Talk:Moses 4:21-25

Copyright law

Hi Sean, I was confused by the question:

How might this principle apply to copyright law?

How were you thinking there might be some applicability? --Matthew Faulconer 04:34, 26 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is what Sean was getting at, but I'm thinking here about About a Boy where the main character (a surprisingly good performance by Hugh Grant in the movie version, on my view) epitomizes male self-centeredness due largely to his being independently wealthy from the royalties he receives from a very popular (copyrighted) song his dad wrote. This not having to work by the sweat of his brow b/c of a version of copyright law enabled his self-indulgence.... --RobertC 06:51, 26 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Robert; that's an application I hadn't thought of, actually, and perhaps a very good one. The issues involved in inheritance are tricky. It brings to my mind Andrew Carnegie's Wealth. Likewise a child of wealthy (or even middle class) parents might be served better if his parents kept this verse in mind. (Perhaps separate questions related to inheritance and child-raising might be worth posing as alternate forms of my question.) As a society we really don't value work as much as we ought, and it serves us ill.

Matthew; Well, I was trying not to make the question too leading, but I had been thinking of copyright law recently due to some overly drawn out discussion on the LDSOSS mailing list and this scripture popped into my head. The reference I added at the bottom would help to explain the connection I was making cognitively if it were easy to get one's hands on it. I think that if I ever get the time (if...) I might try to get the content onto my user page. (Though I highly recommend browsing through the Improvement Era for it anyway, the advertisements are quite entertaining.)

In any case, the first question also partakes of much of the same thinking. The application I saw in the verse was that when a person produces anything via work, that thing produced is a real product and something of value which is proper to the producer. When we infringe on a person's property rights to obtain without work (or payment), what they produced with work, then we are not "eating our bread by the sweat of our faces", so to speak. J. Reuben Clark spoke of, among other things, how some of the poor in the early days of the church were apparently expecting to live off of the work of others in the United Order. --Seanmcox 07:46, 26 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Sweat of they face (v. 29)=

Looking at the Hebrew in Gen 3:19, face seems more literally to be nose and is used to express anger (flaring of nostrils? cf. Ex 4:14). Sweat seems ambiguous (i.e. rare), coming from a root meaning "to tremble or shake." Maybe there's a hint of anger suggested in this wording, the kind of anger that God experiences with Moses and other of his children. Or maybe the nose is doubling as a symbol of humility—God breathes life in through the nose, and the nose is what touches the ground when bowing, so the sweat of the nose serves as a constant reminder of man's humble position? --RobertC 23:22, 1 Nov 2006 (UTC)

at a much more simplistic level maybe this is sweat of your face because that is so noticeable & unenjoyable. There's nothing more noticeable than sweat on your face when you are working and it is hot--especially when it runs down and gets in your eye. Sweat on your back doesn't hold a candle--may actually be refreshing. --Matthew Faulconer 06:57, 2 Nov 2006 (UTC)

applying "by sweat..."

I think there are lots of things we might apply this verse to (and of course it could be applied for good or bad). I revised the question to reflect a range of applications. Feel free to edit. I do think the whole idea of the list of possible ways to apply this verse is problematic. However, I decided to go that way (for now anyway) because that seemed better than deleting the the specific applications people had brought up. --Matthew Faulconer 06:55, 2 Nov 2006 (UTC)

(When will I ever remember to log in.) Really, I don't think there's any more important role of the scriptures, aside from that of testifying of Christ and his gospel, than that of teaching us how we are to live and what God's will is for us. If there is anything we should be able to get out of a commentary, I think that a little something about how the scripture applies to us would be particularly important. Perhaps application is a controversial topic though, and it certainly could be belabored. (Though I've seen plenty of belabored, so I'm not sure that's a real issue.)

Still, McConkie used the scriptures to teach that black people would never get the priesthood and now Mormon Doctrine has become known as McConkie Doctrine and is had for good and for bad in all the church. So, application, I suppose, really is a tricky subject, even if one of the most valuable.

Perhaps it would be best to have a question like: "This verse is often cited as teaching the principle that work is a fundamental and important part of our earthly existance and that we should work to obtain our living. How might we apply this principle? Does this principle have application apart from just our daily necessities? How is it that we might obtain without work?"

In any case... back to work. I should be doing some more sweating on my face/nose right now.

-- Seanmcox 19:07, 2 Nov 2006 (UTC)