D&C 87:4&5

[Salem]

An interesting observation, whether true or not, but still misses my point. The bulk of this prophecy was directed at world wide events so when it says the slaves shall rise u against their masters it is not referencing black slaves in USA. They may or may not be included but the reference is to those in bondage (of some sort) around the world. Rebellions against despotic governments around the world, IMNSHO, fit nicely into this description. Likewise, take the rest and apply it globally.

I agree for the most part. I think the "slaves" mentioned in the prophecy initially refers to the black slaves in the United States, but then afterwards may refer to those in bondage (of some sort) around the world.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Salem

[MormonMason]

I agree the prophecy is concerning “wars” plural, not just the Civil War; but because the Civil War is the first war prophesied and because some of the events take place during that conflict, it is often referred to as the “Civil War” prophecy. Perhaps we should start calling it the “War Prophecy,” or something along those lines.

How about we simply call it what it pretty much has been called in the publications of the Church: "A Prophecy on War"? For example, here is what the 1878 Pearl of Great Price called it:

The Doctrine and Covenants referred to it similarly in at least 1879 (if I were home with my books I could cite the 1876 edition). You can find an 1879 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants online using Google. You can view the page here.

Personally, I could not care less what Mormon popular definition calls it. I'll go with the headings in the Scriptures on this one.

As I explained in my first post, verses 4 and 5 are parenthetical statements. And so, the events they describe may or may not take place in chronological order. In addition, they may take place more than once. Thus, these events may take place during the Civil War, as well as during other times long afterwards that have nothing to do with the Civil War.

Where are the parentheses? Or where are the other forms of punctuation that would/could mark such? Where within the grammatical structure of the sentences is there evidence that these two verses are parenthetical in nature? It reads pretty straightforwardly in chronological order. Have you any real evidence that those verses are parenthetical in nature?

[USU78]

An interesting observation, whether true or not, but still misses my point. The bulk of this prophecy was directed at world wide events so when it says the slaves shall rise u against their masters it is not referencing black slaves in USA. They may or may not be included but the reference is to those in bondage (of some sort) around the world. Rebellions against despotic governments around the world, IMNSHO, fit nicely into this description. Likewise, take the rest and apply it globally.

The serfs in Russia at the time were still tied to the land, unable to move about the country without the magnate's permission, and, effectively, slaves. It has been argued that the Russian Revolution was a slave uprising. Not sure what I think about that assertion.

[volgadon]

The serfs in Russia at the time were still tied to the land, unable to move about the country without the magnate's permission, and, effectively, slaves. It has been argued that the Russian Revolution was a slave uprising. Not sure what I think about that assertion.

I don't think much of it. More than anything else, the Russian Civil War started as widespread outburts of discontent and disillusionment caused by the horrors of WWI. Even much of the upper class (like Nabokov's father) shared in those sentiments. Now, in a sense many in the army (and especially the navy) were brutalised and exploited by their officers to such a degree that they might be considered slaves uprising against their former masters, but it is not quite the same thing. These former sailors and soldiers exacted a terrible revenge.

[Salem]

How about we simply call it what it pretty much has been called in the publications of the Church: "A Prophecy on War"? For example, here is what the 1878 Pearl of Great Price called it:

The Doctrine and Covenants referred to it similarly in at least 1879 (if I were home with my books I could cite the 1876 edition). You can find an 1879 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants online using Google. You can view the page here.

Personally, I could not care less what Mormon popular definition calls it. I'll go with the headings in the Scriptures on this one.

Point taken

Where are the parentheses? Or where are the other forms of punctuation that would/could mark such? Where within the grammatical structure of the sentences is there evidence that these two verses are parenthetical in nature? It reads pretty straightforwardly in chronological order. Have you any real evidence that those verses are parenthetical in nature?

As I understand it, no revelation Joseph Smith ever received had any punctuation. All the punctuation in the text of a given revelation was added later.

As far as evidence is concerned, a parenthetical statement is a thought that interrupts the normal flow of the text. I show real evidence in my first post that verses 4 and 5 are parenthetical statements.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Salem

[Stone holm]

I would eliminate the localization of this prophecy. In some areas it may not be racial. In others it may be. Mostly it is despots enslaving whoever they can for whatever reason they try to justify their despotism. If racial it need not be racism by color. There is plenty of racism in the world that has nothing to do with color.

So under this theory, if the concentration of wealth continues it could refer to a future revolt of the 99% in America?

[MormonMason]

As I understand it, no revelation Joseph Smith ever received had any punctuation. All the punctuation in the text of a given revelation was added later.

As far as evidence is concerned, a parenthetical statement is a thought that interrupts the normal flow of the text. I show real evidence in my first post that verses 4 and 5 are parenthetical statements.

While this is true that the revelations were punctuated later, punctuation is not always important to grammatical structure, although I understand what you are trying to say. For example, in the ancient texts there was no punctuation and yet there still was a grammatical structure. I look at this text and I don't see that those verses necessarily are parenthetical. I suppose they could be seen as interrupting the flow of thought or even seen either way. Can you make a stronger case for this?

But, one thing is certain and that is that this prophecy certainly is not exclusively a local prophecy. It is a prophecy on war, the wars are plural, and among them are those that are worldwide in nature. It looks to me like it is a panoramic prophecy, covering the time from the start of the Civil War to the time of the end, with key events in chronological order.

[Salem]

While this is true that the revelations were punctuated later, punctuation is not always important to grammatical structure, although I understand what you are trying to say. For example, in the ancient texts there was no punctuation and yet there still was a grammatical structure. I look at this text and I don't see that those verses necessarily are parenthetical. I suppose they could be seen as interrupting the flow of thought or even seen either way. Can you make a stronger case for this?

I state my argument as follows:

1. A parenthetical statement is a thought that interrupts the normal or logical flow of a given text.
   
2. In D&C 87, verse 6 logically follows verse 3, which shows that verses 4 and 5 interrupt the flow of the text.
   
3. Therefore, verses 4 and 5 are parenthetical statements.
   

But there is more:

1. A parenthetical statement is a thought that interrupts the normal or logical flow of a given text.
   
2. In D&C 93, verse 18 interrupts the flow of the text.
   
3. Therefore, verse 18 is a parenthetical statement.
   

And now another argument:

1. D&C 87:4&5 and D&C 93:18 are revelations
   
2. D&C 87:4&5 and D&C 93:18 are parenthetical statetments.
   
3. All three verses begin with the expression “And it shall come to pass”
   
4. Therefore, parenthetical statements may begin with the expression “And it shall come to pass” within a given revelation.
   

Since no punctuation was provided during a given revelation, the Lord used the expression (i.e the grammatical structure) “And it shall come to pass” to interrupt the flow of the revelation in order to insert additional information that was relevant to the topic, but was not necessarily in chronological order. This does not mean, however, that in the Doctrine and Covenants the expression “And it shall come to pass” denotes a parenthetical statement in every instance, but I think most are.

But, one thing is certain and that is that this prophecy certainly is not exclusively a local prophecy. It is a prophecy on war, the wars are plural, and among them are those that are worldwide in nature. It looks to me like it is a panoramic prophecy, covering the time from the start of the Civil War to the time of the end, with key events in chronological order.

I agree with the exception that verses 4 and 5 are parenthetical statements. Thus, they are not necessarily in chronological order.

[MormonMason]

Sorry, but "and it came to pass" or "and it shall come to pass" in unpunctuated texts (particularly ancient texts) is a marker of the start of a new sentence or paragraph (often connected to the previous text), not necessarily of parenthesis. Worse, you are using a single Section of the Doctrine and Covenants as a reference point. In 93:18, "And it shall come to pass" is the marker of the end of the material from the record of John and the beginning of explanatory material that follows. There is no obvious interruption of thought here. The flow seems just fine here.

Have you got any evidence stronger than this? Have you got actual examples of parenthesis in the Doctrine and Covenants to support your assertion?

Here is an example of what you should be looking for in parenthetical statements. I take this one from the Book of Mormon, parenthetical texts marked in blue and red:

And it came to pass as the armies of the Lamanites had gathered together in the land of Antionum, behold, the armies of the Nephites were prepared to meet them in the land of Jershon. Now, the leader of the Nephites, or the man who had been appointed to be the chief captain over the Nephites—now the chief captain took the command of all the armies of the Nephites—and his name was Moroni; And Moroni took all the command, and the government of their wars. And he was only twenty and five years old when he was appointed chief captain over the armies of the Nephites.

(Alma 43:15-17)

In Hebrew sentences, parenthetical statements are marked off at the opening and closing of the parenthetical phrases by the presence of waw. Sometimes the conjunction waw is represented in English as "now." Having said this, take a look at the structure of the above Book of Mormon sentences, ignoring the punctuation. Look only at occurrences of "now" and "and" in the sentences and see how they are aligned and how the sentences break the flow. It is no mere change of subject but an actual interruption of flow of thought.

Edited to add: I just noticed that I had misaligned the colored texts and modified that just now to match what I intended.

Edited May 27, 2013 by MormonMason

[ERayR]

So under this theory, if the concentration of wealth continues it could refer to a future revolt of the 99% in America?

Its possible. I don't recall any boundaries in time placed on it.

[ERayR]

But, one thing is certain and that is that this prophecy certainly is not exclusively a local prophecy. It is a prophecy on war, the wars are plural, and among them are those that are worldwide in nature. It looks to me like it is a panoramic prophecy, covering the time from the start of the Civil War to the time of the end, with key events in chronological order.

That is the way I see it too.

[Stone holm]

Its possible. I don't recall any boundaries in time placed on it.

Interersting spin, will have to think about that some.

[ERayR]

Interersting spin, will have to think about that some.

Relate what is happening today, world wide, to the prophecy. If you can see the connections what is happening in the world today and the trends make much more sense.

Edited May 27, 2013 by ERayR

[Stone holm]

Relate what is happening today, world wide, to the prophecy. If you can see the connections what is happening in the world today and the trends make much more sense.

Except people seem to be slowly being enslaved again.

[ERayR]

Except people seem to be slowly being enslaved again.

It doesn't say all the slaves will be successful in throwing off the chains of bondage. Only that their uprising will be terrible.

[Stone holm]

It doesn't say all the slaves will be successful in throwing off the chains of bondage. Only that their uprising will be terrible.

Well that certainly describes the Russian Revolution.

[ERayR]

Well that certainly describes the Russian Revolution.

Relate it to specifics if you want but to see the picture you need to see the general trends these specifics add up to.

[Salem]

Sorry, but "and it came to pass" or "and it shall come to pass" in unpunctuated texts (particularly ancient texts) is a marker of the start of a new sentence or paragraph (often connected to the previous text), not necessarily of parenthesis.

But what about unpunctuated texts from modern “oral” revelation? Can the expression “And it shall come to pass” also be used to mark or denote a parenthetical statement in this case? If D&C 87:4&5 are parenthetical statements, then the answer is yes. So, now the question is are verses 4 and 5 parenthetical statements? For now, ignore the fact that both verses 4 and 5 begin with “And it shall come to pass” and read section 87 again, but this time skip verses 4 and 5:

“3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations. . . .

6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;” (D&C 87:3, 6)

Even without verses 4 and 5 the text still makes sense. Note how smoothly the text flows from verse 3 straight to verse 6, without any interruption whatsoever. But more importantly, note that verse 6 logically follows verse 3. That is, the reason why the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn “with the sword and by bloodshed” (v. 6) is because “war shall be poured out upon all nations” (v. 3). Do you not see that? Therefore, because verse 6 logically follows verse 3, verses 4 and 5 are parenthetical statements, which interrrupt the flow of the text and insert additional information:

“4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.” (D&C 87:4&5)

Since verses 4 and 5 are parenthetical statements and since both verses begin with the expression “And it shall come to pass,” we know this expression can also be used to denote or mark a parenthetical statement in a modern “oral” revelation. This is not something that I am making up or reading into the text. This is what the text itself reveals.

Worse, you are using a single Section of the Doctrine and Covenants as a reference point. In 93:18, "And it shall come to pass" is the marker of the end of the material from the record of John and the beginning of explanatory material that follows. There is no obvious interruption of thought here. The flow seems just fine here.

Read D&C 93:18 in context:

16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;

17 And he received

all

power

, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.

18 And it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall receive the

fulness

of the record of John.

19 I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and

know

what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness.

20 For if you keep my

commandments

you shall receive of his

fulness

, and be

glorified

in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive

grace

for grace.

(D&C 93:15-20)

Note that verses 16 and 17 are John’s words concerning the “fulness” of the Father, and verses 19 and 20 are the Lord’s words concerning the “fulness” of the Father. But verse 18 is nothing less than an interruption of thought, changing from the “fullness” of the Father to the “fullness” of the record of John. Therefore, verse 18 is a parenthetical statement, which also begins with the expression, “And it shall come to pass.”

Have you got actual examples of parenthesis in the Doctrine and Covenants to support your assertion?

In the Book of Mormon, which was translated from an ancient “written” record, have you got actual examples of parenthetical statements marked off with “now” or “and” that are also enclosed within parenthesis? Of course not, because the markers “now” or “and” serve the same purpose as the parenthesis. It would be redundant to add parenthesis when the parenthetical statement is already marked or denoted verbally.

Likewise, the parenthetical statements in the modern “oral” revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants are marked with the expression “And it shall come to pass.” It would be redundant to add parenthesis to a parenthetical statement that is already marked or denoted verbally.

Here is an example of what you should be looking for in parenthetical statements. I take this one from the Book of Mormon, parenthetical texts marked in blue and red:

And it came to pass as the armies of the Lamanites had gathered together in the land of Antionum, behold, the armies of the Nephites were prepared to meet them in the land of Jershon. Now, the leader of the Nephites, or the man who had been appointed to be the chief captain over the Nephites—now the chief captain took the command of all the armies of the Nephites—and his name was Moroni; And Moroni took all the command, and the government of their wars. And he was only twenty and five years old when he was appointed chief captain over the armies of the Nephites.

(Alma 43:15-17)

In Hebrew sentences, parenthetical statements are marked off at the opening and closing of the parenthetical phrases by the presence of waw. Sometimes the conjunction waw is represented in English as "now." Having said this, take a look at the structure of the above Book of Mormon sentences, ignoring the punctuation. Look only at occurrences of "now" and "and" in the sentences and see how they are aligned and how the sentences break the flow. It is no mere change of subject but an actual interruption of flow of thought.

That is a good example of a parenthetical statement in the Book of Mormon. But the Book of Mormon was translated from an existing “written” record, where as the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants were recorded from “oral” communication. How is one supposed to fluently mark off the opening and closing of a parenthetical statement in “oral” communication? With waw at the opening and closing of the parenthetical statement? With parenthesis? No, instead the Lord used the expression, “And it shall come to pass,” which is more fluent to use than “waw” or parenthesis in “oral” communication.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Salem

[USU78]

I don't think much of it. More than anything else, the Russian Civil War started as widespread outburts of discontent and disillusionment caused by the horrors of WWI. Even much of the upper class (like Nabokov's father) shared in those sentiments. Now, in a sense many in the army (and especially the navy) were brutalised and exploited by their officers to such a degree that they might be considered slaves uprising against their former masters, but it is not quite the same thing. These former sailors and soldiers exacted a terrible revenge.

I agree with all you said . . . yet such was the hyperbole of the bolsheviki.