Discussion Summary – Alma 32:21-25

Below, I’ll try to summarize some key points from last week’s discussion with the help of an overly reductive schema. It may, I hope, help to codify the relationship between some of the things we’ve been thinking about.

For Joe’s sake (wink) let me begin with a little bit of formalization.

1. Schema

I hypothesize (in an overly reductive way) that Alma 32 presents a series of relationships that all have the same structure. Let’s cast this structure initially in terms of P.

There is P and there is P’.

P’ is exactly like P – except with the tiny addition of an apostrophe.

What is P? And, what’s the apostrophe?

2. First Example

Let’s start with vv24-25. Alma says:

“Now I do not desire that ye should suppose that I mean to judge you only according to that which is true – for I do not mean that ye all of you have been compelled to humble yourselves; for I verily believe that there are some among you who would humble themselves.”

Here, P is “that which is true” or the fact that the Zoramite poor are necessarily humble because of their condition.

What is P’? Alma’s belief (and it is likely important that he describes this as a “belief”) that, even if they weren’t necessarily humble because of their poverty, some of them would have been humble anyway.

P is the fact that they are necessarily humble. P’ is the fact that they are necessarily humble + the “belief” that they would have been humble even if it weren’t unavoidable.

P is the present actuality, the situation or “place” in which one finds oneself. The apostrophe indicates the addition of a subjective possibility to the way things are. Here, subjective possibility = someone’s taking a stand about what is or might have been possible.

3. Second Example

Or, let’s take the difference between “compelled” humility and “true” humility (cf. v6).

v14, “And now, as I said unto you that because ye were compelled to be humble ye were blessed, do ye not suppose that they are more blessed who truly humble themselves because of the word?”

Let’s call compelled humility H, and true humility H’. The relationship is the same as with P and P’. H refers to the necessity of the situation. H’ refers to one’s subjective stance in relation to H.

(Also, as Robert notes, this subjective stance involves desire: to be truly humble is to want your humility.)

4. Third Example

Let’s take v30 as a third example.

“But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.”

Let’s say that:

the seed’s swelling = S

and “saying that the seed is swelling” = S’.

Here, the relationship is the same as with P/P’ and H/H’.

S refers to the necessity of the situation (“the seed is swelling, this is the situation/place we’re in!”) and S’ refers to my taking a stand about S by “saying” (e.g., “bearing testimony”) that it is swelling, unseen.

S is the autonomous (i.e., necessary or unconditional) effect of the word/grace. The apostrophe is my “saying” as a subjective supplement to the situation, a supplement that re-reads what appears to be compulsory as something that opens a providential possibility.

5. Splitting Necessity into the Compulsory and the Unconditional

Let’s let X/X’ stand for all of these structurally homologous relationships.

Both X and X’ fall under the heading of “necessity.” For instance, as Jim pointed out, there is always something compulsory about humility. There’s not really a choice between being humble out of necessity, being humble of one’s free will, and not being humble. We are all perpetually in situations that compel humility and reveal our lack of autonomy and self-sufficiency. Both X and X’ fall under the heading of necessity.

However, it is possible to experience this necessity in one of two ways. This necessity can be experienced as “compulsion” – as in X. Or as something “unconditional” – as in X’. To experience this necessity as a “compulsion” is to feel the sting of justice (“I can’t do it, I’m justly judged as insufficient!”). To experience this necessity as “unconditional” is to feel God’s mercy as extended without condition (“God is my sufficiency no matter what I do!”).

6. Varieties of Subjective Stances

When experienced as compulsion, the necessity of humility elicits one of two subjective stances: shame or stubborn spite. The poor experience it as shamefully exposed. The rich experience it as something to be stubbornly hidden/cast out and despised.

When experienced as unconditional, the necessity of humility elicits the subjective response of faith.

7. Where does “the word” fit in?

The word is God’s word. The word is God’s “saying” that the necessity of humility (X) is in fact mercy (X’) (cf. vv13-14, v22). In short, the word is God’s subjective stance in relation to X.

We also know that the word is a cause of humility (“more blessed are those who truly humble themselves because of the word”). In this sense, God’s subjective stance about X that treats it as X’ can cause us to change our relation to X’ from X.

Where does desire fit in? Because God is merciful, he desires our belief in his word (v22). Belief is the object of desire. The word is the object of belief. The subjective operation of desire occurs entirely in the apostrophe of X, that is in the subjunctive dimension of possibility that supplements the situation. To have this dimension of possibility occluded is to be like the Zoramite poor: unable to act (“what shall we do? what’s possible?”).

8. What of faith?

We’ve proposed that faith is equivalent to belief in Alma 32 (cf. v18) and that belief is equivalent to humility without compulsion (cf. v16).

Additionally (see above), humility without compulsion is H’.

Might we say: faith is the subtraction of compulsion from the necessity of humility? The apostrophe of X’ marks the subtraction of compulsion (the “without”) that reveals choice/possibility in unconditional mercy?

Or: faith is believing God’s “saying/word” that the necessity of humility is in fact the unconditionality of mercy?

Faith is “strengthened” (cf. v30) when I am willing to “say” that what God’s word “says” is the case.

We also know that faith entails (->?) hope in things which are not seen, which are true.

Can we read, again, “that which is true” as X and “that which is not seen” as the subjunctive apostrophe of X’? Or, as Joe points out, mercy must “be found” (v13) because it is precisely what is initially unseen?

9. What of knowledge?

We know that “if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe” (v18). We know that knowing is contrasted with a relation to the word that is without stubbornness of heart (v16). We know that faith is not a “perfect knowledge” (v21).

Hypothesis: Knowledge is X. Perfect knowledge is X2.

What is X2? X2 is the situation/place after it has been successfully transformed by the addition of a subjective possibility (i.e., X2 is the “new world”). X2 is the realization of a set of possibilities inherent in X’ but unapparent in X.

10. Men, Women and Children

Verse 23 enumerates men, women, and children as recipients of the word/s. Jenny notes that men/women are grouped in opposition to children.

Here, men/women = H? Children = H’?