Talk:D&C 84:43-59

Every man through the world (v. 46)

Sorry for not posting exegesis but just talk-page questions, but I'm stuck on this verse. I think there's a very important theme regarding the purpose and role of the priesthood in gathering Zion (preaching repentance) thoughout this section of the D&C (and the scriptures more generally). For example:

• Verse 48 explicitly specifies that the covenant (of the priesthood) is renewed "for the sake of the whole world"
• Starting in v. 62 the charge to gather Zion from the world is picked up again in earnest, continuing to the end of section (v. 76 "from you it must be preached, v. 79 "prove the world," v. 87 "reprove the world," v. 103 "every man who goes forth," v. 114 "warn the people," v. 117 "go ye forth").
• The notion of the world giving birth to Zion (v. 49, v. 101—see also what Joe's been writing on vv. 53-55).

However, the theme seems to start in v. 46 (instead of v. 48) with this phrase "every man" (and in v. 47 "every one"). Verse 46 starts out saying "the spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world." OK, I take that as the light of Christ spoken of elsewhere. But how can we make sense of the following phrase, "the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit"? Whereas the first clause seems unconditional ("every man that cometh into the world"), this later clause seems to apply conditionally only for those who hearken to the voice of the Spirit (or am I misreading this? the comma before that seems a bit ambiguous).

So, the only reading that makes sense to me is to embue the word enlighten with special significance: everyone has the light of Christ, but only those who hearken to the voice of the Spirit are englightened (like "lit up" perhaps? ignited? I think this is a good word to study the definition and etymology of...).

Of course the meaning of v. 46 should also be viewed in light of vv. 43-45, though I keep feeling that the meaning of v. 46 will come first, helping me sbusequently understand vv. 43-45 better (v. 45 in particular). To wit, on the reading I'm proposing for v. 46, we have in vv. 43-44 the importance of heeding the word established. Verse 45 then makes a connection between the word, truth, light and ultimately the Spirit. So, the implicit point seems to be that preaching the word (which the rest of the section talks about) is a critical intermediate step for the enlightening process to take place.

The implication of this reading is that the condemnation in vv. 55-56 is double-layered: the condemnation is a result of the church not sufficiently heeding the word (viz. the BOM) but the condemnation is given because the rest of the world needs to be enlightened. That is, if the world's glory will be its giving birth to Zion, and the church is hindering this birth, both the church and the world suffer.

So much of this hinges on vv. 45-46, and somehow I think I may be going wrong somewhere. Feedback? (By the way, I think the call to preach here is very related to the call Isaiah receives, and of course the Zion theme is very important in both texts...). --RobertC 21:28, 2 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I took a look, and began writing some commentary, but I didn't feel comfortable with anything I was writing. This will require some more careful thought. I have to confess that verse 45 (and its equivalents in section 88, 93) unsettles me theologically. I don't know how to understand it yet. --Joe Spencer 14:15, 3 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I would be in favor of moving D&C 93 high up the list of passages we want to tackle, it's definitely an LDS scripture whose surface I think has barely been scratched (I worry a little that the discussion would get too theological, in the bad sense of the word...).

I think D&C 93:31-32 (and surrounding verses) is perhaps the most relevant for 84:45: Man is spirit, while God is Spirit. Man's agency is the opportunity to receive truth and light (or the light of truth per 93:29?). That is, man can accept the Word (and His messengers that bring the word), or reject thum unto their condemnation.

But I think where it gets really interesting, and where I think your thoughts on the material world vs. the mind will be particularly enlightening, is in 93:33-35 where the separation of element and spirit is discussed. Is this the same (or at least related to? if so how? how is it different?) as the separation between Spirit and spirit? Word and word? faith and works/charity (mind and heart? thoughts and action?)? Perhaps I've been working on recursive computer algorithms too much in my research, but I see 84:46-47 as describing a recursive process of growing in light (as per D&C 50:24) that, if understood only in a linear beginning-and-end sense is confusing. That is, we are born with (a certain amount of??) light and, through he sacrifice of the Word which descended below all things and thus comprehends all things (and thus becomes the Light of Truth?), we are given the opportunity to receive more light by accepting (elementally and spiritually) the words of scripture. By accepting scripture in this full, hearkening sense, we enter into a covenant relationship with God (is the covenant what is being described by the different laws per kingdom in D&C 88?). That is how we receive grace for grace and eventually become one with the Spirit, the Word, the Light of Truth....

Well, I'll stop now. The purpose of this reckless speculation is in hopes of sparking interest in D&C 93 as a fruitful section to dig into carefully, which pertains to D&C 84 as well as many other passages. So much to feast on, so little time. --RobertC 01:12, 4 Aug 2006 (UTC)

D&C 93 would be a wonderful project. I have before sketched out the necessary parameters for such a study, but its implications have been somewhat overwhelming, and that is why I have not yet taken it on (or rather, why I have started twice and left it off after a week's study in both instances). Here is the approach I think is necessary--and it is the very reason I am hesitant to approach those few verses here in D&C 84. D&C 93 begins with a quotation from the record of John, apparently John the Baptist. But the words are of course very closely related to John 1:1ff. There is some peculiar interrelation between the baptist and the revelator (see Ford's commentary in the Anchor Bible volume on Revelation... some amazing possibilities are raised there). Whatever that relation, it remains to be worked out as a preliminary to any study of D&C 93. Once that relation (a primarily textual relation, I believe) has been worked out, it will open the possibility of studying the theme of light in John 1 and the first part of D&C 93, since light is absolutely the theme of John 1 (especially as read through the Genesis 1 creation story of seven days--the light of day one is the key). Once those texts have been reconciled and the light theme, with all the repercussions of Genesis 1, have been explored, I think the later verses of D&C 93 are approachable. But if we approach those later verses without this foundation, I think we will begin with the philosophies of men, and then only mingle that with scripture.

I'll stop now, too. The purpose of my own reckless refoundationing is in hopes of sparking interest in D&C 93 as well. Let's feast, while there is time! (I apologize for the obnoxiousness of this last paragraph.) --Joe Spencer 15:30, 4 Aug 2006 (UTC)

51-55: Vanity as a false hope?

Great work Joe, here and elsewhere (sorry I've been a bit MIA, hopefully corrected soon...). I don't have much time now either, but a couple quick thoughts: First, I tend to read "unbelief" here in light of Alma 32:28. Thus unbelief is disregarding (not nurturing with patience) the seed/word, and treating it lightly. Poetically, treating the word lightly darkens our mind (with D&C 88 & 93 overtones here). I think this is analogous to vanity (or futility as the word in Rom 8 connotes). So the image is one of darkness and futility (losing one's "pole" of reference as you are getting at in Isa 6:8) caused by an unwillingness to exercise faith (the action required in the present) in nurturing the word. Otherwise, if faith had been exercised, hope would've come (as per our Talk:2 Ne 31:16-21 discussion). In this way, I see vanity as a false hope—an attempt to obtain hope without exercising faith. This same idea seems to be expressed in Jacob 4:14 where the Jews are described as rejecting the Word by looking beyond the mark (trying to obtain hope without proper faith by seeking for things they could not understand and thus being blinded? is this what Isaiah is being called to do, to show the world its own futility and vanity which is experienced b/c of a failure to humble oneself before the word?), or as prophecied in 2 Tim 3:7, "ever learning, and ne ver able to come ot the knowledge of the truth" in contrast to the scriptures as a pole of reference described in 2 Tim 3:14-16....

So I read vanity and hope in Rom 8:20 as near substitutes—the vanity that creation experiences will be turned into an authentic hope as the creation subjects itself to the Creator. That is, the futility and vanity of creation is tranformed by the Word into hope b/c with patience the Word will bear fruit (per Rom 8:24-25]]).

Sorry this is a bit cryptic, I'll try to work out these thoughts more later. --RobertC 00:49, 1 Aug 2006 (UTC)