A Cryptic Passage in the Doctrine and Covenants

[consiglieri]

I am hoping to get some insight on an unusual passage in the Doctrine and Covenants, where Jesus recalls having stood before his disciples in the flesh and answers their questions regarding the signs of his coming, which appears to likely place the setting on the Mount of Olives as recorded in Matthew 24.

The strange part is that Jesus, in what appears to be a continuation of his words to the disciples on this occasion, says, "For as ye have looked upon the long absence of your spirits from your bodies to be a bondage, I will show unto you how the day of redemption shall come, and also the restoration of the scattered Israel." (D&C 45:17)

It sounds for all the world as if Jesus is talking to people who are not currently in their physical bodies, and have not been for some time. But one would think that the disciples were "in the flesh" as was Jesus at the time.

Does anybody have some insight into this passage, or commentary by others as to what it means?

Is this the result of an unhappy editorial choice?

I will be glad to have assistance in bettering my understanding of this cryptic passage.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

D&C 45:16 And I will show it plainly as I showed it unto my disciples as I stood before them in the flesh, and spake unto them, saying: As ye have asked of me concerning the signs of my coming, in the day when I shall come in my glory in the clouds of heaven, to fulfil the promises that I have made unto your fathers,

17 For as ye have looked upon the long absence of your spirits from your bodies to be a bondage, I will show unto you how the day of redemption shall come, and also the restoration of the scattered Israel.

[LeSellers]

It sounds for all the world as if Jesus is talking to people who are not currently in their physical bodies, and have not been for some time. But one would think that the disciples were "in the flesh" as was Jesus at the time.

I think your answer is Doc&Cov 138. Doc&Cov 138:28~37

Lehi

[Nofear]

The scriptures have never excelled at following good rules of pronoun antecedents. I read it as,

And I will show it plainly [unto you latter-day saints] as I showed it unto my disciples as I stood before them in the flesh, and spake unto them, saying: As [you disciples] have asked of me concerning the signs of my coming, in the day when I shall come in my glory in the clouds of heaven, to fulfil the promises that I have made unto [the] fathers [of you disciples], ["]for as [you fathers of my disciples] have looked upon the long absence of your spirits from your bodies to be a bondage, I will show unto you how the day of redemption shall come, and also the restoration of the scattered Israel["]. And now [you disciples] behold this temple which is in Jerusalem, which ye call the house of God, and your enemies say that this house shall never fall.

In other words, he in 1st person voice, paraphrases the promises that he gave to the fathers (the ancient prophets and people of Israel), to his disciples who were in the flesh. Obnoxious editing.

[emeliza]

I always took it as He had showed those disciples that it would be a long time after their death before the second coming.

He says 'ye have looked upon the long absence of your spirits from your bodies'. To me it means He showed this to them, not that they were currently dead, but that He showed them the future in which they would be in the spirit world for most of.

[Senator]

I always took it as He had showed those disciples that it would be a long time after their death before the second coming.

He says 'ye have looked upon the long absence of your spirits from your bodies'. To me it means He showed this to them, not that they were currently dead, but that He showed them the future in which they would be in the spirit world for most of.

I too, see this. It sounds as an indirect way of saying to the disciples, "you too, will have to join your fathers in awaiting for that day when the promises will be fulfilled".

[Garden Girl]

I too read it as emeliza and senator...

GG

[Ipso Facto]

I think your answer is Doc&Cov 138. Doc&Cov 138:28~37

Lehi

Exactly!

This entire portion of D&C45 is a transcript of part of what the Savior taught to the spirits between his crucifixion and resurrection.

[consiglieri]

Exactly!

This entire portion of D&C45 is a transcript of part of what the Savior taught to the spirits between his crucifixion and resurrection.

I appreciate the responses so far, but I think this is a bit too creative for my tastes.

I mean, it makes sense that Jesus is talking to folks who are not in the body, and who have been in the spirit for a long time; that much seems evident from the words themselves.

But I see nothing else in section 45 to give any indication it had to do with Jesus' preaching to the spirits in prison; and the reference to D&C 138 actually says that Jesus did not preach to the spirits in prison, so that seems to be a mark against it.

On the other hand, section 45 places the context of Jesus while "in the flesh" answering his disciples questions regarding the signs of his second coming. If the scriptures speak to this incident, it seems pretty clear it happened prior to his crucifixion, and Jesus' use of the phrase that he was "in the flesh" points toward his mortal ministry, as opposed to post-mortal in the spirit world; once again making Matthew 24 a likely possibility.

But why would Jesus say such a thing to his disciples during his mortal ministry while he was "in the flesh"?

Curioser and curioser.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[emeliza]

I mean, it makes sense that Jesus is talking to folks who are not in the body, and who have been in the spirit for a long time; that much seems evident from the words themselves.

Weird, I don't see this at all. I see it as Him talking to those whom He gave a vision or dream to like Nephi was given.

[consiglieri]

The scriptures have never excelled at following good rules of pronoun antecedents. I read it as, In other words, he in 1st person voice, paraphrases the promises that he gave to the fathers (the ancient prophets and people of Israel), to his disciples who were in the flesh. Obnoxious editing.

This thought had occurred to me, as well, Nofear, and you may be right.

The problem I have with it is that the "promises to the fathers" seems to already be referenced in the passage as the redemption and "restoration of the scattered Israel"--in other words, exactly what we would normally expect the "promises to the fathers" to be.

Because the expected definition of the promises to the fathers actually appears in the passage, it seems less likely that the "promises" have to do with something not mentioned.

These are some of the reasons I broached a thread on the subject, to see if we could come up with an answer that seems to make sense of the text.

NOTE: I hasten to add that the answers already given may make sense of the text to others, and that is all well and good. I do not mean to diminish that in the least, or try to convince anybody that those answers are insufficient.

It is just that they don't seem to really answer the question for me, personally.

Thanks again for all your help so far!

--Consiglieri

Weird, I don't see this at all. I see it as Him talking to those whom He gave a vision or dream to like Nephi was given.

Hi, Em!

Do you see it at least as somewhat jarring, that at one moment Jesus is recounting a conversation he had with his disciples "while in the flesh," and the next he is talking like they have been dead for eons?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

But why would Jesus say such a thing to his disciples during his mortal ministry while he was "in the flesh"?

Curioser and curioser.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It almost seems as if we're missing part of the story. Taken as a whole, Iâ??d venture that Christ showed His disciples a vision that contained the â??signs of His coming.â? By showing the signs, the disciples likely realized and/or were shown that it would be a stint before it happened. Because of this aspect of the vision, they (the disciples) â??looked upon the long absence of [their] spirits from your bodies to be a bondage.â?

[LeSellers]

I mean, it makes sense that Jesus is talking to folks who are not in the body, and who have been in the spirit for a long time; that much seems evident from the words themselves.

But I see nothing else in section 45 to give any indication it had to do with Jesus' preaching to the spirits in prison; and the reference to D&C 138 actually says that Jesus did not preach to the spirits in prison, so that seems to be a mark against it.

No one is saying that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison, but to those who were in Paradise, who would, themselves, go to those in prison.

On the other hand, section 45 places the context of Jesus while "in the flesh" answering his disciples questions regarding the signs of his second coming. If the scriptures speak to this incident, it seems pretty clear it happened prior to his crucifixion, and Jesus' use of the phrase that he was "in the flesh" points toward his mortal ministry, as opposed to post-mortal in the spirit world; once again making Matthew 24 a likely possibility.

I have a difficult time imagining that Jesus went only once to one of His primary mission fields. After His resurrection, it is more than merely possible that He has gone several times to hold district or mission-wide conferences and tht He has told those spirit-messengers/missionaries just what Doc&Cov 45 tells u He said.

But why would Jesus say such a thing to his disciples during his mortal ministry while he was "in the flesh"?

I do not believe He did. Nor is there any reason to believe so, as far as I can tell.

Lehi

[consiglieri]

It almost seems as if we're missing part of the story. Taken as a whole, Iâ??d venture that Christ showed His disciples a vision that contained the â??signs of His coming.â? By showing the signs, the disciples likely realized and/or were shown that it would be a stint before it happened. Because of this aspect of the vision, they (the disciples) â??looked upon the long absence of [their] spirits from your bodies to be a bondage.â?

I like your way of thinkin', Herr Doktor. My intuition tells me that something along these lines is possible, which is one of the reasons I suggested an unhappy editing decision (thus leaving out part of the story, or joining two things that don't go together) in my original post.

I hear people continuing to advance the idea that this is Jesus talking to the spirits, but the fact Jesus specifically says he (or his disciples--or both) were "in the flesh" at the time of the statement seems to me to militate against such an interpretation.

And while we're talking about editing, where does this comment about a long absence from your bodies being a bondage come from? It doesn't seem to fit; nothing leads up to it; nothing leads away from it; it just appears out of nowhere and is gone just as fast.

This also makes me think that something is missing.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Doctor Steuss]

And while we're talking about editing, where does this comment about a long absence from your bodies being a bondage come from? It doesn't seem to fit; nothing leads up to it; nothing leads away from it; it just appears out of nowhere and is gone just as fast.

It does just kind of pop in there, doesn't it. Its appearance in D&C 138 fits, but here it's like a little tot that comes up, kicks you in the knees and then runs away.

Interestingly (to me, and hopefully to you) while trying to search for interpretations of the verse, I ran across an article advancing reincarnation (based on an LDS POV):

"And I will show it plainly as I showed it unto my disciples as I stood before them in the flesh and spake unto them saying: As ye have asked me concerning the signs of my coming, in the day when I shall come in my glory in the clouds Of heaven, to fulfill the promises that I have made unto your fathers. For as ye have looked upon the long absence of your spirits from your bodies to be a bondage, I wil1 show unto you how the day of redemption shall come... D&C 45:16-17 Here Jesus was talking to the disciples during his mortal life and he commented on the apostles grumbling about the hardship of their spirits being separate from their bodies, obviously in the past. But if that was their first life, when were their spirits ever separated from their bodies and, how did they know it was a bondage? If their spirits had previously been separated from their bodies then sometime in their past they occupied other bodies. The disciples were merely complaining about their lack of progress between lifetimes!

The disciples like Abraham had lived numerous lives as shown in the scriptures: "And Joshua said unto the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, your father dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time... (The other side of the flood probably means before the days of the flood of Noah) ... And I took Abraham FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FLOOD, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan..." Joshua 24:2-3. This scripture certainly implies that Abraham lived on the other side of the flood or before the flood in a previous lifetime

Round, and round, and round we go...

Hereâ??s a snippet from Bryan Richardâ??s GD Commentary on the verse (thereâ??s a lot more, but most of it focuses mainly on D&C 138):

[T]he meridian apostles understood that the Spirit World would mean a separation of the body and spirit. They understood that this was not a good thing.

If I understand his view correctly, it seems that the statement is basically a proclamation of general belief (i.e. â??You guys have always believed there would be a period of time that you wouldnâ??t have your sexy bodies, and that made you sad. Donâ??t be sad dudes, hereâ??s the plan that will not only give you back your bods, but will make them even sexierâ?).

[Flyonthewall]

It almost seems as if we're missing part of the story. Taken as a whole, Iâ??d venture that Christ showed His disciples a vision that contained the â??signs of His coming.â? By showing the signs, the disciples likely realized and/or were shown that it would be a stint before it happened. Because of this aspect of the vision, they (the disciples) â??looked upon the long absence of [their] spirits from your bodies to be a bondage.â?

This is what I understood emiliza to be describiing.

[Nofear]

I can accept and had thought of the view that the verse was using disparate temporal reference frames - something I'm quite willing to admit that God would do. But, I'm not persuaded that the original twelve disciples had to wait all that long for a resurrection. The first resurrection is present and on going (indeed, I tend to view most of Joseph's angelic visitor, John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moroni, etc. as all resurrected beings and not just post-mortal spirits).

It would be nice if somebody had some background on Section 45 and the integrity of its transmission / editing.

[Doctor Steuss]

This is what I understood emiliza to be describiing.

Problem is, that in her vast smartness, she failed to make it quite as convoluted as I did.

[Ipso Facto]

I appreciate the responses so far, but I think this is a bit too creative for my tastes.

I mean, it makes sense that Jesus is talking to folks who are not in the body, and who have been in the spirit for a long time; that much seems evident from the words themselves.

But I see nothing else in section 45 to give any indication it had to do with Jesus' preaching to the spirits in prison; and the reference to D&C 138 actually says that Jesus did not preach to the spirits in prison, so that seems to be a mark against it.

On the other hand, section 45 places the context of Jesus while "in the flesh" answering his disciples questions regarding the signs of his second coming. If the scriptures speak to this incident, it seems pretty clear it happened prior to his crucifixion, and Jesus' use of the phrase that he was "in the flesh" points toward his mortal ministry, as opposed to post-mortal in the spirit world; once again making Matthew 24 a likely possibility.

But why would Jesus say such a thing to his disciples during his mortal ministry while he was "in the flesh"?

Curioser and curioser.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

He wasn't speaking to the "spirits in prison"! He was speaking to his disciples in the spirit world.

I'm telling you, this is precisely the answer to your question. I've been around for a long time, and the interpretation of this passage is almost ubiquitous in my experience. In fact, there is really no other way to look at it, if you ask me. He all but spells it out in verse 46:

46 Wherefore, if ye have slept in peace blessed are you; for as you now behold me and know that I am, even so shall ye come unto me and your souls shall live, and your redemption shall be perfected; and the saints shall come forth from the four quarters of the earth.

In any event, I don't think it's a big deal. But I'm certainly not the only one who looks at it like this. Thousands of people, from GAs to your average Elders Quorum member, look at it the same way.

[Doctor Steuss]

It would be nice if somebody had some background on Section 45 and the integrity of its transmission / editing.

Don't know if this helps, but SwoH has this and this.

[baddonkey]

I always took it as He had showed those disciples that it would be a long time after their death before the second coming.

He says 'ye have looked upon the long absence of your spirits from your bodies'. To me it means He showed this to them, not that they were currently dead, but that He showed them the future in which they would be in the spirit world for most of.

I agree with this too.

[consiglieri]

Ipsofacto wrote:

He wasn't speaking to the "spirits in prison"! He was speaking to his disciples in the spirit world.

I'm telling you, this is precisely the answer to your question. I've been around for a long time, and the interpretation of this passage is almost ubiquitous in my experience. In fact, there is really no other way to look at it, if you ask me. He all but spells it out in verse 46:

46 Wherefore, if ye have slept in peace blessed are you; for as you now behold me and know that I am, even so shall ye come unto me and your souls shall live, and your redemption shall be perfected; and the saints shall come forth from the four quarters of the earth.

In any event, I don't think it's a big deal. But I'm certainly not the only one who looks at it like this. Thousands of people, from GAs to your average Elders Quorum member, look at it the same way.

I'm sorry, Ipso. No dice, here.

I got excited about what you quoted, then rushed to check it out, but I think the tenses of the verbs are all out of whack with your interpretation.

Jesus is talking to the disciples while he was "in the flesh." (Why do people keep overlooking that part?)

Now, he is talking to them about the signs of his second coming, and by verse 46, is actually at the point when he will come again, far in the future.

It is at that point, that he says, "Wherefore, if ye have slept in peace blessed are you." That makes sense, because he is talking about a future event after the disciples (who, lest we forget, were "in the flesh" at the time) had died.

There is nothing about this that indicates to me that Jesus is talking to dead people, except for this one strange verse quoted in the OP that stands out like a sore thumb, and that we are trying to move the world in order to make it "fit."

I am working on an alternate explanation, but it will take a little time.

I went home for lunch and checked my 1835 Kirtland Edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and the wording is the same there.

For my theory to work, it will require changing a couple of "your's" to "their's," but I think it will make a lot more sense in the end.

Does anybody have any original manuscripts of this revelation anywhere?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I agree with this too.

You're starting to sound like Gilligan.

[Ipso Facto]

Ipsofacto wrote:

I'm sorry, Ipso. No dice, here.

I got excited about what you quoted, then rushed to check it out, but I think the tenses of the verbs are all out of whack with your interpretation.

Jesus is talking to the disciples while he was "in the flesh." (Why do people keep overlooking that part?)

Now, he is talking to them about the signs of his second coming, and by verse 46, is actually at the point when he will come again, far in the future.

It is at that point, that he says, "Wherefore, if ye have slept in peace blessed are you." That makes sense, because he is talking about a future event after the disciples (who, lest we forget, were "in the flesh" at the time) had died.

There is nothing about this that indicates to me that Jesus is talking to dead people, except for this one strange verse quoted in the OP that stands out like a sore thumb, and that we are trying to move the world in order to make it "fit."

I am working on an alternate explanation, but it will take a little time.

I went home for lunch and checked my 1835 Kirtland Edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and the wording is the same there.

For my theory to work, it will require changing a couple of "your's" to "their's," but I think it will make a lot more sense in the end.

Does anybody have any original manuscripts of this revelation anywhere?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You're starting to sound like Gilligan.

You can certainly look at it in any fashion you want to. It doesn't matter in the least to me. I'm just saying that the interpretation of this passage is well understood by thousands in the church, both living and dead. I happen to know that at least two current members of the Twelve view it in this way, but not even that really matters, because this is not a matter of great importance. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, Smith and Sjodahl's commentary also mentions this interpretation, and at least one other published commentary I have read, but don't recall where. D&C 138 and D&C 45 are very much related.

[consiglieri]

You can certainly look at it in any fashion you want to. It doesn't matter in the least to me. I'm just saying that the interpretation of this passage is well understood by thousands in the church, both living and dead. I happen to know that at least two current members of the Twelve view it in this way, but not even that really matters, because this is not a matter of great importance. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, Smith and Sjodahl's commentary also mentions this interpretation, and at least one other published commentary I have read, but don't recall where. D&C 138 and D&C 45 are very much related.

So just who are you that you know that two current members of the Twelve view it this way? You are starting to creep me out, man!

Especially that part about knowing what thousands of dead people think.

Are you that member of the Seventy who is reputed to haunt this board?

I want you to know that I appreciate your insights, because I have never heard this view before; probably because it doesn't seem to have been discussed much in my hearing over the past 30-years. Which is one of the reasons I appreciate this board, and the folks who post here, so much.

I still haven't figured out this passage in a way that sits well with me, but that doesn't mean it can't sit well with you, or Smith and Sjodahl, etc.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

It does just kind of pop in there, doesn't it. Its appearance in D&C 138 fits, but here it's like a little tot that comes up, kicks you in the knees and then runs away.

Interestingly (to me, and hopefully to you) while trying to search for interpretations of the verse, I ran across an article advancing reincarnation (based on an LDS POV):

Actually, that is quite interesting to me, Herr Doktor.

(Where is Sleepyhead on this, anyway?)

The reason I find it interesting is not so much because I think it likely to be a correct interpretation, but because it actually makes sense of the text!

Thanks for finding that for me.

A Big Hunk O' Burnin' Man-Love,

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Don't know if this helps, but SwoH has this and this.

Thanks for that, as well, Herr Doktor. Man, you are working overtime!

It looks like the manuscripts of William McLellin and Edward Partridge both match the wording in the current section 45 on this passage, and in pretty much every other respect, with one minor variant at the end that doesn't concern us, I think.

Here is my theory, which I just came up with today:

The text begins by talking about the people who are taken up with the City of Enoch.

It then talks about those who lived afterward who were promised a land (or city) in a similar manner, but never saw the fulfillment of the promise. (This part is a lot like Hebrews 11.)

These were the "fathers" who died without having received the promise of the heavenly city, represented by Enoch's.

And I note that they were promised that they would see it "in the flesh."

These are the people who would be looking at the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage, because they died without having received the promise, which they were told they would receive "in the flesh," but did not.

Now, Jesus says he will talk to the latter-day saints in the same way that he talked to his disciples while he was "in the flesh." The disciples to whom he is speaking are also "in the flesh," and I have mentioned before this is a pretty clear reference to Matthew 24, including the fact that Jesus tells them to look at the temple, something not too likely if they were in the spirit world at the time of this discourse.

Then we get to the passage in question, where I would suggest a substitution of three words as delineated below. If these three words are substituted, it makes it clear that Jesus is not talking to the mortal disciples as if they had been long dead already, but is referring back to the "fathers" who died without having received the promise of receiving a heavenly city like that of Enoch.

Here goes, with bold-face and color-coding:

D&C 45:10 Wherefore, come ye unto it, and with him that cometh I will reason as with men in days of old, and I will show unto you my strong reasoning.

11 Wherefore, hearken ye together and let me show unto you even my wisdomâ??the wisdom of him whom ye say is the God of Enoch, and his brethren,

12 Who were separated from the earth, and were received unto myselfâ??a city reserved until a day of righteousness shall comeâ??a day which was sought for by all holy men, and they found it not because of wickedness and abominations; 13 And confessed they were astrangers and pilgrims on the earth;

14 But obtained a promise that they should find it and see it in their flesh.

15 Wherefore, hearken and I will reason with you, and I will speak unto you and prophesy, as unto men in days of old.

16 And I will show it plainly as I showed it unto my disciples as I stood before them in the flesh, and spake unto them, saying: As ye have asked of me concerning the signs of my coming, in the day when I shall come in my glory in the clouds of heaven, to fulfil the promises that I have made unto your fathers,

17 For as ye (here I would substitute the word "they" for "ye") have looked upon the long absence of your (here I would substitute the word "their" for "your") spirits from your (once again "their" for "your") bodies to be a bondage, I will show unto you how the day of redemption shall come, and also the restoration of the dscattered Israel.

18 And now ye behold this temple which is in Jerusalem, which ye call the house of God, and your enemies say that this house shall never fall.

19 But, verily I say unto you, that desolation shall come upon this generation as a thief in the night, and this people shall be destroyed and scattered among all nations.

20 And this temple which ye now see shall be thrown down that there shall not be left one stone upon another.

I hope this doesn't seem to presumptuous to suggest substituting some words into one of the revelations, but such things have been known to happen, and it seems to me the best way of making sense of the text; at least at present . . . unless it really is talking about reincarnation.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri