Talk:Moses 7:20-69

Moses 7:28-29

I temporarily removed the following as the link isn't clear what talk it points to. The link is simply a search on "love of god."

There is a part in this talk that speaks directly about these verses and it is really good.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$xhitlist_q=%5BRank+500%5D%28%5BField+general+conference%3Athe%20love%20of%20god%5D%29$xhitlist_x=Advanced$xhitlist_s=relevance-weight$xhitlist_d=Magazines/ensign$xhitlist_hc=%5BXML%5D%5Bkwic%2C0%5D$xhitlist_xsl=xhitlist.xsl$xhitlist_vpc=first$xhitlist_sel=title%3Bpath%3Bcontent-type%3Bhome-title%3Bhit-context%3Bfield%3Azr%3Bfield%3ARef

Bhardle, I can see how it is a bit difficult to make a link to a specific article. One way to do it from IE is to click the bookmark link on the church's website and then organize your bookmarks, right click on the bookmark and look at the properties. If that turns out not to work for you, could you please at least provide the title, author, month & year of the article you are referring to? Thanks, --Matthew Faulconer 01:26, 16 Sep 2005 (CEST)

Another option is to right click on the desired article and select "Open Link in New Window" the new window will have the proper link. Even if you are able to provide a link it is always helpful to provide a reference (author, title, and date) as links sometimes change. MJ 13:57, 16 Sep 2005 (CEST)

Moses 7:39 puzzles

Moses 7:39 is hard for me to really comprehend. Why is Christ referred to as "That which" instead of He whom was chosen? What does the Wherefore in the second sentence refer to--the chosing or the pleading? What does "inasmuch as they will repent" mean? And what about the repentance occuring "in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me?" What does that even mean? Are the spirits in prison unable to repent until some point? And what is meant by "return unto me?" When is that, exactly? So many questions about such a short verse--its a real puzzle to me.--Rob Fergus 23:05, 20 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Noah

I don't see that there is any suggestion that Noah's seed continuing while the earth stands is important to his exaltation. I would think that the idea has merit, (kind of an idea similar to the idea that we cannot be saved without our dead and that the hearts of the fathers must turn to the children) but it does not seem to be suggested here. Perhaps there is some other scripture/quote that suggests the idea and that might be considered a possible explanation for why the Lord promised it. (Aside from the obvious cause, that Enoch had desired something along those lines.) Perhaps I am wrong though. --Seanmcox 08:45, 25 Nov 2006 (UTC)

As many as were in prison ... (v. 57)

The question I just added for verse 57 was brought up in my institute lesson last night. In resolving this conflict, it would seem clear to me that the problem must lie in either a miswording, or misinterpretation of the first half of the verse. It would seem that not all spirits in spirit prison, or even by extension, the spirits in the spirit world, which they generally look on as a prison as a whole; it would seem that not all of them could come forth, (in contrast with those that remain in torment) unless there is a separate place altogether different from prison reserved for a class of spirit in an even worse condition. --Seanmcox 02:27, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC) (Apparently I forgot to sign this.)

Could it be that "the spirits" are referring to the spirits of the saints from v. 56? This contradicts the conventional spirit prison vs. paradise distinction somewhat, but otherwise seems to make sense I think.... --RobertC 20:53, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. This question's been teasing me a bit. Your suggestion would seem to be a possibility. I don't think there's really a contradiction in it, in light of D&C 138:50. (Which reinforces your reading quite strongly.) The trick of interpreting the passage, in my mind, is to be able to reasonably interpret "prison" in such a way that all of those who are in it (and in context, would seem to be righteous) can/do leave, but yet there are others who remain in torment. (presumably unrighteous) One thing that I have just considered is that possibly a distinction is being made between those who are in prison simply because they had to wait on the actions of others (Christ's resurrection and spirit world mission, and possibly our doing the work for the dead), and those who would be stuck there despite the actions of others. (Is it a prison if, when you can get out, you choose not to do so?) With that reading, I suppose we might say that Christ unlocked the doors and released all those who were held against their wills. I don't know if that's a good reading, but at least, in my mind, it makes some sense of the passage.--Seanmcox 02:27, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Great tie-in of D&C 138:50! I think prison is an interesting metaphor in scripture, related to the "chains of hell" metaphor. I think the philosophical notion of self-deception is fairly intersting in this light. That is, I think oftentimes the prison we find ourselves in is best described in terms of deception. Satan, as the father of lies, tells us we cannot repent, or that we are not worthy of repenting, or a whole host of other lies. When we believe such lies, we are imprisoned in our own sinful state (and the just consequences thereof). The light of Christ is what shows us that our imprisoned state is indeed based on a "darkening" lie.... (I like the distinction you point to between what we can do and what we wait for others to do; I have in mind here only the aspect of our imprisonment that we choose ourselves.) --RobertC 15:09, 11 Dec 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether this doesn't mean: "all of the spirits that came out of prison stood on the right hand of God and those that didn't were reserved in chains of darkness until the judgment of the great day."

If this intpretation is correct, it means the emphasis on the verse is the division between those in prison who come out and are rewarded (they stand on the right hand of God) and those who stay in chains for a long time.

This interpretation is supported by the punctuation. If this verse were saying, all of the spirits that were in prison, came forth and stood on the right hand of God" then we should expect a comma after prison or, even if we don't have one there, we should at least not see a comma before "and stood" since the subject of the sentence isn't repeated. (Of course, this assumes that commas are used in a certain way. I wonder if anyone has written anything on punctuation across the scriptures: is it consistent?)

But punctuation should tell me how to read aloud. In this case though, when I read this aloud, no matter how I read this, it doesn't sound to me like it means what I'm proposing. So, I think my interpretation requires the assumption of a miswording. The simplest way to get there is to move the second "and" forward to read: "And as many of the spirits as were in prison and came forth, stood on the right hand of God."

--Matthew Faulconer 15:03, 12 Dec 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a strong possibility. Some other possibilities: Perhaps there is some history of the construction "as many -- as", or perhaps there is a different reading in the manuscripts... ?--Seanmcox 05:45, 13 Dec 2006 (UTC)

There are two manuscript sources for this verse (what are called JST OT Ms. 1 and, surprise, JST OT Ms. 2). Ms 1, p. 18, lns. 43-47 (in the handwriting of Sidney Rigdon):

  rent and the saints arose and was crowned at the right hand of
  the son of man with crowns of glory and as many of the spirits as
  were in prison came fourth and stood on the right hand of God
  and the remainder ["wa were" is crossed out and "was" is written above the line] reserved in chaines of darkness untill the
  Judgement of the great day and again Enock wept and cried unto

Ms 2, p. 24, lns. 17-22 (in the handwriting of Sidney Rigdon):

  Earth groaned; & the rocks were rent; & the saints arose, &
  were crowned at the right hand of the Son of man with
  crowns of glory. & as many of the spirits as were in Prison
  came forth & stood on the right hand of God. & the remainder
  were reserved in chains of darkness untill the Judgement of
  the great day. ["/" is inserted above the line] And ["again" is crossed out] Enoch wept, & cried unto the

For kicks, and hopefully helpful as well, here is the 1851 Pearl of Great Price:

  and the saints arose and were crowned at the right hand of the Son of Man, with crowns of glory; 
  and as many of the spirits as were in prison came forth, and stood on the right hand of God; 
  and the remainder were reserved in chains of darkness until the judgment of the great day, 
  And again Enoch...

These several sources (I have left the spelling, etc., as in the originals) ought to answer questions about alternate readings. As for punctuation, ms. 1 had none (it was the earliest, incidentally), while ms. 2 had punctuation, though different from current punctuation. The 1851 edition of the PoGP differed in punctuation from the manuscript as well as from our current text. One ought to note that the 1851 edition was taken from the published version in the Church papers, whereas the current editions of the PoGP were taken from early publications of the Reorganized's Inspired Version (Orson Pratt did the work of these later editions; Franklin D. Richards published the 1851 edition; it was not canonized until 1881, with the Pratt edition).

Now, I hadn't joined the discussion because I had no answer at all. Because there were questions about manuscripts, I thought I'd jump in. But working through these manuscripts, I think I may have seen what I would take as my approach to the question. I think it was the verseless, punctuationless first manuscript that suggested it: I think Robert is right to read "spirits" as connected with "saints." I think that "spirits" is here a sort of sub-group of "saints": the saints arose, and any of them that were spirits in prison (not already resurrected by this point?) came and joined them at God's right hand, while the rest of the spirits in prison remained there, etc. I think that's probably the best reading. --Joe Spencer 15:17, 13 Dec 2006 (UTC)

ok so here's my new interpretation. It gets to about the same place but by way of a different means. I think it is consistent with Joe and Robert's points but would like confirmation.

(v 55) [Moses] beheld the Son of Man lifted up on the cross ... (v 56) the earth groaned ... and the saints arose, and were crowned at the right hand of the Son of Man, with crowns of glory; (v 57) [about these saints,] as many of the spirits as were in prison came forth, and stood on the right hand of God; and the remainder [of the spirits in prison] were reserved in chains of darkness until the judgment of the great day.

Is that right?

--Matthew Faulconer 05:37, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC) PS Joe, thank you for the transcript. It is very interesting. Do you think it argues against my "miswording" reading? By miswording I don't think it necessary to think someone transcribed something wrong either in the original manuscript or after. I mix up words all the time and don't say them in a clear way. Of course, the scriptures are a different case--but it is significant that God delivers his message through people versus directly (e.g. we don't have stones of tablets written by the finger of God.) Maybe I'm taking us off topic...

Quick response to Matthew's question. I think the JST is curious here because we have two manuscripts. One was earlier, we know that. I think because of that, where both read the same, we can assume there was no "mistake," because there are MANY differences between the two. The differences between the two manuscripts are a really important place to begin thinking about much of the Book of Moses really.

As far as "just mixing up words" or some such idea, I'm not sure exactly where I stand. There are times I make an appeal to that sort of thing, and there are times when it certainly appears I should, but for some reason I hold out. I've found abundant fruitfulness in both approaches. I suppose that means I take it up within the broader question of the Spirit: to some extent, D&C 91 applies to everything in scripture (and out of scripture, for that matter). That is, having the Spirit, one can know where there are "interpolations of men" and where the text conforms precisely to the author's intent. But then, even this doesn't release us from the difficulties of cultural conditions, the question of demythologization, the danger of idiosyncratic approaches.

In the end, scripture study really is a rather radical thing, is it not? Always seeking the face of Jesus, we find ourselves trying to sort out this incredibly complex textual mess: so many books, so many authors, so many cultures, so many languages, so much history, so many politics, so much tradition, so many questions of translation, of poetics, of narratology, of worldview, etc., etc., etc. And yet, to study is to be faithful, and not to study is to be unfaithful. Consecration, indeed! --Joe Spencer 14:37, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

I just added commentary. If I didn't get it right, let me know or just re-edit. --Matthew Faulconer 04:11, 18 Dec 2006 (UTC)

While I think there is plenty of justification for this "two types of spirit" reading, it still makes me a little uncomfortable and I wonder what we might be missing here. At the very least, this verse seems to be less explicit than we might like! Being as how the prison mentioned here is presumably the prison that the Lord mentions in verse 38 as being created to hold the wicked in the time of Noah, does it seems to be a bit of a stretch to think of their being any spirits of saints in there? I know this fits with some teachings that some saints may have to suffer in hell (spirit prison?) for a time for their own sins if they do not repent. But somehow reading this into verse 57 still makes me uncocmfortable. On the other hand, D&C 138 refers to the righteous saints as being in chains due to the separation from their bodies, and JFS saw this as a sort of prison to which Christ could go and visit, without descending into the other prison where the wicked were held. This would involve a "two spirit prisons" explanation of verse 57--with the righteous spirits in the JFS separation-from-your-body-is-a-type-of-prison prison (though it seemingly isn't the same prison mentioned in verse 38) being those who come forth, with those in the other prison--the verse 38 prison or the D&C 138 prison for the wicked--remaining in chains of darkness. But even then, the verse is not as transparaten as we might wish!

I think Rob is right to point out that this verse is outstripping, as yet, our comments on it. His pointing back to verse 38 perhaps gives us the right way to look at all of this: no so much that verse 38 is the key, but that we are trying to read one verse here, rather than a whole chapter. Chapter 7 of Moses is one of the most complex, rich, and unstudied parts of scripture. It would be well to do some better work on the whole here as regards this chapter. My guess is that this single verse will come to mean something radically different than we expect. --Joe Spencer 17:27, 18 Dec 2006 (UTC)

I too think Rob's reference to prison in v. 38 is very interesting. This suggests in particular to me that the prison is not so much (just) death, but the "reign of wickedness" (that reigns in blood and horror...). Actually, I guess it's verse 39 that really suggests this reading--that is, I think even the righteous must endure a type of torment until Christ's atonement (but maybe I'm being too influenced by the capitalization of "Chosen" since without capitalization it would not seem to refer to Christ's atonement so much...). --RobertC 18:32, 18 Dec 2006 (UTC)

OK, try this one on for size. Verses 56 and 57 are not referring to two different groups of people (saints and wicked remainder), but three. This is the tripartate judgement of the restored gospel. First in verse 56 you have the saints, the Celestial, those who arise at the time of Christ and recieve crowns. Then at the beginning of 57 you have another group, the Terrestrial, those who, as it says in D&C 76:73 are "they who are the spirits of men kept in prison." They come forth from prison, but perhaps aren't resurrected yet (they aren't said to arise, just to come forth). They are also still referred to as spirits. They also don't get crowns (cf. D&C 76:79). Finally there are those that remain, the Telestial, those who "shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection" D&C 76:85. Of course, I was feeling pretty excited about having this thought, then I noticed that footnote 57b already made at least part of this connection, so Elder McConkie must have gotten here first!

At any rate, this whole chapter is a remarkable set of contrasts between the saved and the damned. In the first verse there are the children of Adam who are saved vs. the wicked. Then there are those who are saved in the City of Enoch vs. the wicked remnant. Then those saved in Noah's ark vs. the wicked remnant. Then there is the promise that there will always be a covenanted remnant--descendants of Noah on the earth--apparently to persist side by side with the wicked, and even perhaps to join with the wicked and not be wiped away by floods until Christ comes and we have a judgement and first resurrection in verses 56 and 57. So, it seems like we a sharp contrast between wicked and righteous up until the time of Noah, and that perhaps Enoch was able to change that somehow by getting the Lord to stop constantly destroying the wicked. Instead, a new system is set up, complete with a spirit prison and tripartate judgement, whereby the righteous aren't caught up immediately into Zion, and the wicked aren't immediately destroyed. As Joe predicted, I think these verses have more meaning than we expected. Now I have to start thinking about how Enoch is tied up with this notion of extending the time of probation beyond mortality to allow for a more nuanced judgement.--Rob Fergus 04:15, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I like it a lot. I'd like to take a closer look at this tomorrow sometime (it's almost time to go read bedtime stories to the kids), but I think it will bear fruit. What work I have done on this chapter (and it is work I have done with my wife in studies together) has pointed towards something like what you are suggesting (though not in terms of these verses, nor in terms of the tri- or even quadri-partite judgment; that is, more in terms of two different forms of judgment that obtain in two radically different eras of existence...). All of this also must tie up with the first verses of Moses 6, where the priesthood from before--from the time of the dual soteriology--will return in the end... Hmm. Much to think about here. --Joe Spencer 04:50, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Three Eras of Existence

Joe, I agree that these chapters are radical, with these different eras of existence something I hadn't really noticed before. Here's what I'm seeing right now: 1) Adamic dispensation, with evil and good mixed together, but with good having a hard time getting a foothold in the fallen Telestial World. 2) Enochian dispensation, where a separation is introduced--the Zion and Babylon type of duality, where the good are gathered to Zion, and the rest "remain". Judgements are harsh and more immediate, ending with the flood, the ultimate separation and salvation of the righteous and destruction of the wicked. There seem to be two tracks here, a Telestial track and a Terrestrial (Celestial?) track of Zion. 3) A Noachian dispensation, where the promise is made that the wicked will not be immediately destroyed. The remnant of Noah's seed are left on the earth to either accept or reject the gospel, , but probation is extended beyond mortality to include the possibility of accepting the gospel in the Spirit world. All are saved in a kingdom, but some remain in bondage as spirits until after the first resurrection. There are now three tracks established, as indicated in vs. 56-57, with crowning with Celestial glory as the ultimate end for the righteous. Enoch seems to have been instrumental in the creation of this new era. I'm still left pondering how priesthood and sealing keys are tied up with all this. What I like about this is that it is revealed very early in the Restoration (1830), containing the foundation of everything Joseph Smith would eventually elaborate on, expanding all that has gone before in the creation of yet another dispensation, a Fullness of Times where the blessings from all of these eras can be revealed and enjoyed by the Saints, though of course we are still working to build our own Zion.--Rob Fergus 13:29, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC)

To toy vocally with an idea that I've toyed with mentally for some time. Revelation spells things out in terms of seven, and D&C 77 makes that a question of seven thousand years (according to seven seals). The seven seals seal up the heavenly book, and once the seals are broken, there is a readable text. Now, what if a thousand years does not describe a thousand years of lineal history, but the thousand years of life of one patriarch: Adam, for instance. Then Adam's 1000 years can be added to Seth's 1000 years and so on. If the story is read this way, then the seventh thousand years would be Enoch's. In other words, seven thousand years (though not lineally because of overlap) take one from Adam to Enoch, the seventh. Could it be that the seven seals tie up with these first seven thousand years? The mysteries of God's economy concerning those seven thousand years would then be tied up with what happened in the first eras, and they are written in a particular book now kept in heaven. In Moses 6, we get this business of "a book of remembrance" that is kept as soon as the first "first presidency" is established with Adam, Seth, and Enos. They are taught to "write by the spirit of inspiration," to "read and write, having a language which was pure and undefiled," and "this same Priesthood, which was in the beginning, shall be in the end of the world also." As soon as all of this is explained (by verse 7), we are told: "Now this prophecy Adam spake as he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost," meaning, apparently, the prophecy of when this same priesthood would be around, "and a genealogy was kept of the children of God." The first written genealogy looks forward to the end of the world because of the promise of seed, etc., but it must be noticed that now there is a book written about the generations. Now the text goes on to quote it: "And this was the book of the generations of Adam, saying: In the day...." This quoting passage seems to extend through verse 23, where a sort of inclusio ends the quotation. Curiously, it ends with the stretch from Adam to Enoch. Verse 24 turns to some other source, and it begins with the death of Jared and the genealogy after Enoch. It sounds, then, as if the record of Adam's generations is only seven entries long: from Adam to Enoch, seven thousand years. Is this the book in Revelation, the one kept in heaven with seven seals and seven thousand years recorded within it?

Enoch then goes on to have his adventures and I really like the way you take things up from there. Is it that before Enoch's day everything is heaven and hell, something like "celestial" or "outer darkness"? That is, you either follow the patriarchal fullness of the priesthood, or you join in with the "violence" at the time. But Enoch's incredible mission is precisely to go preaching among the violent, and many switch sides. This leads to a war in chapter 6, but it isn't long before the wicked are scared to death, etc. Finally, Enoch finds himself in the midst of this incredible prayer about Zion's being taken up (more "heaven" versus "earth" than anything else by that point, sealed (!) up or not). His prayer is for the violent, the wicked, and he receives a promise that the prison will be set up, etc., introducing a middle point between the two extremes. Is this middle point single or double? Does the middle point split into two, the terrestrial and the telestial? However that business works out, you are undeniably right about pointing to the terrestrial in all of this. The language of D&C 76 describes precisely this business from Moses 7, no question, and so forth. In a sense, I'm becoming convinced that the flood was a sort of veil (water is interchangeable with veil imagery all over the place in the scriptures; Jean-Louis Chretien has a wonderful article on that in his Hand to Hand), one that established a sort of lower order of existence (the two-fold soteriology as Melchizedek, the four-fold as Aaronic?) in which there opened several other soteriological possibilities. I'm left with a vision like this: Enoch opened up a sort of second version of the earth, and Moses 7 lays out what it is all about. The story of the "second" earthlife (the post-flood earthlife) is that of the Abrahamic covenant, of Malachi 4, of the two comings of Christ, of the slow crescendo towards a fullness of times in which all keys would be restored, and in which this same Priesthood would be had again and the patriarchal era would return. This is rich stuff. Perhaps the blog is a good place to do some work here, or perhaps we need to do commentary on particular passages, but I think, Rob, that the Book of Moses is increasingly the key to understanding Mormon theology generally.

By the way, on that last point, I was interested to hear you say that it was important to you that it all came in 1830. After writing my brief comment last night, I was sitting with my wife and I told her something just like it, that what is really astounding about the Book of Moses is that it articulates everything while Joseph was still in New York. What is at work in these chapters? A further question about it all too: what of the rest of the JST Genesis? In OT Manuscript 1, the Genesis work is extensive right up through Genesis 27 or something like that. Only these eight chapters were published in the Church periodical, but there was extensive, radically altering work for a number of chapters further. It might be worth taking all of those up quite carefully (the whole Abraham story after all!). --Joe Spencer 14:06, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Is there a good publication that has OT Manuscript 1 in it? How different is it than the Inspired Version? --RobertC 17:53, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Robert, maybe this?--Rob Fergus 18:37, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC)

The Inspired Version differs in a number of places, alternating between OT Manuscripts 1 and 2. The two manuscripts are published entire in Faulring, Jackson, and Matthews, Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible (along with NT manuscripts 1 and 2 and introductory articles, etc.). The volume costs $100, however. Because so much of my work has focused on the Book of Moses over the past two years, I finally gave in and bought it (though I waited for a good coupon to come along before I did so). This is the book mentioned at Rob's link. --Joe Spencer 18:38, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is a very complicated verse. Here are my initial thoughts: "That which" might be referring to more than just Christ the person, and more about Christ the event (i.e. Atonement). I think the wherefore is referring to pleading--because Christ truly wants to do this (presumably b/c of his love for us...). I think the repentance occuring "in the day my Chosen shall return unto me" is referring in some sense to the idea that the Atonement isn't really fulfilled until the Christ's resurrection is completed--this is why I think there is a sense in which the saints who lived before Christ will still be held in prison until the Resurrection. I think they can fully repent and be forgiven, but the forgiveness is not technically complete until the resurrection. I think there are many problems with this reading I'm proposing, but that's how I'm looking at it now.... --RobertC 03:36, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC)