.  Interestingly enough, this kind of scriptural rhetoric makes the Doctrine and Covenants, more than the Book of Mormon, look like the third division of the Bible.  The Doctrine and Covenants is like the New Testament in that it’s full of references and images from the Hebrew Bible, with allusions thrown out in the off-handed way that one would do for readers who are well-versed in Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, and Isaiah (and for the D&C, the Gospels, the Epistles of Paul and Revelations).   The Book of Mormon, by contrast, tends to teach the Bible—and only teaches the part of it that the Nephites had—as something we don’t yet know very well.  Think of the fully-quoted chapters in 1 Ne., 2 Ne., and 3 Ne., not to mention the number of doctrinal chapters taught to Lamanites and apostates in Mosiah and Alma.  The Doctrine and Covenants is able to speak in shorthand, using phrases and simple constructions in place of full parables, complex religious ideas, complete images, and whole chapters of scripture.  It is possible to misread the full import of these references or to take them too far (especially if we are doing what we’re doing this summer, writing about ten pages per verse on this stuff!).  But it does seem safe to say at least, that when the Lord says in v. 38, “For inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these, ye do it unto me,” the teaching gains its force and meaning in large part from Matthew 25:34-40.

 On to the verses:

 v. 36:

“That my covenant people may be gathered in one in that day when I shall come to my temple. And this I do for the salvation of my people.”

 Here are two purposes for measures outlined previous in the section.  What is done (a.) so that the covenant people may be gathered in one in the day the Lord comes to his temple, and what is done (b.) for the salvation of the people?  A few suggestions:

 1. Most obviously, (a.) is a purpose for the building up of the New Jerusalem, and by extension the purchase of lands for the church and the building of houses of worship.  The project of city building and temple-building is a project of gathering—specifically gathering in preparation for the coming of the Lord, at the place of the temple.

 2. But the whole program of consecration for the building up of the church and providing for the poor is also, in a larger sense, for the purpose of the project of gathering-as-one-for-the-coming-of-the-Lord.

 3. What does the Lord do for the salvation of his people?  Of course, gather them in one for the day that the Lord comes to his temple—to unite them to Him, as a part of the church, at the temple, in the presence of the Lord, is itself eternal life, or a condition for it.  But we could think about temporal salvation as well.  The Lord has established his church for the spiritual and temporal safety of his people, and establishes a system of consecration to ensure that the poor of the church, and the church as a body itself, have the means of temporal survival and maintenance.

 v. 37 and 38:

37 And it shall come to pass, that he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out of the church, and shall not receive again that which he has consecrated unto the poor and the needy of my church, or in other words, unto me—

38 For inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these, ye do it unto me.

 The dash, along with connecting “For” at the beginning of v. 38, puzzles me.  What is the connection between the command that those who are cast out of the church don’t get their consecration back, and the fact that when we consecrate our goods to the poor, we’re consecrating them to God?  Perhaps it’s simpler that I’m making it out to be—it’s a reminder that consecration is not a relation between members and the church, or between rich members and poor members, but rather a relation between members of the church and the Lord.  Those who are cast out of the church don’t return to the property they had before entering into an earthly contract with other members.  Rather, they’ve broken their covenant with God, and thus have no claim on the property they’ve consecrated.

 Verses 37 and 38 parallel verses 28 and 29, which concluded the list of commandments from v. 18-27, but with significant differences.  The Lord concluded both sets of commandments by declaring that unrepentant sinners will be cast out.  V. 38 however, doesn’t so much repeat v. 28 as it builds upon it.  V. 28, “If thou lovest me thou shalt serve me and keep all my commandments” concludes the list of commandments, reminding the church that those who truly love God will obey him.  V. 38 has “For inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these, ye do it unto me,” reminding the church that the service to the poor through consecration is also a service to God.  The love God-love neighbor pair recalls Matthew 22, but I don’t quite know what to do with it.  All of the commandments in v. 18-28 concern loving one’s neighbor (though instructions in the previous verses before v. 18 have to do with limitation on teaching and authority in the church), not merely with duties to God.  Moreover, consecration is not only in the service of the poor, “the least of these”, but also to the common benefit of the church.  There is probably no direct correspondence between v. 38 and v. 30-36, just as v. 18-28 are not only about serving God.  Perhaps the true importance of v. 29 and v. 38 is the reminder that all of these laws regarding material wealth and relations between people are God-directed: obedience to them is not only service to fellow saints, to the church, and to the poor, but ultimately to God.

 v. 39:

“For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel.”

 I read verse 39 as an expansive, even revelatory interpretation of prophecy—i.e. a reading that enriches the meaning of a prophecy, tying it into contemporary events and opening our understanding to new possibilities.  The Feb. 1831 text is less clear about what exactly it is in sec. 42 that fulfills the prophecy, but more clear about what prophecy the Lord has in mind: “..[the Lord] will consecrate the riches of the Gentiles unto [His] people which are of the House of Israel…”  The current text, however, (while making is a bit harder to see what prophecy is referred to) makes it clear that the fulfillment of the prophecy is the system of consecration set up in the immediately preceding verses, specifically the consecration of the the property of the rich for the maintenance of the poor.   

 But what prophecy is this verse referring to?  The clearest statement that I can find appears in Isaiah 49 and is repeated the Book of Mormon:

 Isaiah 49:22-23

22 Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles and set up my standard to the people; and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.

 23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers; they shall bow down to thee with their face towards the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord; for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.

 (See also 1 Ne.  21: 22-23 and 2 Ne. 6:6-7—these verses are quoted twice in the Book of Mormon, once by Nephi as a part of his full quotation of Isa. 49, and once by Jacob, quoting the verses alone.)

 Also see the following:

 Isa. 60:3-5, 10-12, 14-16

3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

4 Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.

5 Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.

10 And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee.

11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.

12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

14 The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the Lord, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.

15 Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations.

16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the Lord am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

 Isa. 61:5-6, 9

5 And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.

6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

9 And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed.

 Isa. 62: 2

 2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.

 Isa 66: 10-12

10 Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:

 11 That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.

 12 For thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye suck, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dandled upon her knees.

 The more general theme of humbling the strong and proud and lifting up the poor and those of lowly status can be found throughout the Psalms, but perhaps most prominently in the Song of Mary, though it is not really a prophecy (Luke 1:48-54):

 48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.

51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.

53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

54 He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy.

 The larger context of all these passages is the prominent Biblical theme of reversal (going from bad to good).  In this specific instance of the theme, Israel has suffered for its sins, having been punished by God through the Gentiles, but in the last days the people of God will be redeemed and blessed, again by means of the Gentiles.  Those who oppressed and hated them will admire, help, and serve them.

 I see a few distinct claims in the prophecy itself:

 1. The Gentiles will know about the people of God, specially know that God has blessed them, know their righteousness, and give them acknowledgment and honor.

 2. The Gentiles will help and serve the people of God, nursing them with their own “milk”, from their own “breast” as it were.  The Gentiles will support the house of Israel economically, tending their flocks and their fields.

(2a. In a similar way, the people of Israel will be nourished and supported by Jerusalem.  Jerusalem will support God’s people like an adult carries and supports a child.  God will give peace to Jerusalem, and give to it “the glory of the Gentiles, like a flowing stream” (Isa. 66:12).)

 3. The Gentiles will be humbled (specifically in relation to the people of Israel—e.g. “lick up the dust of thy feet”); those who do not serve Israel will be “wasted”, will “utterly perish” (60:12).

 4.  The Gentiles will in various ways be drawn into and toward the people of God:  The Gentiles will “come to thy light”, and “shall come bending unto thee”; the “forces” and the kings of the Gentiles will be brought into the “gates” of Israel.

 By calling the system of consecration (and perhaps the whole bringing together and gathering into the church) a fulfillment of this prophecy, D&C 42 enriches our understanding of the claims made by Isaiah (as well as by Nephi, Jacob, and Mary) by showing us not the one and only fulfillment of the prophecy, but one true fulfillment among others, perhaps one which we hadn’t recognized before.  It teaches us that:

 1. The Gentiles spoken of in Isaiah include those who are converted to the gospel and are baptized as members of the church, and who consecrate their property for the support of the poor.

 2. The humbling of the Gentiles, and the consecrating of their riches to the people of Israel, does not (or does not only) entail a kind of tribute paid by a now-weak people to a now-strong people, or the spoils taken from a defeated enemy, but is rather a willing consecration of the wealth of rich people who are entering the kingdom of God.

 3. The exaltation of the poor (in this context at least) occurs through the membership of the poor in the Kingdom of God, indeed through their fellowship with the rich whose wealth is being consecrated to the Kingdom.  In the this way, the poor are nourished and supported as much by “Jerusalem” (or the New Jerusalem, or Zion) as much as (or more than) they are by the consecrated wealth of the rich (former) Gentiles.  The poor are blessed by the Lord, by means of the Gentiles, by means of the church and the temporal Kingdom of God.

 I’ll interested to see Karen’s thoughts next week about v. 40-52 as they are related to this larger structure of the commandments given between v. 18 or so and v. 55 or so.  How is this long middle part divided up and what are the principles of the division?

In light of the discussion, though, I would like to wager a few theses concerning verses 30-35 more broadly, all of these under erasure, since it seems to me that verses 36-39 are much more theologically productive in themselves, and perhaps provide a framework for recoding everything we’ve said or tried to say about verses 30-35. That said, the theses:

(1) D&C 42:30-35 is rooted in a remarkably complex historical network, stretched across the framework of at least two major versions of the text.

(2) In both their “original” and their “revised” versions, these verses can be read as codes that establish the boundaries of certain economic systems but that do not determine the exact shape those systems take (since historical, legal, political, and economic realities contribute to these shapes).

(3) In both versions of the system (at least in their ideal, textual state), there seems clearly to be an emphasis on excess, residue, or capital, though each system constructs a different way of generating and/or using that excess, residue, or capital.

(4) However the economic details are interpreted, there is clearly an emphasis in both versions of the revelation on ensuring that the poor are taken care of, though the very definition of the poor (and the means of outfitting them) differs in the two.

(5) The major difference between the 1831 and 1835 versions of consecration seems to have much to do with the status of the institutionality of the Church (whether this institutionality is regarded in terms of law, structure, economic status, centralization, eschatology, or what have you), a status that remains to be explored in detail.

(6) However the two systems are ultimately to be interpreted, it seems clear that the law calls Latter-day Saints to avoid extravagant living until the poor are outfitted and the collective aims of the Church are funded.