Talk:Moses 5:55-6:4

Baptism of Abel

Apart from the fact that I consider the prospect of verse 59's referring to Adam's having performed a baptism for Abel a bit too speculative for Exegesis, I also think that the suggestion of chronology here is unfounded/speculative. (I've given my own interpretation of D&C 128:12) First off, old testament chronology is extremely confusing and disordered, such that, for the purposes of interpretation it is commonly held that "there is now when". That aside, the context of verse 59 does not indicate that the events it describes occurred at any specific time except, implicitly, after the causes described in verse 58. It would actually seem reasonable to presume that verse 58 is looking much further into the future than the "present" point in the narrative of man's early history.

Perhaps these sorts of things would make better questions? --Seanmcox 04:03, 30 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Sean, you are perfectly right to point out that the text "does not indicate that the events it describes occurred at any specific time," but that is precisely what undergirds the possibility I've tried to explore here. If one reads the text as it stands, one encounters a hint that Adam performed some sort of an ordinance that had something to do with Abel long before one encounters the even the possibility that Adam himself was baptized. In short, the ordinance at the close of chapter 5 is something one reads before the ordinance at the close of chapter 6: the text points to this interpretation as a possibility. The context provided in chapter 6, when Adam's actual baptism is recorded, is what locates events in a stricter order, and certainly, it is a textual question to look there at that issue.

It undergirds nothing. As much as lack of evidence is not evidence against. Lack of a clear timeline is not evidence of a timeline, so if you're speculating some alternative timeline, here is the place to do it, in the Talk section, not in the Exegesis. This speculation cannot be supported by the text, so, by the standards set forth here, which I think are necessary to mainatin the integrity of the site, and without which I would not consider the site worth investing my time in, it does not belong in the Exegesis. --Seanmcox 06:17, 30 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, if you look carefully at the commentary at Moses 6:7, upon which the commentary here is based--as it explicitly states--there are clearly a number of linguistic, textual ties between the first seven verses of chapter 6 here and D&C 128. Given the dates connected with Moses 6 and D&C 128, it seems clear that Joseph had been paying careful attention to Moses 6 when contemplating baptism for the dead. The point is to recognize the textual ties here, to suggest textual possibilities, not--I should hope it is clear--to engage in fanciful speculation. All of these explorations of the text are an attempt to understand the literal meaning of D&C 128:12. Speculation, after all, means precisely "to look in a mirror," and the rather serious attention I am giving to what seems quite clearly to be the literal meaning of a number of verses does not seem to me to be anything like looking in a mirror; rather, it seems to be looking at something entirely foreign. If anything, the reading that does violence (for whatever reason) to the literal meaning of the text seems to me to be the one that reduces the text to a mirror, because it sees in it only what it itself brings, not what the verse itself would say. I suppose this discussion edges nearer and nearer the discussion on the JST, and perhaps there is reason for that: I feel quite strongly that the texts as they stand are far more important than the "doctrine" (whatever that is), since any "doctrine" we have ever taught or been taught has been derived (whether speculatively or honestly) from the text itself. We should, as Latter-day Saints, have every right to revise "doctrine" so as to come into closer harmony with the text itself: Joseph Smith himself was the prime example of these sorts of revisions. I wholeheartedly believe that the Spirit works within the text, opening up its possibilities, and that therein we experience God. To whatever degree we distance ourselves from the text as it "came from the pen of the original writer," to that degree we distance ourselves from the fount of the Spirit and from the truth that would set us free: the Word.

I would love to see these verses interpreted better than I have done. I would love to see them laid bare. I would hope that my pathetic attempts at understanding might force some readers to seek answers that will open up the best possible readings. But until work is dedicated to actual interpretation or counter-interpretation, then all categorizations of exegesis as speculative are counter-productive and all dissipations of commentary into distantly related questoins are likewise.

I have tried to be very careful in wording this (one of the worst things about merely typing is that tone and facial expression can't attend one's words). I write all of this in all honesty, but with the greatest love I've yet known in myself for the truth of the scriptures (I have very little interest in or time for speculative approaches to scripture already so rich in interpretive possibilities). Thanks for your consideration of my commentary, but please read it as an invitation to better commentary, not as an invitation to debate my "speculative" meanderings. --Joe Spencer 05:32, 30 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I too, like Sean, feel that the idea that what is referred to here is that Adam was baptized for Abel is a bit too speculative for the exegesis. But I hope that saying that doesn't come off as suggesting it was wrong to add that. Certainly I think there is nothing wrong with adding possibilities into the exegesis--recognize that, maybe we will collectively later decide that it is too speculative and remove it, or maybe we later will collectively decide there is sufficient evidence to leave it as a suggested possibility in the exegesis. I don't expect people to know ahead of time what way things will go.

Anyway, Joe, I very much admire all the work and careful thinking that has gone into the discussion related to D&C 128:12. I must admit that whereas I started entirely skeptical that it made any sense to think that baptism for the dead proceeded baptism, I am much less skeptical now and that is because of the additional work you have done in tying that idea into other scriptures. Maybe in another week I'll be less skeptical that the ordinance spoken of here was baptism for the dead. (I'm not yet there though.) Finally I realize it is much easier to write on the discussion page as a skeptic than it is to write/edit the exegesis. --Matthew Faulconer 06:30, 30 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Forget it, all. --Joe Spencer 14:36, 30 Oct 2006 (UTC)

To late, Joe. our minds are churning. An interesting case is developing here. If you want to back out of this now, could you let us know why?--Rob Fergus 18:19, 30 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Why.... The wiki is for me the possibility of a real community, not the possibility of a perfect commentary. If the former is called into question because of any insistence on the latter, I am willing to annihilate the latter in a moment. It seems it may be necessary to do so as regards this question. Even as I say this, I'm not convinced one can draw a distinction between community and commentary on the wiki. And for that reason, if there is enough serious interest in this question, I can be convinced to return to the question. But if not, I would rather drop the question altogether than frustrate the incredible possibilities bound up within this project (meaning the wiki). The more I sit here thinking about the way I'm answering your question, the more I recognize that there are two kinds of love--two kinds of charity--that are fundamental to the project of the wiki: one must be engaged in the service of God (the Word) and in the service of one's fellow being (others posting). If the former is the spirit of the site, the latter is its body. I can attend to the spirit on my own (independent of the site), but not the body. And precisely because that's the case, if I am forced to choose between the spirit and the body of the site, I will choose the latter. Anyway... --Joe Spencer 22:41, 30 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Joe, While appreciate the spirit in which you write this and especially your view on the larger issues involved with working through ideas on this site, I for one don't think that we have to give up your service of the Word to maintain your love and ability to serve other users of this site, at least not in this case. I've edited your comments about Abel's baptism, hopefully so that they can be taken for what they are, one possibly illuminating interpretation of these passages. While I'm still not convinced this is the best way to read these passages, I find it very interesting and challenging, and think there is a place for it here. While you may choose to walk away from these ideas for now, I hope that if you find more scriptural or other support for these ideas, that you'll come back to them at some point. Peace, Rob Fergus 00:00, 31 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I am engaged in a study of these questions for other reasons, whether or not I post them on the site. At your request here, I'll continue to work some of these questions out here. I'm increasingly convinced that there is something going on here that really deserves some careful attention, but I'm not sure where it's headed yet. With a plea for everyone's patience while I explore what seem to me to be some incredible textual possibilities, I'll maintain my study of the question for now. --Joe Spencer 15:55, 31 Oct 2006 (UTC)

OK Joe, after a closer reading of D&C 128:5, I'm sold. Baptism for the dead came first, and was ordained before the foundation of the world. While I'm not sure we can clearly read these verses as a record of Adam performing this ordinance for his son, such an action would seem to be consistent with these scriptures, and the idea of it opens up exciting vistas of the patriarchal order. Thanks for opening this one up for us.--Rob Fergus 01:52, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Dates connected with Moses 6 and D&C 128

Joe, you state that "It seems clear that Joseph had been paying careful attention to Moses 6 when contemplating baptism for the dead." Since Moses 6 came in 1830 and D&C 128 was revealed in 1842, not sure I know what you are talking about here. Can you elaborate on this? If there is a clear link, maybe it should go into the exegesis as well? --Rob Fergus 14:18, 30 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I thought that link was clear in the Moses 6:7 comments you wonderfully rearranged/edited. The point is simply that since Joseph had received what is written in Moses some twelve years earlier, and because there are so many textual connections between the two, it seems clear that in 1842 Joseph was carefully considering Moses 5-6 when he was receiving and making sense of the revelations coming to him on baptism for the dead. At any rate, as I mention above, forget it. --Joe Spencer 14:39, 30 Oct 2006 (UTC)