Doctrine & Covenants 84 All

From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.

Note: this page allows you to see all the commentary pages for Doctrine & Covenants section 84 together. Click on the heading to go to a specific page.

D&C 84:1-5

Doctrine & Covenants > Section 84

Previous (D&C 83:1-6)

Next (D&C 84:6-10)

[edit]

Questions

Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

[edit]

Lexical notes

The phrase "this generation" as used here is generally interpreted to be equivalent to the phrase "this dispensation" and covers the time period from the restoration to some time around second coming. This interpretation is also used in D&C 5:10.

[edit]

Exegesis

[edit]

The structure of the revelation

More so than most of the revelations in the D&C, this section is a pieced-together series of tangents or excurses that, in the end, can only be confessed to be woven together so beautifully that they form a single, even flawless story. The danger, however, of introducing such a broad reading of the complex structure of this revelation is that one immediately sets oneself to the task of deciding where one excursus begins and where another ends, to what one tangent attaches and what it implies as it closes, etc. In other words, reading this revelation as a series of patched-together pieces seems inevitably to point to text-critical studies rather than a hermeneutical approach. However, interpretation, in this case, probably cannot be done without some responsible textual criticism. Brought together, these two approaches open up one of the richest texts in the Doctrine and Covenants.

A preliminary reading of the structure of this revelation, then:

  No.   Verses    Textual Status            Theme
  1     1-5       Main argument             Location of Zion
  2     6a        Tangent to (1)            Sons of Moses
  3     6b-16     Tangent to (2)            Priesthood lineage
  4     17-28     Tangent to (3)            Aaronic vs. Melchizedek Priesthoods
  5     29-30     Tangent to (4)            Appendage offices
  6     31-32     Return to (2)             Sacrifice in Zion
  7     33-38     Tangent to (2)/(6)        Becoming sons of Moses/Aaron
  8     39-42     Tangent to (7)            The oath and covenant
  9     43        Return to (1)             Commandment to heed the Word
  10    44-48     Tangent to (9)            The Word of the Lord
  11    49-53     Tangent to (10)           The status of the world
  12    54-56     Another tangent to (10)   The status of the saints
  13    57        Return to (10)            Repentance of the saints
  14    58-61     Return to (1)/(9)         A new commandment
  15    62-95     Tangent to (14)           Expounding the new commandment
  16    96-102    Tangent to (15)           Results of missionary effort
  17    103-108   Return to (14)            Details and specifics
  18    109-110   Tangent to (17)           Unity of the body
  19    111-116   Return to (17)            Details and specifics again
  20    117-120   Return to (14)            Final commission

Following this all-too-briefly considered parsing of this section, the main argument of the section is confined to verses 1-5, 43, 58-61, 103-108, and 111-120. The main argument, extracted from the remainder of the text, is quite simple: Zion has been located, and so the saints must be open to new revelation; and the new revelation that is issued immediately is a commandment to send forth missionaries to gather the people to Zion. Everything in this revelation should be read according to this underlying theme.

[edit]

Questions

What is the purpose of including a long geneaology of priesthood authority?

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

[edit]

Questions

Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

[edit]

Questions

[edit]

Verse 16

How was the priesthood passed from Abel to Enoch? Does this imply that Abel had and ordained his posterity before he was killed? Why is Abel listed here, rather than Seth?

[edit]

Verse 17

What does it mean that the priesthood is "without beginning of days or end of years?"

[edit]

Verse 19

What does it mean that the Melchizedek priesthood holds the key of the mysteries of the kingdom?

[edit]

Verse 20

Why does the verse begin with the word "therefore"?
What does it mean that the power of godliness is present in the ordinances?
What does "the power of godliness" mean?

[edit]

Lexical notes

[edit]

Verse 19

It appears the phrase "mysteries of the kingdom" is equivalent to "knowledge of God" in this verse.

[edit]

Exegesis

[edit]

The Introduction of Two Priesthoods

Beginning with verse 17 and running through about verse 30 is the passage in which the two-tiered structure of the priesthood is introduced to the Latter-day Saints. A number of interesting details here deserve attention. It should be noted that the two prieshtoods are never described as the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods: those "titles" would not be introduced into the Church as a whole until 1834-1835. The several offices of the Church are tied to the separate priesthoods for the first time as well (the Church seems to have understood all offices to belong to a kind of general priesthood until the revelation of the office of high priest in 1831; even after that and until this generation, the office of elder, for example, was understood to be an office of the lesser priesthood). The relationship between the two priesthoods, in this first introduction, is very clearly rooted in the Old Testament temple experience: the keys and powers of the priests and high priests are understood as connected with the duties and responsibilities of priests and high priests as outlined in the Pentateuch. The two priesthoods are introduced as at once permanently interconnected and yet founded by a particular ancient event. The two priesthoods are presented in skeleton form (priests and high priests) to which other "appendages" are attached. And all of this is rooted in an at once rather traditional and marvelously radical understanding of the Moses-to-John-the-Baptist story.

What all of these interesting details suggest, when brought together, is that the introduction of the two priesthoods as such is profoundly rooted in the Bible, in a kind of return to the Biblical way of being, though it offers up an undeniably unique hermeneutic on that scripture as a whole. In other words, this passage can be taken as a kind of reinterpretation of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, one that is uniquely Mormon. The story it presents, of course, is quite familiar: it breaks ancient history up into three parts, namely, the pre-Mosaic era of the Melchizedek priesthood, the Mosaic era of the Aaronic priesthood, and the Christian era of restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood. And yet, the picture as it is presented is not quite so simple as this: though this picture is a good place to start, there is inevitably a great deal more happening here. For example, and just by way of introduction, it is important to note that the high priesthood—understood here as tied to the office of high priest—is not done away with or completely removed with the historical institution of the Aaronic priesthood; rather, it is limited in that high priests are far fewer in number and the office is no longer open to just anyone (though one should well ask whether it was so open before Moses either). The story, in a word, is obviously more complex than it might first appear.

[edit]

Questions

Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

[edit]

Verse 22

To what does the word "this" refer? To the priesthood? To the ordinances? To the power of godliness?

[edit]

Verses 24-25

How does removing the priesthood from the children of Israel remove them from the Lord's rest, the fullness of his glory?
What does "the Lord's rest" or "the fulness of his glory" mean?

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

[edit]

Questions

Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

[edit]

Questions

Is acceptance of the priesthood necessary for sanctification (verse 33)?
How do we "receive" the Lord (verse 35)?
What distinction, if any, exists between obtaining the priesthood (v. 33) and receiving the priesthood (v. 35)?

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

[edit]

Verses 33-42: Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood

Like other covenants contained in the scriptures, the priesthood covenant described in these verses creates a specific relationship between God and his children. By entering into this covenant, promises are exchanged and obligations created. These promises and obligations in turn establish a relationship of reliance between the parties. The priesthood holder relies upon God for the spirit (verse 33) and, eventually, for exaltation (verse 38). God relies on the priesthood holder to help establish his church and kingdom (verse 34). This reliance draws them together in a mutual effort.

The oath portion of the "oath and covenant" apears to be coupled with the covenant and thus probably relates to the same promises as the covenant. An oath can be distinguished from a covenant in that, traditionally, the performance of an oath is not contingent upon the performance by another person (as is the case in a covenant relationship). This perhaps suggests that the promises in these verses are also to be made by oath--i.e., regardless of what others may say or do, or not do.

Generally, the priesthood covenant is understood to be a covenant involving only priesthood holders. However, verses 35-38 repeatedly use the term "receive," which could certainly be read more broadly to be applicable to anyone who "receives" the Lord's priesthood in the same sense as receiving the Lord's servants (i.e., by accepting its/their teachings and authority).

[edit]

Questions

[edit]

Verse 39

The material in the foregoing verses are said to "accord" with the "oath and covenant" in an apparent reference without clear referent. Is it possible that Moses 7:51 is what is here in question? What would that mean for this most important passage (meaning verses 33-42)?

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

While we often talk about the oath and covenant of the priesthood as if it were a legally binding contract, with promises offered on both sides, perhaps it is more appropriate to think of it as entering into a higher relationship with the Lord. We are indeed promised blessings, including "all that my Father hath," making us sons and heirs. While baptism makes us children of Christ by our taking upon us his name, perhaps we should see receipt of the priesthood is our entering into heirship. This relationship involves our working with the Lord to fulfill his purposes on this earth. Rather than seeing priesthood as primarily the authority do act in God's name, perhaps we should view it more as a working relationship with the Lord, with authority given us to conduct the ordinances and other activities needed to further that relationship.

[edit]

Questions

Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

[edit]

Questions

Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

[edit]

Lexical notes

The "covenant ... renewed" anticipates the language of verse 57, which speaks of "the new covenant" in relation to "the former commandments."

[edit]

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

[edit]

Questions

[edit]

Verse 51

What is "the bondage of sin"? How does coming unto the LORD free one from this bondage?

[edit]

Verse 52

How does one "receive" the voice of the LORD?
Why does the LORD use the term "voice"? How is this "voice" similar or different from other voices we might hear? Is it a literal voice, or is this a metaphor for some other way of communicating?

[edit]

Verse 53

What is the "by this" that allows us to know the righteous from the wicked?
What does it mean that the world "groaneth" under sin?
What is the nature of the "darkness" that the world is under? What is the source of this darkness?

[edit]

Verse 54

What does it mean to have minds "darkened because of unbelief"?
How might the Saints "have treated lightly the things which [they] have received"? Is this because, as Givens argues, the early saints cherished the Book of Mormon more as a symbol and sign and less for its substance?

[edit]

Verse 55

What is this vanity that the LORD refers to?
What is the LORD accusing the Saints of not believing?
Were the early Saints so smugly satisfied with their knowledge of the Bible that they felt the Book of Mormon would add little to what they already knew?

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

[edit]

Verses 53-55

A series of linguistic parallels and connections forms a sort of web that spreads across these three verses, one that opens possibilities for interpretation of a most important and fascinating problem: the nature of the "condemnation" that is only (to be?) lifted when the saints turn to the Book of Mormon. Some explication of this structural web will open the possibility of discussing that condemnation and, in one sense, the purpose of the Book of Mormon.

A first, and the weakest, connection in these verses is between "know" in verse 53 and "minds" in verse 54. The connection seems warranted because of the departure from the previous verses that is marked by these two words. Starting in verse 43, the passage has been to this point a question of "heed," "word," "Spirit," "light," "com[ing]," "voice," "teach[ing]," etc. In other words, the language has been primarily "physical" or "corporeal." With the shift in these two verses to "knowledge" and the "mind," there is an emphatic move from the bodily to the mental. Further characterizing this shift is another change in focus: the preceding verses seem broadly to be focused on "the world," whereas with verse 53, the focus seems to shift towards the saints. In other words, at the threshold of verse 53, the Lord leaves off the world to speak of (and not only to) the saints. Better: the theme of "the world" is now drawn into the purview of the saints who are addressed by the revelation, as verse 53 makes abundantly clear. But this first connection really only marks the boundaries of the passage/web in question.

A second connection is much clearer: the "darkness" of verse 53 and the "darkened" of verse 54. Most significantly, this greatly clarifies the first connection. If the Lord moves from dealing with the world to dealing with the saints, He does so by drawing a parallel between the two: "the whole world groaneth under... darkness," and the "minds" of the saints "have been darkened." In other words, if it at first appears that the Lord moves from discussing the wickedness of the world to celebrating the righteousness of the saints, that appearance is quickly shattered by the clear parallel between the darkness under which the whole world groans and the darkening of the minds of the saints because of their own "vanity and unbelief." This second connection is, however, not quite so simple. The language of verse 53 suggests an incapacity on the world's part: the groans mark the undesirability of the situation, and the word "under" makes explicit that the world has no apparent means of escape. In fact, the language here suggests a connection with Rom 8:22, where Paul understands "the world" not to be a symbol of "the wicked" or even "the masses," but of "the creation": "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." The connection between the verse in Romans and verse 53 here are obvious, but Paul's take on things changes everything: the world is the world as created, the groans are the groans of a woman giving birth, and the "even now" is paralleled by an "until now" that marks a near end of the awful situation. In other words, it appears that the darkness of the world is the darkness of the womb immediately before a child is delivered into the light (the light of verse 45?). The saints who have received the covenant have received it, according to verse 48, "for the sake of the whole world," as if assigned to deliver the world from darkness as one delivers a child into the light. Now, if the darkness that reigns over "the whole world" marks the incapacity of the world to escape the darkness without the help of the saints, then the "darkened" minds of the saints is a much different situation: this darkness comes because of "vanity and unbelief," comes to those who are light, whose minds are filled with light, because they choose to darken what is already lighted. In other words, the linguistic connection between the darkness of the world and the darkened minds of the saints suggests a great disparity: the saints, whose minds have been lighted up (by the covenant, etc.), have allowed that light to be darkened even as they have the task to bring "the whole world" (which cannot do it itself) into that light. In short, the saints have not only "treated lightly the things [they] received," they have turned from the task implied in that reception of light, the task of bringing the world out of its darkness and into the same light.

A third connection, this one a double connection, emphasizes this rejection on the saints' part of the divine task. The word "unbelief" shows up in both verse 54 and verse 55. The connection is obvious, for the same unbelief is in question in both instances. But unbelief is paired in verse 55 with "vanity." The implication seems to be that "because you have treated lightly the things you have received" is to be understood as bearing the name of "vanity." This is made explicit by the opening "which" of verse 55. This connection is rather obvious, perhaps seeming even banal when mentioned. However, it opens up a careful clarification at work in these verses. If there is reason to connect these verses already to Paul's discourse in Romans chapter 8, then this unbelief/vanity business ought to be read in light of Rom 8:20, where Paul gives a sort of "genealogy" of vanity. He explains that "the creature [the Greek means "creation," just as in verse 22] was made subject to vanity," and this "by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope." As odd as it may sound, Paul seems to be suggesting that "vanity" arises because of hope, because one moves "beyond" faith (is this what is here meant by "unbelief"?) and into hope. In other words, if faith is--as it seems to be in the OT--a turning towards a voice that calls, and if hope is--as it seems to be in the OT--a turning from the world (and all within it) consequent to one's faith, then hope might be characterized as a sort of "unbelief" and, as Paul clearly suggests, a sort of "vanity." Turning from the world in hope, in hope for "a better world" (Ether 12:4), the saints appear to have become so focused on the glories of another realm that they entirely left off faith and charity: They seem to have turned from the faith they once had (what will be called "the former commandments" and--of course--the "Book of Mormon" in verse 57), and to have ignored the task embodied in the covenant confirmed upon them (the task of delivering the world from darkness into the light of their long-since faith). Though this seems a somewhat radical reading, it is a fruitful one, and it makes some sense of these verses.

When the Lord goes on to show the saints the result of this "vanity and unbelief," a fourth (and, for now, final) connection arises: these attitudes "have brought the whole church under condemnation" in verse 55. This phrase is obviously parallel to verse 53, where "the whole world groaneth under sin and darkness." The parallel sets "the whole world" next to "the whole church," and "under sin and darkness" next to "under condemnation." Though darkened minds have also--though only "in times past"--been a result of unbelief and vanity, this ultimate condemnation is not to be equated with it (it is not, after all, anything past, but something now and unrelentingly future... "until..."). In other words, the darkened minds of the saints have been a symptom of the misguided hope (a "zeal without knowledge"?), but the Lord's response is something far severer: church-wide condemnation. The gap, then, between the world and the saints that seemed indicated in the first connection mentioned above here almost disappears: just as the world is held under the sway of something awful, so the saints are in much the same situation, awaiting deliverance like "the whole world."

These four connections weave together a structural web that tie these three verses together, allowing them to define the condemnation that will be taken up in terms of the Book of Mormon in verse 57.

[edit]

Questions

[edit]

Verse 56

Which branches of the House of Israel, if any, are exempt from this condemnation?

[edit]

Verse 57

Are the saints under command to create a collective memory of the Book of Mormon?
Are we being told to feast upon the Book of Mormon collectively, and not just individually?

[edit]

Verse 58

What will this collectively-produced fruit look like and how will it be different from the fruits of our individual actions?

[edit]

Verse 59

[edit]

Verse 60

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

[edit]

Verse 56

This further clarification of the "condemnation" that is upon the saints (see commentary on D&C 84:53-55) is crucial in two respects. For one, it is clear that the condemnation is not to be understood on an individual basis, this and that saint being condemned because of their attitude towards the things received. Rather, the condemnation is, regardless of whether the sin is, universal among the saints. The condemnation is, in other words, a corporate condemnation, a condemnation of the whole gathered people. Second, the condemnation is said here to be upon "the children of Zion," rather than the Church. While it is clear that "the children of Zion" means something like "the Church," this alternate name secures the relation between the condemnation under consideration and the broader revelation in which it comes (a revelation concerned primarily with Zion; see commentary at D&C 84:1). This double clarification of the condemnation points toward verse 59: the condemned "children of the kingdom" are unworthy to receive the "holy land" of Zion. This condemnation must not be taken out of context, then: it is to be read in terms of the saints' establishment in Zion and their building there a temple.

[edit]

Verse 57

The conditions for release from condemnation are now stated clearly (though they will be reworked in verse 61). First, of course, is repentance, but the repentance--followed as it is by an immediate "and"--seems to be not a separate work from the remembrance discussed so much as a broad way of characterizing the remembrance enjoined upon the saints. In other words, to "repent" here seems precisely to mean to "remember...." The work of remembrance commanded, however, is not so simple.

To be remembered: "the new covenant." Because the Lord goes on to clarify the meaning of "the new covenant," it becomes clear that this "new covenant" (so interestingly absolutized with the definite article) is something never discussed as such elsewhere in the D&C. The new covenant, apparently, consists of "the Book of Mormon and the former commandments." It appears, in other words, to mean the Book of Mormon and the (at this point, printing) Book of Commandments. In short, the saints are to "remember" the several revelations given through Joseph Smith up to the point of this commandment. There is, however, another way to read the phrase, if one re-punctuates the text. Inserting a comma after "Mormon," one might read "new" as structurally parallel to "former": "remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon, and the former commandments which I have given them...." The phrase, "even the Book of Mormon," would then appear almost parenthetical: "remember the new covenant (even the Book of Mormon), and the former commandments which I have given them...." A careful consideration of the interplay of "new covenant" and "former commandments" may well confirm this reading.

The phrase "new covenant" would be a better translation of the title commonly translated "New Testament." Diatheke means, literally, covenant--not testament. If one thinks the parallelism between "the new covenant" and "the former commandments" in these terms, there is a close parallel between the Lord's injunction here and the early Christian interpretation of the Bible's double nature (Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet, Vetus in Novo patet, the New Testament is concealed within the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed by the New). The Lord might well be calling the Book of Mormon a sort of new New Testament here, relegating the Bible as a whole to the position of "the former commandments." The obvious echo here of Isaiah's "new things"/"former things" theme (found throughout Second Isaiah) also might confirm this reading (especially because the Nephite record employs very carefully that double Isaianic theme to read the "new things" as the Christian atonement, the "former things" as the Abrahamic covenant?). In other words, the Book of Mormon seems here to be understood as a "new covenant" that takes up and interprets the "former commandments" of Biblical Christianity, in fact as the new covenant that does so. It is this radical relation between the Book of Mormon and the Bible that seems to be what the saints have missed in their "hope" (see commentary, again, at D&C 84:53-55).

Given the peculiar relation between the Book of Mormon and the Bible in the (radical?) interpretation above, the word "remember" becomes significant. The word is of peculiar importance in the cultus of the Old Testament, and it therefore becomes the focal point of the New Testament cultus. In other words, that the Lord here employs the word "remember" already seems to suggest a rather cultic setting in which to understand the injunction given to the saints. The Hebrew zkr is the word translated in terms of remembrance in the Old Testament, and its meaning seems to govern the concept throughout the scriptures. The word means, not just to bring again to mind, but to bring again to reality, to re-enact, to re-commemorate, in short, to bring again into presence. Thus the most important New Testament instance of the word is in the Last Supper: "do this in remembrance of me," bringing the Christ's death/resurrection back into presence so as to experience it (and its healing power) again and again. Feeling these overtones here, to "remember the new covenant" is suddenly recognizable as an even more direct allusion to the Eucharistic themes of the New Testament: "this is my blood of the new testament [or covenant]" (Matt 26:28). But even with all this contextualization, it is not exactly clear what it would mean "to remember" the Book of Mormon (and, apparently through it, the Bible).

Most helpful, then, is the Lord's own clarification of the phrase: "not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written." The Lord Himself introduces the polarity of what Paul Ricoeur calls "manifestation and proclamation," the word and the sacrament (the latter term understood in the broadest sense). Such a polarity was introduced (or, at least, radically emphasized) by the Reformation: sola scritura (the word) was pitted against a sort of obsession with "the sacred" (the sacraments). Such a radical distancing of the two poles is ultimately damaging, and the Lord seems here to be destroying the dichotomy: a return to--a remembrance of--the Book of Mormon and the Bible is to be marked both by the rigor of the protestant student of the word and by the ritual, even existential attendance of the Catholic worshipper. To "remember": study as obedience, obedience as study. Again, to "remember": works as grace, grace as works. Again, to "remember": not only hope (a ceaseless talking, "saying," about a "better world"), but charity (a ceaseless working, "doing," towards a "better world"). In other words, and in short, the hope (a hope that draws vanity; see commentary at D&C 84:53-55) of the saints is to be doubled with charity.

In the end, then, a remembrance of the Book of Mormon (and the Bible "through" it) is what will lift the condemnation, a condemnation that was specifically a result of the saints' directedness away from the world (a sort of Mormon neo-Platonism). To return to those sacred texts is, in the end, to return to the earth, to, as verse 58 puts it, "bring forth fruit meet for their Father's kingdom," a kingdom to be built on the earth, and at a very specific place according to the revelation that opens this very section. The specific "doing" to be undertaken becomes clear with the remainder of the section: in verse 61, the saints are told they will be forgiven if they will bear "testimony to all the world of those things which are communicated unto you," the new covenant and the former things (hence, "proclamation"), all the while remaining "steadfast in your minds in solemnity and the spirit of prayer," attending constantly to the sacraments of a sacred God (hence, "manifestation").

A brief excursus might conclude this discussion. The call to remember is often a call to faith, a call to trust the historical events (or texts, or commandments) that have gone before. If the commentary presented here and at verses 53-55 are correct, this call to remembrance might well be a petition on the Lord's part to ground hope with faith. The vanity for which the saints are condemned seems to be a sort of hope without faith--and certainly, as argued here, a hope without charity--that must be regrounded in faith. If hope is an orientation to eschatological possibility, then the Lord seems to be pointing out the saints that such an orientation must arise out of and remain grounded in a historical faith if it is not to become a sort of vanity. Or, in other words, vanity seems to be a movement towards hope from faith that leaves the latter off, and precisely for that reason, never attains to a real hope: neither real faith nor real hope, one hovers between them in pure frustration (even boredom?). That the Lord goes on to clarify the means of changing this situation as a focus on charity (the doing, not just the saying) suggests that the limbo state between faith and hope can only be overcome when one is transfigured by charity: in love, one grounds hope in faith. To remember: faith, grounding hope, opens onto charity.

[edit]

Questions

Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

[edit]

Lexical notes

[edit]

Verse 63

Friends. See related lexical note on D&C 88:3. See also usge later in this same chapter in verse 77.

[edit]

Exegesis

[edit]

Verse 61

Here the Lord takes up what might be read as an implication of verse 57 (see commentary there) and renders it a commandment: "not only to say, but to do" here becomes "remain steadfast in your minds in solemnity and the spirit of prayer, in bearing testimony to all the world of those things which are communicated unto you." It is key that with the fulfillment of this one commandment, the sins (the darkened minds, the slighting of the scriptures, etc.) of the saints are to be forgiven. The one commandment is, however, not quite so simple as just "preaching the word." What the Lord seems to be commanding the saints to do specifically is to proclaim the gospel in a certain way, as guided, that is, by remaining "steadfast in your minds in solemnity and the spirit of prayer." What this means must be worked out, and the working out must be guided by the preliminary commentary worked out at verse 57.

The most important point seems to be that the Lord here draws together the word (communication) and the Word (worship or praise): the saints are to declare the word to the world, but they are to do so while constantly presenting themselves before the Word. The work of proclaiming the gospel, in other words, is not only a question of making sure that a message gets across. At the same time, neither is it a question only of praying that God accomplishes the work. Perhaps the two tasks--here drawn together--might be better understood by tying them to a distinction drawn in D&C 20:57: vocal prayer vs. secret prayer. In that verse, the priests are commanded to visit the house of the members of the Church and to exhort them to "pray vocally and in secret." The distinction is fruitful: vocal prayer seems primarily to be a question of communal praise, and secret prayer seems primarily to be a question of personal counsel and even--perhaps often--complaint. These two tasks to which one is summoned by the visiting priest might be taken as a guide to thinking the question this verse raises: to "remain steadfast in your minds in solemnity and the spirit of prayer" might just be to "pray...in secret," and "bearing testimony to all the world of those things which are communicated unto you" might just be to "pray vocally." In other words, bearing testimony before all the world might well be a question of praise, of going before the world quite simply to praise God in His glory. Remaining in the meanwhile steadfast in solemn prayer might well be, then, the continual work of counseling with and complaining to the Lord. Before men, one praises God; in one's closet, one chides Him.

These two attitudes--which are here drawn together in the same task--might offer an interpretive framework for reading, say, the collective Psalms: there are psalms of complaint (all of which are written in a very personal I-Thou idiom), and there are psalms of praise (all of which involve others in the prayer, as with the constant refrain "Hallelujah," "praise ye the Lord"). What is so peculiar about all of this is that the two tasks are, for all intents and purposes, here drawn together into one task: one is to praise God before the world while counseling with the Lord in secret. The combination calls to mind, perhaps, the double task Paul gives to the Corinthian saints: "Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret" (1 Cor 14:13). Paul, later in the same chapter, states this task negatively, and perhaps for that reason, more explicitly, more powerfully: "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God" (1 Cor 14:28). Two tasks are, according to Paul, to be performed together: prayer directed precisely to God, and words of exhortation directed precisely to the church. In short, faith (private prayer) without works (the communicating word) is dead, and works (the communicating word) without faith (private prayer) is dead.

But perhaps this tie to Paul's discourse on the gift of tongues opens up another way of understanding the double task and the distinction drawn in D&C 20:57: secret prayer might be a question of "the tongue of angels" (2 Ne 31:13) and vocal prayer of "the tongues of men" (1 Cor 13:1). The question might be tied, that is, to themes that pervade Isa 6 and 28: a missionary--one sent specifically by God as Isaiah had been--is one who inhabits two realms, one who has been in the Holy of Holies and yet dwells on earth, one who thus speaks two entirely different tongues (the angelic tongue registering as sheer noise in the earth, and the tongues of men registering as inarticulate cries in the heavens). To do missionary work--and, according to D&C 20:57, patriarchal work--in God's way is, in the end, to be the link between two realms, to be after the order of the Son of God, to be like the Christ who in His very incarnation is the veil that faces both the heavenly and the earthly realms (see Heb 10:20). Perhaps it is for this very reason that missionary work--and fatherhood, for that matter--are questions of priesthood.

[edit]