Site talk:SS lessons/DC lesson 22

From Feast upon the Word ( Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
Jump to: navigation, search

This page allows you to see in one place the talk pages associated with the commentary pages for the reading assignment for this Doctrine & Covenants Gospel Doctrine lesson. Click on the heading to go to a specific page. Click the edit links below to edit text on any page.

Talk:1 Cor 3:16-20

Talk:1 Cor 3:16-20

Talk:1 Cor 6:16-20

Talk:1 Cor 6:16-20

Talk:D&C 59:16-20

Talk:D&C 59:16-20

Talk:D&C 88:121-125

Talk:D&C 88:121-125

Talk:D&C 89:1-5


Hi, I removed part of your question related to being overweight and the Word of Wisdom. I did this to eliminate what some might interpret as a criticism against some members of the church. Hopefully this revision focuses the question more on the scriptures themselves. Note that my reason for removing the part of the question that seemed to critizice members of the church who misread the Word of Wisdom and use it to falsely judge others is not that I disagree with your claim, but rather, simply that I think we are best off by focusing on the scriptures themselves. --Matthew Faulconer 16:13, 10 Aug 2005 (CEST)

I disagree but I won't press the issue. I didn't realize until just now that these pages only cover 5 verses... when I clicked on D&C and on 'section 89', i thought I was heading to a page about the whole section... this should be changed somehow, preferably by having another list come up when I click on 'section 89'. I'm not even sure now how I'm going to get to the page one of my questions was moved to...
Just click on the link that says "Next" and the next portion of the section will come up. Eric 22:48, 10 Aug 2005 (CEST)
I agree that the Next Previous links are confusing--especially for those who get to the scriptures by drilling down through the links (e.g. clicking "Doctrine and Covenants" then "Section 89.") There is an enhancement on the queue to add a page with verse links (e.g. 1-5, 6-10) for each chapter/section so that users don't have to click Next, Next, Next, Next to get verse 26. I haven't gotten around to implementing that. In the meantime the easiest way to get to a specific verse is to type its reference (e.g. D&C 89:14) in the search box. I hope this helps. --Matthew Faulconer 07:05, 11 Aug 2005 (CEST)

On the question, "Is it a sin to be overweight?" (Note for full disclosure: I am very significantly overweight myself, and it ain't glandular.) Being overweight is a condition: righteousness is about behavior (including behavior of thought). This condition results from some combination of many factors, not all of which are understood. In most of us, though, overweight results from patterns of behavior which are unrighteous, or at least suboptimal. One such cause is gluttony, to use an old word, which seems to me to be tied in with selfishness and ingratitude. In food, as with other things, the notion seems to be that the Lord gives us things which he expects us to use in the right way and in appropriate amounts and balance. --Rpederse 12:38, 17 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a fascinating topic. I do think there that sometimes—but not all the time—there are changeable behaviors associated with being overweight that are related to righteousness. But I think gluttony is the smaller issue compared to the larger issues that it is often used to symbolize. (For example, the gluttony depicted in Isa 28:1ff, though I'm sure there are much better scriptural examples....) Also, I think it interesting that gluttony is a sin that often has visible side effects (e.g. obesity), whereas the sins more frequently and vehemently condemned in the scriptures do not have as effects that are as obvious to others. These are definitely topics I'd like to explore more.... --RobertC 09:34, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this today, and feel (as I often do) that I'm seeing the shadow of an important principle out of the corner of my eye. It seems to be that there's a principle of "Take enough, but not more than enough" that lies behind many of the commandments. When the Lord blesses us with food, we're welcome to partake, and do so joyfully. Over-partaking, though, smacks of gluttony and greed. We're not asked to be entirely unconcerned about our appearance: it's desirable to be "neat and comely", but "costly apparel" often indicates avarice and pride. Within the bounds the Lord has set, sexuality is an appropriate expression of love, without the taint of sin some faiths ascribe to any sexual act. The righteous seeking of knowledge and wisdom can become the damning greed of a Faust or the spiritual blindness resulting from "looking beyond the mark" for "things they could not understand." (Jacob 4:14) Even our holiest desires can go out of bounds: Alma desires to preach the gospel with mighty power (Alma 29:1-2), but understands "but behold...I do sin in my wish." In many things, we're learning to take what we need, and be content with only what we need.--Rpederse 02:00, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

On a related note. I think we should delete the overweight question. To me the answer is clear, no. D&C 89 isn't about being overweight, nor is it about gluttony. Any concerns with deleting this from here? Note that doesn't mean someone shoudln't add commentary about gluttony to scriptures about gluttony. --Matthew Faulconer 05:20, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with deleting the question, and indeed this whole discussion. Even though I've participated vigorously, I've been aware that the relevence of my comments to the understanding of this section of scripture is pretty tenuous. Been fun, though! --Rpederse 03:22, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)
well maybe we can find a scripture about gluttony to move some comments about gluttony to there. In the meantime, I'll delete the question but not for now the discussion here. --Matthew Faulconer 04:51, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)
I've copied my comments, which I may want to explore further, to my talk page.--Rpederse 06:15, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)
I think one could argue that prudence in verse 11 raises the issue of gluttony, though it seems to be primarily referring to just fruit and herbs, depending on how one reads "all these things." Here is a list and discussion of Bible verses that pertain to gluttony. Notice several of the passages are in the OT wisdom writings, so I think one could also make a case that wisdom in verses 1, 2, 4 and 19 in the context of food refers indirectly to gluttony. Although this said, I think it's more interesting that gluttony does not seem to be mentioned in this section. It seems like a natural topic to include in a discussion of food and wisdom, so I think it's surprising that gluttony is not mentioned. I think this underscores the "weakest of the saints" phrase in verse 3 (i.e. perhaps it is not considered an important enough principle to be explicitly stated here where only instructions for the weakest of saints are mentioned? but on this view the later explanation about different grains for different animals etc. would seem a bit unjustified...). --RobertC 08:13, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

easier to follow?[edit]

I'm wondering about the last paragraph in the exegesis about the WoW being easier than some commandments b/c we can see the direct benefit ("if we eat right ... we're healthier"). Maybe I think the comment just needs a little rewording so it's more neutral in tone or less strong in its claim. After all, in many cultures tea is very common and considered very healthy--for new converts in these areas, the WoW is sometimes one of the hardest commandments to follow precisely b/c the health benefits are not obvious.... --Robert C. 19:13, 13 Aug 2005 (CEST)

I don't think it's saying that it's easy to follow, just that it's easier to see the benefits. I suppose one could argue the point to some extent, though, since moderate use of coffee and tea are close to harmless, and extremely limited use of alcohol might even be beneficial. This is getting off-topic, but I think it's too bad that the alcohol/tobacco/coffee thing receives so much attention in the Church, while we don't talk very much about limiting meat and emphasizing grains, which definitely would be healthy. I wouldn't say it's against the WoW per se to be overweight, but we collectively would be healthy to take all of the WoW more seriously. Off my soapbox for now ... Eric 05:45, 14 Aug 2005 (CEST)
Verse 3 suggests that it's easy in at least some senses. I think of what one might call the "temple recommend aspects" of the revelation are easy in a couple of senses. First, for most people, those things may be hard to achieve initially but not really be an issue afterwards. On some summer days, the sweetened teas people drink in this area look really good -- I'm a convert, and know the taste -- but it's sure not something I struggle with. Holding back irritation at the 98th interruption by my clerical person is MUCH harder.
Also, there's a straightforwardness about these principles. Learning full and complete honesty involves moving through layers of understanding, and is taking me decades. So the question "Am I honest?" is a little hard to answer, but "Do I drink alchoholic beverages?" is easy -- it's possible to be perfect in that thing. --Rpederse 01:12, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

a direction?[edit]

Okay, all of this sudden attention here at D&C 89 has got me excited to bury myself here for a bit (I can't seem to keep on any one project lately, but oh well). So I'll begin to post some thoughts here, even as I maintain (for a short while I'm sure) my work on the remnant and its implications for the Book of Mormon. Anyone game to join in? --Joe Spencer 13:37, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I really have this same problem--"I can't seem to keep on any one project lately." Thoug in my case I don't think it just affects me lately. On the other hand, it is kind of nice to come back to a half-finished discussion several months later and take it up again. Anyway, in this case, I'm happy to join in, if I end up with anything to say. I like what you wrote up. One side question: I look at how many parts of the scriptures point to the temple and am surprised. In each instance it does seem to point to the temple. Taken as a whole I wonder if: a) really the temple is all over writings of the scriptures or b) we are biased toward interpretting the scriptures in relation to the temple because the temple is so important to us. I have thought about this mainly in related to Alma 13:1-5. I never would have guessed that was related to the temple but now the relationship seems so obvious (I think Rob Fergus was the one to suggest it). --Matthew Faulconer 14:27, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)
Joe, you know that I have been rather excited about the Word of Wisdom after arguing with a few members regarding caffeinated drinks. I have been studying at night (I don't have that much free time) but I will include some of my findings to this thus far. I'm excited to contribute my thoughts towards one of the greatest gifts that the Lord has given insight to his Wisdom. --document 18:57, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)
Matthew, I've almost come to think that we can't understand the scriptures at all without an understanding of temple worship. Since most members don't talk about temple symbols or worship outside of the temple, its hard to know exactly how many members also see the importance of the temple in understanding the scriptures, or how much temple imagery they find there. Fascinating question. Would love to hear other perspectives on this.--Rob Fergus 18:05, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with Rob on this point. Perhaps it's a consequence of reading Nibley's work, but I can't read anything in the scriptures without turning rather quickly to the temple. The temple is the center of everything, it is the ordinance that orders the gods, and it runs through every moment and thought I find in the scriptures. So I totally agree that "I've almost come to think that we can't understand the scriptures at all without an understanding of temple worship." Anyway, I think we have to bury ourselves in that question of all questions. --Joe Spencer 20:49, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping to see lots of commentary tying scripture passages to the temple—not having read all that much Nibley (or Margaret Barker), I think I'm less inclined to read this way. So please use me as an excuse to comment on what might seem painfully obvious to you. --RobertC 00:43, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Two questions concerning verse 3[edit]

I'm trying to decide how to read the word "principle" here (I've spent the last twenty minutes writing and erasing my thoughts on it on the commentary page). See Webster's in 1828 on the word. The term seems to have been mostly a scholarly term at the time, used primarily by philosophers and scientists. That this revelation drags it in here is certainly interesting (especially in light of how seldomly it appears in scripture before this point--twice in the NT, once in the BoM, and only twice before this revelation in the D&C). I'm not sure where to begin. I like Webster's fourth, sixth, and seventh definitions. Of course, all eight definitions are not too far from each other. Perhaps the word should be read etymologically (making "principle" a question of something that gets things started, a "beginning"). Any thoughts?

Second, I deleted two paragraphs from the exegesis already posted, mostly because they were general comments that had nothing to do with verse 3. I'm wrestling with the remaining three paragraphs there. Especially, perhaps with the interpretation of the Word of Wisdom as easier to follow than the Law of Moses. That doesn't seem to me to be true at all! The more rules, the easier to follow, it seems to me. Every increase of freedom amounts to a further relativization of the points where freedom is "lacking." If one grew up in a civilization where everyone was obeying an incredibly detailed health code, it would be the easiest thing in the world to maintain it. If the Word of Wisdom is harder than other health codes to live, then shouldn't the phrase "adapted, etc." be reinterpreted in the following way: the revelation would just have provided a principle with promise, but specific rules have been added so that it is somewhat easier to follow for the weak and the weakest of all saints? The spirit of the law always requires far more strength than the letter of the law. So it seems to me. Thoughts? --Joe Spencer 14:10, 20 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? --Joe Spencer 14:30, 23 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I haven't responded yet because what I have to say is more about what I don't know. But anyway, here goes.
I have no clue what principle means in this context. I do think it is critical to the question of harder vs easier to follow. Does principle mean something that cannot be reduced to a set of strict rules? If so, that would indicate a certain direction.
Thinking about living the word of wisdom as a pre-condition to enter the temple...Suppose I interpret the it as simply a set of prohibitions (don't smoke, don't drink alcohol, etc) then it does seem like that set of prohibitions is easier than the set introduced in the law of Moses. (I have a small kitchen and doubling the set of pots and pans I have would be a challenge.) If instead we think of the word of wisdom as meaning much more than that--as (and here the word comes again) living its principles vs simply obeying a few prohibitions--in that case it may be that this law is harder than the Law of Moses, if we think of the Law of Moses as a set of prohibitions--which we shouldn't.
I'm getting off topic. This isn't about whether the Word of Wisdom is easier or harder than the Law of Moses, but rather what it means that it is easier than it would be had it not been adapted to the weakest saints. I like your answer that maybe the adaption is the introduction of specific rules. The thing I am getting stuck on is, if living the WofW means more than simply obeying a set of prohibitions, then how does providing a set help the weakest saint live it? Might the specific prohibitions become a distraction from the principles?
--Matthew Faulconer 15:13, 23 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Might they? Haven't they? --Joe Spencer 15:36, 23 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I like what you posted in terms of "for the weakest of all saints" meaning "to protect the weakest of saints." For me the word I can't make sense of is adapted. Perhaps this was originally given as a principle instead of a commandment b/c principles are more adaptable than commandments in the sense that each person can apply a principle to their capacity/ability instead of the more one-size-fits-all nature of a commandment. Regardless, I think the word principle connotes more adaptability than commandment which I think means it's more readily relevant both for the weakest and for the strongest of saints (although it's interesting that only the weakest are explicitly mentioned—is this because the strongest will more readily see the relevance and the weakest need the reminder?). Or perhaps it is better to consider the "with a promise" the adaptation—that is, the promise is what has been adapted for the weakest.
Actually, I think the adaptation is the way that the principle is explained. That is, there is a general principle of temperance, wisdom etc. at work here. But, since the weakest have a particularly difficult time understand how this principle applies in matters of health, eating, drinking etc., the explication of this principle is such that it will help the weakest understand the application. I think this view complements what Joe was saying about protecting the weakest of saints.
Well, those are my jumbled thoughts at this point anyway.... --RobertC 00:31, 24 Oct 2006 (UTC)
Joe, I like how you addressed these issues in verse 3. I'm still curious to see how you tie in the temple themes throughout the section. I can see how you might take a "stewardship over the earth" approach, which is perhaps why there is so much in the temple about the creation of the earth. But somehow I think you've got (or the section has got) some unanticipated twists up your sleeve which I can't wait to see unveiled. (Don't bother groaning for that one, consider it heard.) --RobertC 15:14, 24 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility as to "adapted" (v3)[edit]

A couple of weeks ago, I made a series of changes to bring my eating into much greater harmony with the teachings of this chapter: a reduction in meat (my choice was to give it up entirely, at least for the time being) and much greater consumption of fruits and vegetables. And I've been surprised at how much better I feel: not only in the overall sense that I hoped for, but also in how I feel after meals.

One of our duties here in mortality is to learn to accept the good and reject the evil. Part of how we do this is through learning what genuinely makes us feel good, what makes us truly happy. We learn to look past the clamorous demands of the natural man for short-term gratification and learn what is genuinely "nourishing". We learn that keeping the commandments brings us joy, and that sin (which never was happiness) harms us: that's why it's sinful.

An example of what I'm trying to get at: A spiritually attuned person doesn't shy away from raucousness and rude speech from an intellectual knowledge of its inappropriateness but because it makes him or her uncomfortable, even pained. Others not so far down the road need the commandments to teach them not to indulge in such behavior themselves: this commandment is in a sense a crutch, a temporary measure to help us get to the point when we no longer need it because we reject such things of our own knowledge.

To bring it back to the temporal (sort of) and the Word of Wisdom, perhaps it's like this: perhaps if we had both full awareness of our bodies, the affects of what we ate, and a knowledge of how what we might eat would affect us, we would no more eat a 24-oz porterhouse than we would drink sour milk -- there would be no need to teach us that it would be bad. (In times of famine, we'd eat it to stay alive, just as the Scandinavian ancestors of meny of the people from my original home in central Iowa ate lutefisk *shudder*.) But, because we've got that ol' natural man to deal with, and because "conspiring men" are trying to lead us into poor choices, we need to be taught about which foods are good for us (i.e., will make us feel genuinely good) and which aren't. So we're given wisdom, guidance as to the ways of eating that will bless us temporally and spiritually.

It's a thought... --User:Rpederse

I think this amounts, in the end, to the same interpretation I've offered on the commentary page, and I invite you to see if you can't work it into the commentary so that this comes out somewhat more clearly. But I think this is precisely what is meant there: anyone who grasps the principle will know how to handle oneself temporally so as to reap the incredible blessings in verses 18-21, but one who does not grasp the principle gets the adapted rules listed here. So, I whole-heartedly agree. --Joe Spencer 13:59, 26 Oct 2006 (UTC)
I agree. however, I don't feel like I can pull the picture together completely. As I tried to explain (not very clearly) above here is my hang-up. How can we say that the introduction of specific rules makes it easier to live the word of wisdom if just living those specific rules doesn't constitute living the WoW and (as seems to be the case) by having the specific rules many of us confuse obeying the specific rules with living the WoW? Wouldn't it be easier to follow the word of wisdom then if we didn't have the specific rules to get distracted by?
Maybe I am making too big a deal out of what can be resolved easily by say "yes Matthew in that sense it is harder but in other ways it is easier and it was to achieve the sense in which it is easier that the revelation was adapted by giving specific rules. Here is an example of how the specific rules makes it easier for the weak--at least the weak don't become addicted to alcohol since even if no prohibition were given in the WoW, you couldn't both be addicted to alcohol and live the WoW and so since it is easier for someone not addicted to alcohol to live the WoW than it is for someone who is addicted to stop drinking alcohol and starting living the WoW, the specific principles help the weak." So that is how I think the problem should be resolved but I would appreciate others explicitly agreeing if they think that is right.
One more thing. I think I have heard two interpretations of principle. One is not a commandment; the other is not governed by specific rules. In my mind principle here means one thing or the other but not both. Which one is it? Or does it really mean both and I'm not getting the connection.
--Matthew Faulconer 03:57, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)
Check out the " Unabridged" definitions at #1 is probably what's meant here: I'm glad you raised this point, Matthew, because I've been reading #2, and now think that's incorrect. Reading it as #2 would produce the reading you describe as "not governed by specific rules", and that's a little bothersome, because the Lord's about to provide some specific rules/guidance. Reading #1 renders "principle with a promise" into "dietary guidance with associated blessings".
After doing some research, I've prepared two paragraphs on how/when the Church accepted this section as a commandment, with the special emphasis on tea/coffee/tobacco/alcohol. Would including this material be in keeping with the project? I ask, because I don't remember coming across such commentary elsewhere.
I went ahead and added this. While my sense is that "Feast Upon the Word" is focused on learning what the text itself tells us, historical information is necessary to show why the revelation's role in the Church is so different from what the text seems to suggest.
Joe, I will look at how I can work the above thoughts into the commentary.
----Rpederse 05:42, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)
Matthew, I think I agree with how you've discussed the rules being easier in one sense but harder in another. But the text doesn't seem to raise the question of what's easier or harder, so I don't put much stock in either view. However, I do think you give a good account of how the rules given are an adaptation of the Word of Wisdom principle that protects the weak (or something like that...).
Regarding principle being a rule vs. not a commandment, I lean (contra Rpederse) toward the "not a commandment rule" meaning. In my comments above (several sections above...) I think I used "commandment" when I meant "rule." I think the adaptation of the principle is precisely the rules specifying how the larger principle can be applied to health in a way that protects the weakest of saints. And I think the word adaptation is significant in that scripture can't simply say "this is an application of the principle" without actually changing the principle in some fundamental way. For one thing, the principle is changed/adapted for the reasons that we've been discussing: it becomes easier in some ways to follow the specific rules, but in other ways it becomes harder to focus on the larger principle and the spirit of what the rules do not reveal. --RobertC 12:06, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure RobertC and Rpederse disagree? It seems you both are saying you lean toward reading principle as in contrast to commandment.
Rpderse, feel free to write whatever exegesis you think makes sense and if someone else feels differently they can move it. Or, if you don't think what you would write belongs in the exegesis section then you can put it on a user sub-page. --Matthew Faulconer 14:15, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)
Robert, you've forced me (yet again) to read the text closer. We have too easily drawn the discussion into questions of easier/harder, when the text states things in terms of adaptation/weakness. I can see what "we" were thinking in reading the easy/hard distinction into the question of weakness, but I think you're right to question this connection. I want to make sure I'm following what you are trying to say, and I want to see how it comes up against Matthew's repeated concern, so here goes...
The key is this "principle... adapted" business. As a principle, the Word of Wisdom is "not a commandment." As adapted, the Word of Wisdom is a "set of rules." Hence, as a principle adapted, the Word of Wisdom is "not a commandment, but rendered as a set of rules." There is, in short, a sort of transposition at work in the revelation: the principle is, as a set of rules, reduced, perhaps caricatured, or even (is this too much?) inverted (made into its own negative). It is as if the Word of Wisdom parallels the historian's view of the translation of the Book of Abraham (a view I don't hold, by the way): one Egyptian sign from the Book of Breathings becomes a whole paragraph in the Book of Abraham; one principle becomes, in translation, a whole set of rules. Are we then treating "principle" like "concept" in the Hegelian sense? In other words, is the "principle" some overall "grasp" on things that actualizes itself by pouring its spiritual plenitude into the temporal realm so as to go through all of its temporal (historical) moments (so many rules) on its way back to its absolution as a principle? Whoops, that got too technical. I hope it was understandable, though. The point is this: is this difficulty Matthew senses here the impossibility of so many temporal "examples" of the principle ever gathering themselves back up into the absolution of the principle, which lies discreetly beyond a veil? But then we are all agreed that that is alright, because the point of this adaptation that cannot undo itself is to allow those who would otherwise be taken in by conspiring men in these last days to maintain something of a happy and healthy life? I think this is what all of this leads me to. I confess I like it, but I'm not convinced we've quite got it yet.
In short, then, our understanding seems to me to be, so far, this: the principle is something any well attuned saint should grasp (through the body's attention to the Spirit), but because we have these well-meaning weak saints among us, who are too easily fooled by conspiring men to subject their bodies to enslavement, the principle will be translated as a "word of wisdom" that gives those weak/weakest saints a few rules of thumb, some "training wheels" in the meanwhile, so that eventually they can attain to attunement. (This reading would, I think, make good sense of the title "Word of Wisdom," since the phrase is elsewhere a gift of the Spirit that seems to be one's ability to translate principles into the practical language of the weak/weakest.) Is this where we are, then? --Joe Spencer 14:31, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)
Matthew, sorry for the confusion, I meant "rules" when I said "commandments" above (I put a strikethrough correcting this mistake). I'll make my 15-month-old son the scapegoat here—in fact, please assume any of my bad edits here are his fault (after all isn't he a "free" scapegoat until he's under 8 yrs old?).
Joe, please give me credit—and not my son—for any insights you reached because of my mistyping. I agree with your view of principle. I have a very minor quibble about the meaning of "word of wisdom." I think "wisdom" refers to the principle itself more than the adaptation of the principle as a set of rules (though I'm still confused by the wording "given for a principle" in v. 3). Perhaps this is not different than what you mean, I just think it is important in reading the rest of the rules subsequently given, to not read them as just adapted rules, but as specific rules which are the manifestations (adaptations) of an underlying principle. That is, the word of wisdom is a principle, but it is presented to the saints as an adapted set of rules for the weakest of saints—however, it is the principle of the word of wisdom that is most closely related to the "order" and "will" of verse 2, not the adapted set of rules. Therefore, in order to obtain the promise, we must seek to understand the principle ("a principle with promise"!), not just follow the set of rules given. --RobertC 21:12, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)


I revised the very beginning of verse 1 commentary and deleted the following:

As originally recorded in the Kirtland Revelations Book, this revelation began with the phrase "A Revelation for the benefit of the saints." The 1835 edition, which begins with "A Word of Wisdom", may have partially obscured the nature of this section as a revelation. However, the current section heading explicitly states this section is a revelation, making it clear that the voice here is the Lord's and not Joseph's.

I found it an interesting historical aside but not directly relevant to the exegesis since, as the text itself says, the point that the voice here is the Lord's is made clear in the heading. However, because I did find it an interesting historical point I wasn't sure if maybe it does belong somewhere. Not having a good idea of where, I'm noting it here. --Matthew Faulconer 04:13, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Talk:D&C 89:6-10

Talk:D&C 89:6-10

Talk:D&C 89:11-15

Talk:D&C 89:16-21

Talk:D&C 89:16-21

For efficiency this page is pulled from a cached copy. The cache should update about once a day. If you'd like to see the most up to date version, refresh the cache by clicking here.