Talk:D&C 121:34-46 - Revision history

KurtElieson: Moving content to regrouped page

2015-11-28T01:44:06Z

Moving content to regrouped page

Show changes

KurtElieson: KurtElieson moved page Talk:D&C 121:41-46 to Talk:D&C 121:34-46: Regrouping pages

2015-11-28T01:15:58Z

KurtElieson moved page Talk:D&C 121:41-46 to Talk:D&C 121:34-46: Regrouping pages

Rob Fergus: /* Virtue (vv. 41, 45) */questions ??

2007-02-15T17:50:45Z

‎Virtue (vv. 41, 45): questions ??

Joe Spencer: /* Virtue (vv. 41, 45) */ a couple of thoughts from my quarter

2007-02-15T14:56:10Z

‎Virtue (vv. 41, 45): a couple of thoughts from my quarter

Rob Fergus: /* Virtue (vv. 41, 45) */ virtue, virtue, virtue

2007-02-15T03:41:15Z

‎Virtue (vv. 41, 45): virtue, virtue, virtue

Rob Fergus: /* Virtue (vv. 41, 45) */

2007-02-14T04:22:51Z

‎Virtue (vv. 41, 45)

RobertC: "virtue" in vv. 41 and 45; relation to Hebrews 4:13ff?

2007-02-14T03:55:01Z

"virtue" in vv. 41 and 45; relation to Hebrews 4:13ff?

RobertC: /* No power or influence */ wording...

2006-02-20T18:13:47Z

‎No power or influence: wording...

RobertC: /* No power or influence */ formatting

2006-02-20T18:11:35Z

‎No power or influence: formatting

RobertC: /* No power or influence */ my rambly thoughts

2006-02-20T18:11:09Z

‎No power or influence: my rambly thoughts

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:50, 15 February 2007
Line 72:		Line 72:

	:All of that said, you are right on, I think, in rethinking the meaning of "virtue," a word I hadn't taken the time to think about. It's latin root is simply ''virtus'' (manliness), from ''vir'' (man). I think reading virtue in terms of ''arete'' is very appropriate, and it links up with much of what Joseph Smith himself taught and was (I'm thinking of Bushman's 2003 forum at BYU on "The Character of Joseph Smith"). Thanks for getting this discussion started. I'd like to think more about all of this. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 15:56, 15 February 2007 (CET)		:All of that said, you are right on, I think, in rethinking the meaning of "virtue," a word I hadn't taken the time to think about. It's latin root is simply ''virtus'' (manliness), from ''vir'' (man). I think reading virtue in terms of ''arete'' is very appropriate, and it links up with much of what Joseph Smith himself taught and was (I'm thinking of Bushman's 2003 forum at BYU on "The Character of Joseph Smith"). Thanks for getting this discussion started. I'd like to think more about all of this. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 15:56, 15 February 2007 (CET)
		+
		+	::Perhaps on this reading, persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, etc. are the "virtues" that we should be cultivating, and letting garnish our thoughts? How do these relate to the "doctrines of the priesthood" mentioned here? Are we to cultivate these "virtues" so that we can function in priesthood callings, not by "virtue of the priesthood" but "upon the principles of righteousness? Or is it an even more radical clarification of priesthood, as you intimate. Joe? And what exactly is it that will distil upon our souls as the dews from heaven? Lots to think about here?

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 15 February 2007
Line 66:		Line 66:

	I'm increasingly convinced that "virtue" here should refer to something more akin to the NT Greek arete. If so, it suggests a very different reading of this verse. Rather than merely focusing on pure and chaste thoughts, as we commonly suppose, perhaps we are being urged to focus on noble and empowering sentiments that would lead our confidence to wax strong in the presence of God--the most noble and fully-realized Being of all.--[[User:Rob Fergus\|Rob Fergus]] 04:41, 15 February 2007 (CET)		I'm increasingly convinced that "virtue" here should refer to something more akin to the NT Greek arete. If so, it suggests a very different reading of this verse. Rather than merely focusing on pure and chaste thoughts, as we commonly suppose, perhaps we are being urged to focus on noble and empowering sentiments that would lead our confidence to wax strong in the presence of God--the most noble and fully-realized Being of all.--[[User:Rob Fergus\|Rob Fergus]] 04:41, 15 February 2007 (CET)
		+
		+	:Rob, I really like what you're doing here. I've long kept an eye on these verses, and I too find that they have a high yield. You've got me thinking about "by virtue of the priesthood." In a sense, don't these verses amount to a demotion (clarification) of priesthood? That is, Joseph Smith seems to have been trying to correct a kind of exalted view of the priesthood. I think this can fruitfully be read in terms of the temple: the priesthood is, in the temple, nothing like some unearthly power, some unique metaphysical force, but simply some keys one needs to return to God. In fact, the priesthood in the temple seems to be much like priesthoods in ancient religions (pagan or otherwise): a priest is someone who is a keeper of the secret knowledge, but he is not understood to have any otherworldly power; in fact, all of his authority relates quite simply to where he can go (in the temple) and what he is thereby enabled to do.
		+
		+	:The connection between "virtue" in verse 41 and the same in verse 45 then becomes key. If we are not to think there is some kind of inherent power in the priesthood, then we are to become ourselves virtuous. If the priesthood provides us with the keys to enter into the presence of God, it is not the priesthood that will give us any confidence to stand there. It is only virtue in ourselves that will do that. Going through the temple hardly prepares one for a celestial existence, it merely endows one with the knowledge of how to get through the veil. But virtue is something entirely other, and only ''it'' will prepare one for that presence.
		+
		+	:All of that said, you are right on, I think, in rethinking the meaning of "virtue," a word I hadn't taken the time to think about. It's latin root is simply ''virtus'' (manliness), from ''vir'' (man). I think reading virtue in terms of ''arete'' is very appropriate, and it links up with much of what Joseph Smith himself taught and was (I'm thinking of Bushman's 2003 forum at BYU on "The Character of Joseph Smith"). Thanks for getting this discussion started. I'd like to think more about all of this. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 15:56, 15 February 2007 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:41, 15 February 2007
Line 64:		Line 64:

	:We've all heard this verse quoted hundreds of times. And we're just now starting to really think about it like this. The nuances are incredible. These verses have always spoken to me, but I'm simply amazed at how much they have to offer. Thanks to everyone for exploring these verses together.--[[User:Rob Fergus\|Rob Fergus]] 05:22, 14 February 2007 (CET)		:We've all heard this verse quoted hundreds of times. And we're just now starting to really think about it like this. The nuances are incredible. These verses have always spoken to me, but I'm simply amazed at how much they have to offer. Thanks to everyone for exploring these verses together.--[[User:Rob Fergus\|Rob Fergus]] 05:22, 14 February 2007 (CET)
		+
		+	I'm increasingly convinced that "virtue" here should refer to something more akin to the NT Greek arete. If so, it suggests a very different reading of this verse. Rather than merely focusing on pure and chaste thoughts, as we commonly suppose, perhaps we are being urged to focus on noble and empowering sentiments that would lead our confidence to wax strong in the presence of God--the most noble and fully-realized Being of all.--[[User:Rob Fergus\|Rob Fergus]] 04:41, 15 February 2007 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:22, 14 February 2007
Line 62:		Line 62:

	Not sure if this is really related, but since Joe's got me wondering about how much Hebrews affected Joseph Smith, this got me wondering about the word "boldly" in [[Heb 4:16]], which I was trying to argue also had the connotation of "openly" in light of the [[Heb 4:13\|verse 13]] which talks about things being opened before the eyes of God, which seems to parallel the "without hypocricy and without guile" here in verse 41.... --[[User:RobertC\|RobertC]] 04:55, 14 February 2007 (CET)		Not sure if this is really related, but since Joe's got me wondering about how much Hebrews affected Joseph Smith, this got me wondering about the word "boldly" in [[Heb 4:16]], which I was trying to argue also had the connotation of "openly" in light of the [[Heb 4:13\|verse 13]] which talks about things being opened before the eyes of God, which seems to parallel the "without hypocricy and without guile" here in verse 41.... --[[User:RobertC\|RobertC]] 04:55, 14 February 2007 (CET)
		+
		+	:We've all heard this verse quoted hundreds of times. And we're just now starting to really think about it like this. The nuances are incredible. These verses have always spoken to me, but I'm simply amazed at how much they have to offer. Thanks to everyone for exploring these verses together.--[[User:Rob Fergus\|Rob Fergus]] 05:22, 14 February 2007 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:55, 14 February 2007
Line 56:		Line 56:

	:--[[User:RobertC\|RobertC]] 18:11, 20 Feb 2006 (UTC)		:--[[User:RobertC\|RobertC]] 18:11, 20 Feb 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	==Virtue (vv. 41, 45)==
		+	I've usually read this in verse 41 with [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=virtue definition 9] in mind: "efficacy; power." I've actually never really thought that carefully about the significance of this term being used in both verses 41 and 45 (where I think the moral goodness or purity sense fits fairly well). This suggests to me a way that the power of the priesthood is being linked to the charity and confidence in verse 45 (and I think the possible meanings of ''virtue'' are indeed very interesting b/c the word is sandwiched between "charity" and "confidence").
		+
		+	Not sure if this is really related, but since Joe's got me wondering about how much Hebrews affected Joseph Smith, this got me wondering about the word "boldly" in [[Heb 4:16]], which I was trying to argue also had the connotation of "openly" in light of the [[Heb 4:13\|verse 13]] which talks about things being opened before the eyes of God, which seems to parallel the "without hypocricy and without guile" here in verse 41.... --[[User:RobertC\|RobertC]] 04:55, 14 February 2007 (CET)

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:15, 28 November 2015
(No difference)

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 :Matthew, I like the exegesis you posted about this phrase.  Not sure if this is common amongst other readers or not, but I've always read this the second way, that only = except.  This second interpretation seems to negate the problem suggested/implied by your question above about a bishopric's power/influence over ward members.  Also, on this reading, I think the list following ''only'' is set up in contrast to vv. 36-39 describing unrighteous dominion.  Out of context, reading the ''only'' in v. 41 as ''except'' seems strange (or at least vague), but in light of vv. 36-39 the ''only'' carries more significance implying that the following list describes what ''should'' be occurring in contrast to what vv. 36-39 describe as ''should not'' be occurring.
-:But thinking about your first interpretation is interesting--maybe there's something inherently diabolical about exerting power and influence over others b/c it goes against the pre-mortal plan of with its emphasis on free will.  If "power" were the only word here, I could buy such a reading, but "influence" seems too benign a word to read it this way.
+:But thinking about your first interpretation is interesting--maybe there's something inherently diabolical about exerting power and influence over others b/c it goes against the pre-mortal plan with its emphasis on free will.  If "power" were the only word here, I could buy such a reading, but "influence" seems too benign a word to me to read it this way....
 :However, in the preceding paragraph, you'll notice I used the word "exert" whereas the text uses the word "maintained".  So, reading ''only'' in the first way you suggest, what if we change the emphasis to "maintain"--that is, it's OK to exert influence over others, but that influence should not be maintained.  Even as a bishop, some influence is OK, but ultimately members should be influenced by God and personal revelation, not continue relying on their bishop (I'm thinking in a "spiritual advice" sense here, but this could apply in a physical/welfare sense too...).

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 :However, in the preceding paragraph, you'll notice I used the word "exert" whereas the text uses the word "maintained".  So, reading ''only'' in the first way you suggest, what if we change the emphasis to "maintain"--that is, it's OK to exert influence over others, but that influence should not be maintained.  Even as a bishop, some influence is OK, but ultimately members should be influenced by God and personal revelation, not continue relying on their bishop (I'm thinking in a "spiritual advice" sense here, but this could apply in a physical/welfare sense too...).
-I'm also a little puzzled by the wording "''by virtue'' of the priesthood".  Could "by virtue" mean that it's not wrong to maintain power or influence over others, but appealing to a priesthood calling or office for such power/influence is wrong?  Perhaps the power and influence we should have over others should be a result of our example as disciples of Christ instead of an appeal to our priesthood authority.
+:I'm also a little puzzled by the wording "''by virtue'' of the priesthood".  Could "by virtue" mean that it's not wrong to maintain power or influence over others, but appealing to a priesthood calling or office for such power/influence is wrong?  Perhaps the power and influence we should have over others should be a result of our example as disciples of Christ instead of an appeal to our priesthood authority.
-Just brainstorms I'm throwing out here--thanks for the thought-provoking question and commentary.
+:Just brainstorms I'm throwing out here--thanks for the thought-provoking question and commentary.
---[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 18:11, 20 Feb 2006 (UTC)
+:--[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 18:11, 20 Feb 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:11, 20 February 2006
Line 44:		Line 44:

	The question I posted--it is a real question for me. I don't really think I understand verse 41. Part of the answer I am sure has to do with the rest of the verse and the next few verses. I understand that the bishop and others have love, should be kind, etc. My experience is that Bishops are very concerned about the people in the ward, that they do show love and kindness etc. But it sort of seems that part of the influence and power they have in the ward, they have by virtue of their office in the priesthood. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer\|Matthew Faulconer]] 10:31, 10 Apr 2005 (CEST)		The question I posted--it is a real question for me. I don't really think I understand verse 41. Part of the answer I am sure has to do with the rest of the verse and the next few verses. I understand that the bishop and others have love, should be kind, etc. My experience is that Bishops are very concerned about the people in the ward, that they do show love and kindness etc. But it sort of seems that part of the influence and power they have in the ward, they have by virtue of their office in the priesthood. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer\|Matthew Faulconer]] 10:31, 10 Apr 2005 (CEST)
		+
		+	:Matthew, I like the exegesis you posted about this phrase. Not sure if this is common amongst other readers or not, but I've always read this the second way, that only = except. This second interpretation seems to negate the problem suggested/implied by your question above about a bishopric's power/influence over ward members. Also, on this reading, I think the list following ''only'' is set up in contrast to vv. 36-39 describing unrighteous dominion. Out of context, reading the ''only'' in v. 41 as ''except'' seems strange (or at least vague), but in light of vv. 36-39 the ''only'' carries more significance implying that the following list describes what ''should'' be occurring in contrast to what vv. 36-39 describe as ''should not'' be occurring.
		+
		+	:But thinking about your first interpretation is interesting--maybe there's something inherently diabolical about exerting power and influence over others b/c it goes against the pre-mortal plan of with its emphasis on free will. If "power" were the only word here, I could buy such a reading, but "influence" seems too benign a word to read it this way.
		+
		+	:However, in the preceding paragraph, you'll notice I used the word "exert" whereas the text uses the word "maintained". So, reading ''only'' in the first way you suggest, what if we change the emphasis to "maintain"--that is, it's OK to exert influence over others, but that influence should not be maintained. Even as a bishop, some influence is OK, but ultimately members should be influenced by God and personal revelation, not continue relying on their bishop (I'm thinking in a "spiritual advice" sense here, but this could apply in a physical/welfare sense too...).
		+
		+	I'm also a little puzzled by the wording "''by virtue'' of the priesthood". Could "by virtue" mean that it's not wrong to maintain power or influence over others, but appealing to a priesthood calling or office for such power/influence is wrong? Perhaps the power and influence we should have over others should be a result of our example as disciples of Christ instead of an appeal to our priesthood authority.
		+
		+	Just brainstorms I'm throwing out here--thanks for the thought-provoking question and commentary.
		+
		+	--[[User:RobertC\|RobertC]] 18:11, 20 Feb 2006 (UTC)