Talk:D&C 85:1-12

D&C 85, quite broadly

I'm coming to believe that this little section is quite simply the most important revelation in the D&C for understanding the meaning of Joseph's revelations. I'm wondering if anyone else would like to tackle it line by line with me. --Joe Spencer 15:50, 17 April 2007 (CEST)

What do you have in mind, Joe? I'm not really sure how far we can get with this section--it would seem to be pretty far off the radar for most modern Saints.--Rob Fergus 18:40, 17 April 2007 (CEST)

I agree it's off the radar, but I think that's because we don't understand it, and b/c I think there's a tendency to get bogged down speculating about who the mighty and strong one is in a way that usually devolve into talking about 'the signs of the times' and all the rumors we've heard about such-and-such General Authority saying such-and-such in a way that surely means there will be a big catastrophe occurring within X number of weeks or months. And in the midst of such discussion, I tend to feel guilty for not understanding the scripture well enough myself to offer a better reading. So count me in. --RobertC 19:48, 17 April 2007 (CEST)

I'll get started on this tomorrow morning. I'm eager to get into it, since I'm pretty convinced that it suggests that the Second Coming is happening seventeen days from now. More seriously (than that!), my aim is just to take it up line by line. I think it is actually quite easy to see who Joseph understood the "mighty and strong" one to be, and that's primarily what interests me. --Joe Spencer 21:50, 17 April 2007 (CEST)

Looks great so far! --Matthew Faulconer 17:00, 20 April 2007 (CEST)

Lands of Inheritance

Not sure if this is the time and place to bring this up, but the whole idea of having a literal place of inheritance seems to have practically disappeared in our thinking. Whereas it seems like an important part of the covenant with Abraham and is a founding principle of the whole Book of Mormon accounts (both the Jaredite and Nephite experiences), Latter-day Saints don't seem to be expecting much on this front. I look forward to the commentary here, and wonder what others might have to say about this whole concept of having a literal place given to us by the LORD.--Rob Fergus 18:39, 23 April 2007 (CEST)

Merely human (v. 7)?

I'm following with fascination, Joe, sorry I don't have much to add. A question though: what do you mean by the mighty and strong one not being "merely human"? Would Isaiah in Isa 6 after his cleansing experience be more then "merely human" in the sense you mean? That is, is a mortal on God's errand "merely human" in the sense you mean? More specifically, I don't see anything (yet) to indicate whether this "might and strong" one would be a resurrected vs. non-resurrected being--but maybe I'm not seeing something you're getting at.... --RobertC 01:22, 26 April 2007 (CEST)

I should probably change that to "merely earthly." My emphasis is on the distinction between heavenly and earthly more than on human and god/angel (not that I sense too sharp a distinction between my two sets of distinctions). Thanks. --Joe Spencer 15:27, 26 April 2007 (CEST)

Whither next?

Great work, Joe. Again, sorry to be only be a bystander (but an enthusiastic one!) so far. Where to next? I'd be interested in trying to drum up some discusson of this on the blog (a la wik-blog-wiki)--thoughts? I'd be happy to start a blog post (I'm thinking a series of posts are due, not just one...), but I don't want to interfere with any plans you might have to do so. Just let me know. --RobertC 13:53, 3 May 2007 (CEST)

That would be just fine with me. I'm relatively happy with where things have gone, though it obviously needs some work (especially on verses 1-5 and the last couple of verses). I'd probably respond to your posts better than I would make up my own on this subject. So go ahead, and I'll be waiting... --Joe Spencer 15:28, 3 May 2007 (CEST)

Yes, I agree. Great work. I haven't been in the loop much for the last week or so. Now I'm back. I just rewrote verse 8. Please re-revise as you think is best. One question I have here is how to make sense of this verse (and verse 7) as part of a letter to William Phelps. Is the warning of verse 8 directed to William himself? If so, what is he being warned against doing? If not, if this is to some of the other saints, what are they being warned against? Any ideas anyone? --Matthew Faulconer 07:11, 9 May 2007 (CEST)

I have two responses to this. On the one hand, it certainly could be read as a warning (rather: clarification) for William. On the other hand, Joseph defers (from the letter, as it were) to this message from the Still Small Voice. Couldn't that appeal to a kind of universal warning? I think the instruction amounts, then, to something like this: Our job is to teach and to build up as best we can, but that is all we can do while we wait for the one mighty and strong. Something like that, anyway. --Joe Spencer 18:04, 9 May 2007 (CEST)

Interesting. So what do you think the overall message to William Phelps is related to the original question "what shall be done about the saints who come to zion but don't live the law of zion"? It sounds like the answer is--don't do anything, that isn't your job, that is the job of one mighty and strong that will be sent by God. Is that right? --Matthew Faulconer 08:57, 10 May 2007 (CEST)

That's how I'm reading it for now. Is it worth posting on a subpage or something the entire letter so that this is more interpretable publicly? --Joe Spencer 17:44, 10 May 2007 (CEST)

Something isn't quite fitting together for me. Verse 8 seems like such a strong response to what one might assume is a pretty humble question (what should I do about people who were told not to come to Zion unless they were ready to live the law of consecration and then arrive in Zion and aren't willing to live it?). Verse 8 is one of the strongest warnings anywhere in the scriptures. I'm not really expecting an answer to this, more just mulling it over in my head. Thanks for your work on this Joe. Also, I think having a copy of the letter would be cool if you have time to transcribe it. --Matthew Faulconer 09:03, 11 May 2007 (CEST)