Talk:Moses 6:5-25

Of the list of priesthood possibilities

Definition of priesthood?

I like the parsing of several other possibilities for the priesthood here, Sean. I wonder, however, at the list of the more likely possibilities. I don't understand the reason for selecting some of those and leaving the others out. For example, the "book of remembrance" is explicitly stated in D&C 128 to be the power of the priesthood in all ages of the world. And the "appointed seed" business seems to be quite explicitly a question of priesthood in D&C 84:33-42. Teaching one's children to use this peculiar language seems to be a part of the patriarchal order, and it seems odd to leave it off. And, last of all, calling upon the name of the Lord seems especially to be a priesthood question, if not a rephrasing of the way you've defined priesthood in your first paragraph (the ability to act in the name of the Lord). This is not to say--not at all--that the ones you've selected are not more likely, but just to say that it is not clear why you have selected those. I'm interested in knowing why, and I think the selection comes across as somewhat arbitrary. Also, is the priesthood ever defined as the authority to act in the name of God in scripture? I can't think of any such instance. Wouldn't it be better to read a scripture like this as helping us to think of what priesthood is? --Joe Spencer 16:10, 13 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason I narrowed it down was to select items that most closely had some connection with the provided definition of the priesthood, which is more general I think than the one most people use when they try to interpret the scripture. However the definition I hear most people use when interpreting this passage is more specific than the one we hear from the prophets and apostles and generally ignores the context of the verse. However, reading the verse with the standard definition of the priesthood in mind, the reference doesn't seem to be so ambiguous and nebulous. It becomes a prophecy of some specific significance. However, I didn't want to just throw out the other possibilities as I considered that there may be a way of thinking of the priesthood that might encompass them, but it does not seem obvious what the connection might be. For example, it is possible that there might be some preisthood connection with teaching one's children to speak in the adamic language, I can think of at least one possible connections, that is that being a father and having authority to teach one's children might be considered a kind of priesthood authority in some sense. However, in that case we would consider all father's to have priesthood authority, and then perhaps mothers too, in that sense, and the definition perhaps becomes so vague as to be meaningless, so I left it out of the list as being, in my eyes, an unseeming candidate for being the referred to priesthood.

The possibility of using the verse to draw a definition from, to me seems problematic, as such a usage in the end results in a view of the passage which is, as you said, ultimately ambiguous. I'm not sure what the value of a definition gleaned from this passage might be, though I tried to leave open the possibility that there might be more to it than what the standard definition of the priesthood might suggest, though perhaps I didn't do that very well.

Perhaps calling upon the name of the Lord would be a good item to include, but to me it seemed more a right all men have, though not all exercise it, and that by exercising it, Seth and Enos were able to attain unto some priesthood. Surely there is some priesthood authority involved considering the holy ghost's position in things, so perhaps that could be intended as well, but I meant to highlight the items with the clearest connection. (Things that involved men quite possibly exercising an authority to act in God's name.)

I can see your point regarding the Book of Remembrance. To me it seemed tightly connected and in some ways indistinguishable from writing by the spirit of inpiration, but clearly D&C 128:6-10 makes a rather unique connection which seems likely to be of import to this passage.

Also, the most likely candidates for the referred to priesthood ("this" priesthood) would be possibilities that had just been referred to. I'll take a stab at some further modification.

I think the standard definition of the priesthood, as any word definition, is a good tool for helping to disect the text, though perhaps, as you suggest, the text will do some disecting of its own in the end.

--Seanmcox 21:00, 13 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Could it be that "calling upon the name of the Lord" is something that can only happen in the true order of prayer, making it clearly a function of priesthood? That may also be the only current context in which we teach any of the Adamic language. I've gone ahead and heavily edited this section of the commentary, perhaps stating things too absolutely. Feel free to edit, but I think it is better to explore how everything listed there in the first verses of this chapter can be seen as patriarchal priesthood functions. How they related to modern patriarchal priesthood practices may be a conversation for another time and place--Rob Fergus 00:41, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Good and interesting discussion here. I agree that it seems the scriptures talk about Priesthood in a ways that go beyond the conventional "authority to act in the name of God" definition. But I don't have a very good idea what the scriptures take priesthood to mean. The book of remembrance in D&C 128:7-8 is indeed an interesting and provocative section on priesthood. Also, the "appointed seed" idea from D&C 84 also seems important in Abr 1:2ff. It seems there is a significant connection between the Abrahamic Covenant and the priesthood, no? What do the scriptures teach us about the Priesthood? --RobertC 12:58, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC)

It might turn out that significant portions of the biblical scriptures were composed or redacted without a knowledge of patriarchal priesthood. If Margaret Barker is right, much of the modern bible reflects a post-temple theology, let alone a post Abrahamic/patriarchal priesthood worldview. I think that over the years we may have fragmented our views of priesthood to reflect a limited administrative type of approach, whereas it may have originally consisted of authorization to make all of one's' actions binding on earth as it is in heaven in order to maintain an eternal posterity. Look forward to seeing how we work this out.--Rob Fergus 16:37, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Well, this has become quite fruitful, for which I'm glad. Thanks for your responses Sean. They give me a better idea where you are coming from. In the end, I think Robert is right to suggest that verses such as these question the "working definition" of priesthood, and I'm very interested in following out this thread to see where it takes things. At the same time, I think your concerns about abstracting the priesthood to some sort of "general fatherhood" sort of thing are justified. The priesthood cannot be reduced to patriarchy. But there is a great deal more at work here than what we usually call "the priesthood." I'd like to pursue some of these questions with everyone else. I'm off to the temple here in just a minute, but that will probably only prepare me (excite me) the more to discuss some of these questions later on today. Onward... --Joe Spencer 17:34, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Too speculative?

I personally think too much liberty is being taken to throw out the standard definition for the sake of "the joy of speculation". There is so much solid Exegesis that could be written. I feel it a shame to ignore that in favor of pet theories and hobbies. It's too bad. :-/ The site really could have been useful, but I can't teach this kind of thing and it seems to be crowding out the things I might be able to use in a lesson.--Seanmcox 18:25, 16 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Sean, I'm sorry you feel this way. I don't want to jettison the standard definition of priesthood, but to look at that definition in a new light to see what we might have been missing by reifying it. Surely there is more to the priesthood, and to God's work, than our partial human understandings of it to date. Please feel free to stick around and tell us when you think we've gone to far afield. Nobody here is claiming to have any final answers.--Rob Fergus 20:07, 16 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Yet, the standard definition has been jettisoned here. I am pleased, however, to see that the final product here is better than it originally began. I must object however, that the standard definition of the priesthood does not "reflect a limited administrative type of approach". It is a very broad definition which clearly encompasses more than what one normally expects when hearing the word "priesthood". It seems to me in this case that you don't really understand the standard definition very well, rather than that it is likely to be too limited.

Also, in this case, there seems to be an immense futility in attempting to use these verses to redefine priesthood, as, without a definition of priesthood, one cannot tell what in these verses the priesthood is referring to and so we've redefined priesthood in terms of ambiguity. (Contrast this with my Exegesis here, where I use the verses to create a working definition for "labors".) I don't think deconstucting the priesthood without putting it back together again in a meaningful way is a particularly safe thing to do.

It bothers me to be going through the Exegesis and to come upon pet theories and speculation that question the standard more often than I find explanations that enhance understanding. (At least, that's what I've been finding recently as I meander through the book of Moses.) I can't use this kind speculation and I have only a very little interest in it.

Now it seems to me an appropriate thing (though, to me, it seems foolish nonetheless) to discuss these possibilities in a forum like this, but until you've gotten something meaningful out of it, insisting on ambiguity for an exegesis when there is a perfectly useful and applicable definition that creates no contradiction and presents no clear problem to the text (except that it doesn't fall in line with the popular speculation) seems to me to be a clear indication that "we've gone too far afield."

On a practical note, I find that the speculative Exegesis discourages me from adding anything more commonplace, but possibly insightful, as it is akin to a contradiction of the speculative theme. Thus, I feel that the speculation encroaches on the territory of good material.

--Seanmcox 22:51, 16 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Sean, we may be bumping up against the limitations of a tool like this, as I know I'm frustrated because I still am not sure what your major complaint is. If we could sit face to face and discuss it, I'm sure we could come to a better understanding. In the meantime, like I said, feel free to show us how you think your interpretations are better than what we've put up recently. For our part, I wonder how much of the ambiguity that you find off-putting is merely a function of our struggling, and still not finding yet, a clear way to express what we are thinking, and how our two ways of talking about these issues actually relate to each other.--Rob Fergus 23:19, 16 Nov 2006 (UTC)

(Can't figure out my major complaint?) My major complaint is that we are filling the Exegesis with speculation, pet theories, and hobbies and bumping out ideas that contradict the speculation. Did I not state that clearly? (I only made two points above. One was this one, and the other was also this one applied to this specific case.) --Seanmcox 00:59, 17 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't think anyone is really trying to advance pet theories here, I do think that Sean raises a good point that should be reflected on the commentary page. I tried to incorporate both views, though I'm not sure how successful I was.

I also think Sean's complaint raises a very interesting question about what the difference is between really pondering and searching the scriptures—feasting—on the one hand, and the kind of speculation that should be avoided on the other hand. I think "pet theories" and "hobbies" (isn't there some famous talk that uses these terms? I'd love to know the reference if anyone has it...) are terms that carry connotations we can and should avoid: namely advancing a theory that contradicts something Church leaders have said, and/or holding fast to a certain unofficial doctrine that we personally believe to be true without listening to what the scriptures and Church leaders have said regarding that doctrine.

What I think is harder to determine is what the focus of the site should be. At the one end of the spectrum, we could have a site that only addreses what Church leaders have said about particular scriptures (this is a great resource if you haven't seen it!). At another end of the spectrum, we could have a site that runs out of control with wild and reckless speculation by individuals about what the scriptures mean. I think it is inevitable that if we go beyond the former, we run the risk of the latter (though I think there is a third end of the spectrum that can reflect careful searching—though I'm not sure how this is technically/essentially different than sepculation, which is why I think the key word is actually "careful"...—of the scriptures). The trick is, I think, to go beyond the former and keep ourselves on guard against the latter by careful, prayerful, humble, and patient reading and pondering.

Although I agree that an Institute or Sunday school class might do well to focus on issues other than those being raised here--and in this sense perhaps the usefulness of the site is diminished in this dimension when searching is the focus rather than more succinct explanatory commentary is offered--I do not consider the issues being discussed here as "pet theories." Another issue I've been wondering about is whether there are things in the scriptures which should not be discussed in as public a forum as this one--I'm thinking here about passages where Book of Mormon writers were constrained from writing more, passages I've often interpreted as meaning that the ideas were "too sacred" to be discussed in an open forum. I'm not sure what to make of these concerns regarding the wiki, though I have often felt inspired as a teacher to steer discussion away from certain topics and toward certain topics. The difference of course is that here no one is ordained as the teacher....

Back to the issue at hand, I think it turns on how we understand the definition of Priesthood. I take it as a definition of Priesthood that clearly has merit (and a definition which I think, as Sean has accurately noted, has been often overlooked--that is, many think of Priesthood solely in terms of its function in wards and stakes, not the broader notion of acting in the name of God; clearly this "conventional" definition has rich meaning...). However, I don't consider it the definition of Priesthood. In general, I think the "pet theory" danger reaches its height when I approach the scriptures with a preconceived definition in mind. Although I appreciate the circularity problem that Sean has raised, my experience is the following: When I read about faith in the scriptures, I learn the most about faith if I try to read with a mind open to learning more about faith than I have previously known. If I try to force the scriptures about faith into my preconceived notion (definition) of faith, I feel I am not humbling myself to the scriptures, but wresting them.

I really appreciate the comments made by everyone on this passage (and elsewhere), and I think we benefit by having diverse perspectives. I hope you all continue to contribute! --RobertC 02:48, 17 Nov 2006 (UTC)

While I was writing some notes out, Robert went ahead and preempted some of them. Mine still apply though:

I think this whole question comes down to an ambiguity regarding the whole site--since we are speaking of ambiguities. The site might be understood on the one hand as a community of scriptural thinkers (Rob, etc.) and on the other hand as a tool or resource (Sean, etc.). I don't think either is wrong--and I don't think anyone in this conversation thinks either is wrong. Matthew himself has been quite explicit on the fact that he feels the site can be several things at once. However, I do think that to approach the site as a tool or resource is perhaps a few years too early (there are far better resources elsewhere, and we are far too few to change that any time soon). I personally get much more out of the site as a community than as a resource, in great part because I have a rather large library of my own with resources for most any question I will come across. And where nothing has yet been written, obviously this site wouldn't be likely to be much help.

I suppose what this little addition to the conversation amounts to, then, is a sort of plea for understanding, Sean. I hope you find things here to help you in teaching, but I have to confess that there are better resources for such things. I'd love to see you bring things from these other resources to the site, so that discussion can proceed all the time in a better manner (better: more in accordance all the time with the truth, with the will of God). But I think everyone involved with the site has to recognize that we are hardly so many professionals. We are rather so many people interested in thinking about the scriptures. Most of what I, for example, post is written in the process of thinking out a scripture for which I can find no real resource. I write things in my stream of consciousness approach, and others do a wonderful job in drawing out problems in it, cleaning it up, and shortening what becomes, in the writing process, too wordy. But that is precisely what the community is for.

I admit that I look forward to a day when this site is comprehensive enough to be a resource for others. In the meanwhile, I think we all have to be somewhat patient with each other. The scriptures are filled with possibilities, and there are (and I think there should be) just as many ways to read any given verse as there are people in this Church. I should hope we can rejoice in each other's company in the process of thinking the scriptures. To do any less is, in the end, terrestrial. But to worship God and to do it together in the bonds of charity is to enjoy the companionship I anticipate in the Celestial Kingdom. Anyway, a thought or two. --Joe Spencer 03:15, 17 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Another issue implicit in all of this

The discussion may--and probably ought--to continue in the direction it has gone to this point, so I make a separate heading to offer another way of thinking about all of these questions. I spent some time thinking hard about these questions last night, and I think I was able to see some things--very broadly--about what is at work here. And I think that there may be two very different conceptions of truth at work here.

On the one hand, the "true" might be understood as a statement or proposition that corresponds with some actual state of affairs. On this understanding, "truth" is a question of a sort of correspondence between what is said (as on the exegesis pages here) and how things are, were, and are to come. This point of view reads truth essentially as a subset of the larger category of "possible propositions," a category that divides into the subsets "true," "false," and perhaps "non-assertive" (a third category that could further be broken down into subsets such as "poetic," "imperative," and the like). The "true," in other words, is here taken as a sort of limitation on propositions, perhaps as a sort of ethical demand about what can and cannot be said (ethical in the sense that Wittgenstein's Tractatus was ethical). If "truth" is understood in these terms, then there seems to be reason to be upset or at least concerned whenever propositions are made that do not, according to the required rigor, correctly correspond to states of affairs. That is, those who love the "truth" have a sort of duty to do battle against--perhaps even to eliminate--"false" propositions; and they have a right--perhaps even a responsibility--to be annoyed with "non-assertive" propositions, because they try to accomplish indirectly what a "true" statement can say quite simply (is this what is sometimes behind the common frustration with Isaiah, for example?). Speaking quite broadly, this view of "truth" regards it as a restriction or understands it as concerned with propositional impossibilities ("truth" is what excludes those other propositions from rightly undertaken discourse).

On the other hand, "truth" might be understood, as in D&C 93:24, as "knowledge of things as they are", etc. I have italicized a number of words in this phrase so as to recognize how carefully worded it is. If "truth" is a question of "knowledge," it might well be taken right out of the realm of language--or at least out of the realm of language understood as a collection of propositions. That is, because knowledge is a direct engagement of a thing (yd' in Hebrew just means to relate to something directly--this is why it can refer to human sexuality and can even imply covenant--as does the Greek gnosis from which our "knowledge"--g/k-n/n-o/o, etc.--comes directly; for those who know any spanish, "know" is cognate with "conocer," which means to be acquainted directly with something, to have engaged or met it), it oustrips language as so many propositions (propositions may well be spoken in such an engagement, but they do not make up the engagement itself). This knowledge is of "things," actual stuff, not propositions, but things in the world (I'll take it that this can refer to people as well): "truth" is one's actual engagement with actual stuff. But "truth" is this engagement with things only "as they are" (were, are to come). It is not, then, to know them abstractly (in, perhaps, propositions), but to know them as they stand, as they are, as they play themselves out in the world. "Truth" is not knowledge of concepts or of objects, but of things as they exist in the world complex, as they move about and interrelate and so forth. And that is the literal meaning of the verb "to be," anyway: to relate, to enter into relation with other things (this is the meaning of Shakespeare's famous "to be, or not to be" speech: do I retreat from all relation, or do I thrust myself into the flux of the world, of this situation?). On this reading, "truth" is a relational thing, a question of relationship or of engagement, even intimacy, rather than a question of "correct" propositions. And here, I don't see how "truth" can be a subset at all: it is simply knowledge of things as they are, and hence, it is a sort of infinity of possible situations where one might find oneself. In other words, "truth" seems here to be what opens linguistic possibilities, rather than what limits them. Whereas "truth" as correct propositions places an ethical limit on possible propositions, "truth" as knowledge of things as they are opens up an infinity of possible things to say. Any given situation can be described infinitely, from an infinite number of standpoints, in an infinite number of idioms, through an infinite number of metaphors, etc. In short, "truth" here is what frees all linguistic possibilities, rather than what limits them.

It seems to me that the latter of the two ways of reading "truth" is what is at work in the scriptures, and not only because I've gleaned it from D&C 93. That the New Testament variously reads prophecies from the Old Testament (sometimes while performing visible violence on the strict meaning of the text); that four gospels describe the same event in radically different terms; that the Book of Isaiah even exists; that the Book of Mormon reinterprets Nephi's promise in 1 Ne 2:20ff over and over and over again; that the Doctrine & Covenants can redefine entirely a word like "eternal"; that Joseph can retranslate the same Bible verse five times over differently each time; that the prophets have since then contradicted each other in most everything they've said; all of this suggests that truth is not--at least in the LDS tradition--understood as a rigid qualification of propositions (this would be the most absurd religion of all, it seems to me). When Hugh Nibley was asked in 1990 about something he had written on the papyri in the 1960's, he replied that he wouldn't be held accountable for anything he had written "before two years ago." The point is simple: truth is a question of where we are, and what is going on right now, and how things are before us. Truth is wherever the Spirit leads, even if it contradicts everything that has ever been said, even if it undoes everything that has been said, even if it suggests something ridiculous or speculative or even poetic. Truth is right now. And right then. And in the future. But I can't escape the fact that when I read the truth of back then (that is, when I read the scriptures), that truth is complicated by another truth: I am knowing the book in front of me, just as the prophet it describes knew things as they were then. That truth encountering truth engenders words, commentaries and thoughts and interpretations that have to be updated, have to be rethought through, etc.

Now, I recognize at least two objections that might be made to all of this. First, it might be argued that this is a sort of relativism. In a sense, that is right. If to say that my engagement with things (and with Things: God, Christ, the Spirit, the sacrament, the temple, etc.) is ultimately the truth, rather than what I say about those things, then one is bound to a sort of relativism. Maybe better, a "relationalism," a recognition that the truth is primary a question of the relationships that make up the world. But this seems insuperable. Second, it might be pointed out that on this reading of truth, it is no longer clear what "false" would mean. Two responses occur to me. First, the scriptures do not seem to be concerned with "falsity." Only a few scriptures mention "false doctrine" at all. It is hardly the burden of the scriptures. Second, "false," when it does appear in the scriptures, most often means something like "unfaithful," someone who betrays a (covenant) relationship, like a false friend, a false spouse, etc. To be false is to be unfaithful, to cut of relations, etc. And this double response to the second objection amounts to a response to the first objection: if the "false" is what destroys relations, then it might be best to maintain a sort of "relationalism," or even a "relativism." To allow God to take me up as His relative is precisely the burden of the scriptures: "thus may all become my sons." Regardless of what God is conceptually, it is in my being bound to Him that I will find salvation. Within that binding relationship, He can quite easily teach me to speak correctly (is this what is ultimately at work in these first verses of Moses 6?), to read and to write. But He can never do so without the covenant. If I decide in advance that I have got to get to propositions, I might, for the sake of linguistic correctness, be false to God, and then I have nothing in the world. In other words, all is relative, that is, all is relative to Him. Whatever He says--be it "false" or whatever--is right. (This, incidentally, is what seems to be missing in projects like the New Mormon History--Dialogue, Signature, etc.--that if Joseph was a prophet, then whatever he did was right, even if it looks to us now like he was "lying"; Abraham was commanded to dissemble....) In the end, it is my relation--my own relativity--to God that matters above all. And only in that community can the Spirit dwell (the old words for Spirit in the Western languages means precisely that something more that exists when two or more people commune, as in the "spirit of the meeting," etc.). If the "Spirit of truth is of God," then we shall encounter it only when we face Him in a very real relation of knowledge: "this is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God [the only God who actually is, and who maintains a faithful relationship], and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Now, to bring all of this back into the pragmatic realm.... Isn't this site more fundamentally a community of worshippers than it is a project to bring together a collection of the most correct propositions about scripture possible? Isn't this a place for so many people who know or are trying to know God to come together in community, to think together, to allow one another to open possibilities for thinking (read: speaking) about the God we know? Isn't the point to become so many angels crying to one another "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts, for the whole earth is full of his glory"? If it isn't, then I have been terribly mistaken over the past months, because I have so regarded it from the very beginning. I think I have learned a great deal communing here, and I hope to learn a great deal more. My prayers over this project are not that more people will come to make a great resource here, but that more people will come because they desire to think/thank God in a genuine community of charity, because I want to worship with them. My thanks go to Matthew who has brought something into being here, a place of so many relations (being) where we can know each other as we seek to know God. It is my constant prayer that every institute and seminary class, every church meeting, every study group, etc., is the same in this Church: a place for communion and worship. These are, at least, my humble thoughts on the matter. --Joe Spencer 15:34, 17 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Joe, as you know I have very similar views as you express here. I'll make a few more specific comments at the D&C 93:24 page(s). --RobertC 22:56, 17 Nov 2006 (UTC)

---

Even if we may disagree on several points, our work and discussion represent the fact that we take the scriptures seriously--that we care about them and want to learn from them. So long as we keep away from contention, our discussion of the scriptures is a great thing. To date, we have done a good job of avoiding contention in a medium where, as Rob Fergus points out, it is easy to misunderstand one another.

This is a good discussion with so many points I agree with I won't try to comment on them all. It touches on several related issues I have been thinking about since the discussion on Talk:Moses 5:56-59.

Related to Joe's points above, I think one might ask: "is the purpose of the site primarily for the benefit of the editors/contributors or is it primarily for the benefit of the readers?" My view on this is that it will be to everyone's benefit the most if the editors/contributors have as their aim to create commentary valuable for readers.

Also there is a related question which we maybe should discuss and that is how "bold" (to borrow the word used on wikipedia) editors should be. Very bold means when an editor disagrees with something on the commentary page they just change it on the spot, even if it is a big change (e.g. maybe deleting the whole discussion if it doesn't belong). The next "very bold" person then reverts it. Less bold means if you want to make a very large change you bring it up on the discusssion page and try to get buy-in there before changing anything. I am not sure it matters too much exactly where on that continuum the community sits but I do think it causes some conflict when different people have different expectations.

PS To get back to the discussion related to Moses 6:6-10--Sean, what do you think of the commentary at this point?

--Matthew Faulconer 16:45, 17 Nov 2006 (UTC)

I'm feeling pretty good with things the way they are. though I was hoping to make some further comment regarding the significance of Adam's prophecy as indicating, at the very least, that the gifts of prophecy and the receiving of revelation (specifically, the writing of authoritative scripture) were activities that were to be in existence at the end of the world. (This being a part of the important theme in our church of continuing revelation and the expectation of yet further scripture.) I'm not exactly sure how to work it in. I kind of felt to make a synthesis of it, but I'm considering now making it into a separate comment on the same verse. --Seanmcox 23:27, 17 Nov 2006 (UTC)