Consider D&C 65
**Following is D&C 65 reformatted, with revised punctuation. Thoughts? I have (am still forming) some, but I would like to let the work speak for itself first.
1*Hearken, and lo, a voice as of one sent down from on high,
***who is mighty and powerful,
****whose going forth is unto the ends of the earth,
*****yea, whose voice is unto men:
**“Prepare ye the way of the Lord;
****make his paths straight.
2*The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth,
****and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth,
**as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth,
****until it has filled the whole earth.”
3*Yea, a voice crying:
**“Prepare ye the way of the Lord;
****prepare ye the supper of the Lamb;
*****make ready for the Bridegroom.
4*Pray unto the Lord;
***call upon his holy name;
****make known his wonderful works among the people.
5*Call upon the Lord, that his kingdom may go forth upon the earth,
****that the inhabitants thereof may receive it
**and be prepared for the days to come,
****in the which the Son of Man shall come down in heaven,
*****clothed in the brightness of his glory,
******to meet the kingdom of God which is set up on the earth.”
6*Wherefore, may the kingdom of God go forth,
***that the kingdom of heaven may come,
****that thou, O God, mayest be glorified in heaven, so on earth,
*****that thine enemies may be subdued;
**for thine is the honor, power, and glory,
***forever and ever.
**Amen.
Interesting stuff. I’m reminded that simply formatting things differently can change how we think about them and let them operate within our minds.
There are a couple of places where I’m inclined to quibble with your indentation choices. Generally speaking, I’m unsure whether “and” should be treated as a purely coordinate conjunction–putting it at the same level as the line preceding it–but either way, it seems to me that the third line in verse 2 should be indented deeper than the second line, and the fourth line indented beyond that, to reflect subordination of ideas.
In verse 5, in contrast, I would be inclined to indent line 3 equal or deeper than line 2, taking “inhabitants” as the subject of “be prepared,” though now that I look at it I realize that it could be an imperative like line 1, which would match the way you have indented it. Again, it’s interesting to see how differently different people interpret scripture…
You wrote: {{Interesting stuff. I’m reminded that simply formatting things differently can change how we think about them and let them operate within our minds.}}
Yes, I think the traditional formatting of all our scripture, including the Bible, obscures its literary nature. This text clearly is poetry, answering, as it does, to Barbara Hernstein Smith’s criteria for calling it such, and therefore calling for a certain kind of response: ‘As soon as we perceive that a verbal sequence has a sustained rhythm, that it is formally structured according to a contnuously operating principle of organization, we know that we are in the presence of poetry…. And we respond to it accordingly…, expecting certain effects from it and not others, granting certain conventions to it and not others” (_Poetic Closure: A Study of How Poems End_, University of Chicago, 1968, p. 23). A point that I have been hammering on is that the Doctrine and Covenants consists largely of poetry, and surely our experience with the D&C will be enriched as we recognize and treat it as such.
Granting that D&C 65 is “poetry,” is it a poem? That is, does it possess an aesthetic unity that qualifies to be called a work of literary art? I think that it clearly does, and that it is the particular kind of poem that is called a psalm, and it is quite biblical in its style and its employment of certain conventions (and I hope to go further into that in my next installment).
You wrote: {{There are a couple of places where I’m inclined to quibble with your indentation choices…., it’s interesting to see how differently different people interpret scripture }}
It would seem that formatting and punctuation are necessarily commentary—interpretation, exegesis. I can’t argue with any of your suggestions. Doing that reveals considerable ambiguity in the D&C. One example: how do you sort out the levels of coordination and subordination in D&C 1:17-28? We can glide over the ambiguity in that regard in English, but I have been told that in some languages that can’t be done—it is necessary for translators to decide. I found it to be an interesting exercise to attempt to do that, and in the process discover possible nuances of meaning.