Structure
The phrase “swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow” in verses 30 (twice) and 33 (once) seems significant. Also, “sprouteth and beginneth to grow” occurs at the end of verse 30. I’m not sure what to make of this partial occurrence. Verses 30-33 also seem enveloped in a double occurrence of the notion of “perfect knowledge” at the end of verse 29 and the beginning of verse 34. Based on these observations, if we look more closely at verses 29-34a as their own unit, we might read this according to the following chiastic structuring:
(A) “it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge” (v. 29)
(B) “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” (v. 30)
(C) “are ye sure that this is a good seed?” (v. 30)
(D) “Yea, for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness” (v. 31)
(C’) “if a seed groweth it is good” (v. 32)
(B’) “And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good” (v. 33)
(A’) “And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect?” (v. 34)
Notice even the word order in A and C is chiastic: perfect-knowledge and good-seed vs. seed-good and knowledge-perfect. Also, notice the difference between B and B’ from “you must needs say that the seed is good” to “ye must needs know that the seed is good.” Also, notice that at the center of this chaism is the word “likeness.” More on these two observations below.
Verses 34 and 35 might also be considered as a unit with “is your knowledge perfect” forming the inclusive bookends:
(A) “is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing and your faith is dormant” (v. 34)
(B) “this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls” (v. 34)
(C) “that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened” (v. 34)
(D) “O then, is not this real?” (v. 35)
(C’) “whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible” (v. 35)
(B’) “therefore ye must know that it is good” (v. 35)
(A’) “and now behold after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?” (v. 35)
Notice that “real” is the center of this chiam. I’ll just note one other structural item that seemed potentially signficant. The word “experiment” occurs:
- in verse 27: “if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith . . .”
- in verse 33: “And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed . . .”
- in verse 36: “for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.”
I think it’s interesting here that verse 36 combines the “exercise your faith” and the “plant the seed” phrases that accompany verses 27 and 33 respectively. I’m not sure what to make of this, but one thought is that perhaps this should draw our attention to what occurs between the “experiment” inclusio, but before and after the two “perfect knowledge” chiasms. This sets the end of verse 27 and verse 28 in parallel with verse 36—in particular, the phrase in verse 36, “Behold, I say unto you, Nay, neither must ye lay aside your faith,” seems at least roughly parallel to the ideas in verses 27-28 of “giv[ing] place” to the seed and “not cast[ing] it out.”
Faith and knowledge
I really like how Adam has talked about the “you must needs say” in terms of fidelity to an event. In light of this, the gap in the text between the “must needs say” in verse 30 and the “must needs know” in verse 33 is particularly intriguing. Perhaps the best place for thinking about the role of faith is precisely in this gap. Or is it?
Before Alma sets up this gap between these two “you must need” phrases, he claims in verse 29 that the swelling of the seed will increase your faith. Then in verse 30, he seems to back up a step or pry open a gap between the growth of the seed and the increase in faith by inserting the phrase “ye must needs say that the seed is good” between the swelling (and sprouting and beginning to grow) of the seed and the claim that faith will be increased (actually “strengthened” this time, curiously…). We’ve discussed this “must needs” wording previously, but it’s now worth repeating the sense in which this compulsory phraseology occurs precisely at the point that we might think Alma is going to discuss what else the Zoramite poor need to do (remember, this was their initial question). But this “acknowledging” step is precisely what Alma is describing in compuslory language. We’ve previously discussed the question of whether the word compels humility or not and it seems that once the seed/word is given place to grow in your heart, then confession and knowledge that the seed is good will be compelled by the swelling of the seed itself. This may (or may not) be slightly different than what Adam is claiming; regardless, I think it’s worth careful consideration. (One alternative might be thought in terms of the kind of deception Korihor ultimately claimed he was acting under—so it might be that Alma is advocating that one acknowledges this swelling by professing it, rather than describing that this profession “must needs” follow….)
If the role of faith is not to be found in this gap between the swelling of the seed and the confession of this fact, where is faith’s role to be found? Before and after: in giving place for the seed to be planted (vv. 27-28), before the seed has begun to grow/swell, and not “lay[ing] aside your faith” but nourishing the tree so that it will go on to produce fruit (vv. 36ff), after the seed has begun to grow. The reading I’m proposing here is against reading “you must needs say” as a kind of admonition to, for example, faithfully proclaim the truthfulness of the gospel. Rather, I think this “you must needs say” should be read either as an explanation of how faith can lead to knowledge (i.e., faith gives place for the goodness of the seed to become known), or as an admonition not to give into a kind of self- or other-induced deception that the seed is not good when it has in fact caused swelling to occur (this is the alternative I mentioned with respect to Korihor in the last sentence of the previous paragraph—the more I think about this, the more I like this alternate reading, especially because I think it explains well why verse 31 about “bring[ing] forth unto its own likeness” is so important to mention, and at the center of a chiasm…).
Notice also that if the seed is in fact good, but the seed is never tested/tried, then the goodness of the seed will not be known (until, presumably, final judgment when all non-fruit-producing trees/souls will be burned). So, by trying this experiment on the word, knowledge is in fact produced—as Adam has said, and as verse 30 33 seems to be is saying (“because ye have tried the experiment . . . ye must needs know that the seed is good”).
Faith and perfect knowledge
Alma seems quite intent on making the point that the kind of knowledge described above is not perfect knowledge. Although a kind of knowledge is obtained once the seed starts growing, this knowledge does not preclude a larger role for faith to play. Indeed, Alma says explicitly (and emphatically, on my reading), “neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good” (verse 36). Without getting bogged down in exploring possible ways of understanding what “perfect knowledge” means, let me explore a couple of different issues here regarding “surety” and the link with sign-seeking in verse 17 and in the Korihor narrative.
In verse 17, Alma says many will say if a sign were given they would then say “we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.” Then, in verse 26, Alma puts the terms surety and perfection in an interesting synonymous juxtaposition: “Now as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.” Finally, after describing the swelling of the seed in verse 30, we read in verse 31, “And now, behold are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.” Recall, verse 30 31 is the center of a chiasm as I structured it above.
This question of surety seems to be responding directly to the question that Korihor raised in 30:14-15:
Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers. How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.
Korihor’s claim, and Alma’s echo of it in 32:17, seems to try to establish a sharp dichotomy between faith and knowledge: faith is unsure and imperfect whereas knowledge is sure and perfect. Alma seems to respond by making a distinction between limited knowledge (“in that thing”) and perfect knowledge. To try and put this into a diagram (for Adam and Joe):
- Desire –> at least a particle of faith (F1)
- –> plant seed/word
- –> growth of the seed
- –> knowledge in that thing (K1)
- –> increased faith (F2)
- –> nourishment of the tree
- –> desirable fruit (synonymous with perfect knowledge: K2).
In words, a desire to believe leads to at least a particle of faith, which gives place for the planting of the seed, which will then grow, which leads to knowledge that the seed is good (K1). This, in turn, increases faith (F2) which will cause you to nourish the tree and eventually obtain the desirable fruit (K2).
It seems, then, that Korihor’s claim, as Alma critiques it, is based on two problems: First, Korihor focuses only on steps 4 and 5. True, there is a sense in which knowledge precedes an incresae in faith. However, the problem is that Korihor ignores steps 1-3 where faith is precisely what produces knowledge: knowledge depends on faith (I think this is very similar to the main argument of critical theory, that other social theory approaches ignore the sense in which knowledge is not merely given; rather, the emergence of knowledge is something that depends on my beliefs, desires, etc.) This ignoring of steps 1-3 might (also) be productively thought in terms of Adam’s claim in his “A Hermeutics of Weakness” paper that faith is an acknowledgement of weakness or dependence. In this case, it is the role of the word/seed itself that is being ignored by Korihor (and the sign-seekers Alma describes). Without the presence of the word, knowledge does not increase anything; rather, it is vain and pointless.
The other, related mistake that Korihor makes is that he conflates knowledge “in that thing” (K1) with perfect knowledge (K2). I think the ramifications for this mistake might be productively thought in terms of Levinas’s Totality and Infinity—very roughly, to mistake partial knowledge for perfect knowledge is to try and totalize something that is infinite.
Alma’s “Nay” in verse 36 (again, following 10 yea’s since the previous and only other “nay” of the chapter in verse 18, which directly follows verse 17 with the “sure/ty” link with verse 31 just discussed), then, might be read as a protest to the kind of totalized, stagnant situation that the Zoramite poor feel themselves trapped in. To think that knowledge leads to faith is to think that a situation determines our beliefs (and desires?). Alma’s response is a call to awaken (v. 27; cf. “faith is dormant” in verse 34) and to exercise faith, in order to escape this deceived way of thinking that leads to immobilization. (The expanding seed and mind images, as well as the light/englightenment images in verses 28 and 34-35, might be productively contrasted with Alma’s frequent use of captivity and blindness symbolism in other sermons in order to further this theme.)
Further questions
Some other issues I was hoping to have time to discuss more include the following:
- “Own likeness” in verse 31: Given the structural emphasis on this phrase discussed above, I think it’s worth thinking much more carefully about this. Here is a link to cross references using this phrase. I think it’s especially germane to Jenny’s topic of the Garden (and, by extension, the creation; Jenny, if you haven’t read Jim’s paper on Genesis 2-3, I highly recommend it—published in the first edition of the Journal of Philosophy and Scripture). This also seems to feed into Adam’s suggestion of reading the tree as a genealogical symbol, with “own likeness” parallel to “seed” and “fruit.”
- “Cast out/away” and “lay aside”: Bad seeds are to be “cast out” or “cast away” (vv. 28, 32) like the tree with no root is “cast out” in verse 38; cf. “neither must ye lay aside your faith” in verse 36; cf. the Zoramite poor that have been “cast out.” What’s going on here? Is Alma drawing on larger garden and/or tree imagery here? Jacob 5? This is such an obvious thematic motif throughout this chapter, but I’m not sure how to think about it. Also, it seems to strongly complement the “giving place” motif we’ve discussed a bit already.
- “Real” in verse 35: I thought about this a bit, especially in light of the term imagin-e/ation as used by Alma in Zarahemla (Alma 5:16-18) and elsewhere in the Book of Mormon (esp. the “vain imagination” motif). This seems rich, esp. in light of the structural emphasis given to “real” that I mentioned above—I’ll leave it to the Lacanians to have fun with this one!
- “Only” in verse 36: The “ye have only exercised your faith” phrase here got me thinking more about verses 19-20, especially in light of Alma’s discussion elsewhere of this life being a probationary state, a space to repent, and the way the word prolong is used in the Book of Mormon. I think the gap between faith and knowledge could productively be thought in these terms also. That is, this prolonged space of time that we are graciously given in order to repent, in order to choose to humble ourselves and believe rather than compelled to believe, seems to be what, for example, Adam is getting at in his 32:21-25 summary discussion of X and X’. I think it would be helpful to study these analogous/parallel themes in Alma’s other sermons in an effort to understand better the faith-knowledge gap and relation that Alma is articulating here.
Thank you for this. I really like the chiasmus that you identified and find it helpful not just for the fact of its existence but because of what is does in terms of content.
“Also, “sprouteth and beginneth to grow” occurs at the end of verse 30. I’m not sure what to make of this partial occurrence.”
One thought: The third (and partial) iteration reads “ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.” So the phrase “a good seed” replaces swelling in the third iteration. Perhaps swelling and being a good seed should therefore be paralleled.
But I also noticed that the first two iterations (which each include all three elements) surround the phrase “then you must needs say that the seed is good.” I would conclude that swell/sprout/begin is related to being good and probably defines being good. This, of course, doesn’t agree with what I wrote above. . .
On the casting out/laying aside issue: It may be that the Z. poor have had experience with being cast out, they know that they are good, but that their leaders can’t see it because their clothing is poor. So they already have some experience with the dynamic that Alma is teaching them about faith. It may also be that this reading of people-as-seeds supports the genealogical reading of the tree that you mentioned.
On “real:” not a common word in the scriptures; no OT/NT uses. Several BoM references to “real intent,” which I assume (?) means “genuine, not feigned” intent. Importing “genuine” into this context brings me back to Korihor (and I agree with you: my sense is that Korihor really got under his skin for a variety of reasons and that much of 32 is a response to Korihor’s thinking): Korihor claimed atheism but that wasn’t real. He had an angelic visitation that wasn’t “real.” The point of the chiasmus may well be a guide to recognizing the real deal: it enlightens, you know that it has happened, etc.
Robert, I really like the structural patterns you draw out of the text. Thank you.
It’s clear that you are primarily wrestling with the relationship between faith and knowledge here. Without responding very directly to any particular comment you’ve made here, let me make a few of my own, for what they’re worth.
I think it is striking that there is no mention whatsoever of knowledge after verse 36 in the chapter, though faith will be mentioned four more times. This is, of course, quite in line with Alma’s “neither must ye lay aside your faith” (which is, as Robert says, not only explicit but emphatic). What is Alma suggesting or even arguing here?
It seems clear to me that verses 26-35 show faith as leading to knowledge, indeed, to perfect knowledge. But it almost seems as if that knowledge is a sort of comforting side effect, a product of the process of fidelity that is not without importance but that must not be seen as the end of the process, since faith continues right to the end of the chapter.
Does this then mean that there is something (but only something!) right about the sign-seekers’ model of faith: faith does come after knowledge? The difference would be that the sign-seeker wants immediately perfect knowledge, knowledge unmediated by faith or fidelity, knowledge independent of the word (a kind of direct encounter with the real, which is a pipe dream). The sign-seeker would only tack faith as a kind of transcendental hobby onto this immediate knowledge, a kind of “Let’s hang out at the pub and talk about spiritual things” business rather than the work of a revolutionary or radical.
But there is—it remains unavoidable—a vital role for perfect knowledge to play, is there not? Or could it even be read as a kind of “Look. If you want to have perfect knowledge, well, you can have it ‘in that thing’ along the way, since you seem to be so keen on it. But let’s get quite clear about the fact that it’s just a kind of bonus while you’re doing the actual work of faith”?
What all of this forces me to think about now is Jenny’s Edenic insights. Two trees: of knowledge (with its two fruits) and of life (with its one fruit?). The matheme I developed might be rewritten in terms of the two trees: on the left is the tree of knowledge, the dialectic being a dialectic between the good and the evil; and on the right is the tree of life; the word brought by the angels is a piece of fruit from the tree of life that must be planted in the forest of knowledge (introducing a foreign species into a limited ecosystem), etc., etc., etc. (It can’t be much of a coincidence that I finished reading The Magician’s Nephew to my daughter yesterday: how else would I be reading all of this after reading that?)
I’ll have a whole list of “smaller” issues to talk about as I get time. (I don’t know how much time I’ll have this week since I’m leaving town tomorrow morning for my ten-year high school reunion.)
Robert, thanks for diagramming the chiasmuses for us. Can you say something explicit about what each shows?
I am having trouble with your diagram (is that my lot in life, never to get a diagram?). Really I am having trouble with the verses you have diagrammed: how are K1 and K2 different? Verse 36 makes clear that K1 is “knowledge in planting the word, that it is good.” If so, then is K2 “knowledge in the word itself”? (By the way what do we make of the preposition “in” there (verse 34)–perfect knowledge in that thing rather than of that thing?) What is there to know more than that the word is good? I have difficulty figuring out the difference between K1 and K2, though obviously there is a difference since the knowledge of verse 34 is perfect and that of verse 35 is not.
Sorry about that very rambling paragraph. It’s thesis is “I don’t understand!”
I think that Joe’s point about the word “knowledge” not appearing after verse 35 and “know” appearing for the last time in verse 36 is important. Almost as much of Alma’s discussion after verse 26 is devoted to the growth of the tree as is devoted to planting of the seed. We often read that growth as a growth of knowledge, but Alma’s point is about getting the fruit of the tree, the fruit of the tree of life. Presumably that fruit is not knowledge. Indeed, its description in verses 42-43 does not seem like a description of cognitive knowledge.
Perhaps that answers my confusion: if verse 42-43 describes “perfect knowledge,” then it is not the cognition of a fact, but a state of blessedness: K1 is the knowledge that the seed is good. K2 is the knowledge of the life of blessedness that the growth of the seed produces.
Julie #1, I like your thought about “swelling” being substituted by something in the preceding phrase (“Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed”). Notice also that only “swelling” is mentioned in verse 28, not sprouting or beginning to grow. What I think this points to is the sense in which the discussion beginning in verse 30 is an elaboration on the swelling described in verses 28-29. I suggested in my post that verses 30ff “pry open a gap between the growth [or swelling, more accurately] of the seed and the increase in faith.” I think this is still generally right, but your comment suggests that this is being done in a rather particular way (at least structurally—I’m still not sure how this will affect the meaning…), by substituting out the word (“swelling”) that forms the link.
So, verse 28 seems to give an overall sketch of the analogy that will be discussed and elaborated on throughout verses 29-36 (the analogy seems to be furthered only in verse 36 with the introduction of the growing tree).
Verse 29 contrasts faith with perfect knowledge.
Then verse 30 revisits the “swelling” of verse 28, but adds the additional phrase “sprouteth and beginneth to grow.” The use of the term “swell” is dropped only after it is established that faith has been (or will have been…) strengthened (“will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith”).
Ah ha! So, if we incorporate Jenny’s insight about the chronology of a seed’s development here, then I think we have something very interesting: Once the seed swells, then it goes on to do something else—namely it sprouts and begins to grow. The swelling is done, but it has caused something new to take (its) place. Faith becomes dormant with respect to the swelling because the seed is now known to have swelled, so “swelling” is left behind and drops out of the vocabulary, having been replaced by knowledge that the seed is good. But the seed continues to sprout and grow, so faith is still needed in order to continue the growth. So, by concatenating the “sprouteth and beginneth to grow” phrase in verse 30 to the “swelling” of verse 28, Alma is able to show within the analogy of the seed how faith produces knowledge and then becomes dormant with respect to that function, but must not be set aside because there is still something more to come (viz., fruit).
Also, it’s interesting that the one verb, “swelleth,” is substituted by two verbs here, “sprouteth and beginneth to grow”: is Alma’s rhetoric multiplying in the same way that faith multiplies (“a particle” that is increased and strengthened, and that nourishes what eventually becomes an everlasting fruit-bearing tree)?
A couple other thoughts that thinking this through brought to mind:
* In my post I emphasized how the “ye must needs know that the seed is good” phrase in verse 33 contrasts with “ye must needs say that the seed is good” phrase in verse 30. However, I didn’t address how the word know is used in verse 30 itself, “for ye will say I know that this is a good seed.” I think this development is very interesting, from “you must needs say” to “ye will say I know” (in verse 30) to “ye must needs know” (in verse 33)—not to mention the “ye will begin to say within yourselves” in verse 28, which this presumably is all elaborating on. Hmm….
* The word “begin” as used in this chapter, and these verses especially, deserves careful attention (apart from just its occurrence in the phrase “beginneth to grow”). Some form of “begin” occurs no less than 5 times in verse 28; 3 times in verse 30; then in verses 33, 34 (twice), 37, and 41. It would also be interesting to think about these occurrences of “begin” vis-a-vis the “endure to the end” phrase used in verses 14-15 (once in each verse).
Julie #1, regarding “cast out,” I like how your comments suggest that Alma’s discussion of the seed being cast out—either because of unbelief (v. 28) or because it is not a good seed (v. 32) or because it has not been nourished (v. 38)—helps the Zoramites see their own situation as being cast out of the synagogues in a new light. Likewise, each of us, like Adam and Eve, are invited to think differently about being cast out of God’s presence in the Garden. What’s interesting is that Alma never really condemns the Zoramite priests for casting them out of their synagogues. In the Adam and Eve analogy, the Zoramite priests are in the role of God, casting the poor out because they were in fact unworthy (perhaps—that is, if they had not yet truly humbled themselves before God…). But rather than seeing this as a bad thing, Alma seems to be suggesting that the Zoramite poor should use this as an opportunity to cultivate some fruit and become worthy to (re)enter the synagogues/temple/Garden….
Also, I just noticed how the premise in verse 32 for the seed being “cast away” uses only the verb “groweth not”—that is, neither swelling nor sprouting are mentioned here, the seed is to be cast away only if the seed “growth not.” I think this underscores the importance of growth as the effect of faith: swelling and sprouting are, again, good only in that they lead to growth, which in turn will bring forth fruit, and growth occurs only when faith (in the word) is exercised. So, I think this effectively emphasizes faith and puts a kind of deemphasis on knowledge. It’s true that knowledge can be gained via faith, but this kind of knowledge that the seed is good only matters inasmuch as it increases/strengthens faith. Knowledge is subservient to faith, at least in this sense.
Regarding “real,” I noticed the following interesting use in JS-H 1:6:
I think you’re right to link this back to Korihor. It’s easy to imagine that Korihor’s question “how do ye know of their [the prophecies'] surety?” generated many questions in the minds of many people (or at least in Alma’s mind who is, after all, giving the sermon and re-raising these questions in terms of sign-seeking here). In this sense, “real” and “surety” should be read as synonyms. However, the fact that Alma uses “real” and not “sure” here suggests something else may be going on, and the JS-H quote above reminded me of the affected praying of the Zoramites in Alma 31. This contrast to their affected prayer is in line with the “real intent” phrases you mention elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, which all have to do with praying, repenting, or asking forgiveness….
Joe #2, regarding the sign-seeker wanting faith only “as a kind of transcendental hobby,” I think this is exactly right. This is what I found so striking in Adam’s “Atonement and Testimony” paper, his description of adultery as “mistaking the sign of love [i.e., knowledge] for love itself [i.e., faith].” In today’s culture we want: a great body without having to diet or exercise (sorry, donuts are on my mind right now…); great sex without the work of a loving relationship; comfortable SUVs without having to pay for the gas or environmental conequences; (pirated) music or software without having to pay the copyright fees (that’s for you esp., Adam…), etc., etc. I also like how you (implicitly) tied this in to the theme of the Fall and Adam and Eve’s attempt to “steal” knowledge, and how the gospel is preached as a reversal of this knowledge-without-faith situation (especially because I think it further challenges an overly-simplistic positive view of the fall that I think we tend to lapse into in Mormon theology—I’m anxious to see how Jenny grapples with all these isssues!).
Jim #3, I like how you’ve argued against a “cognitive knowledge” way of reading “perfect knowledge”—I think you are right. I wonder if the effective substitution of “perfect knowledge” for the fruit of the tree in the end of the chapter shouldn’t be taken as a textual suggestion to link perfect knowledge with the idea of wisdom (cf. 32:12). It seems others—I’m thinking esp. of Dan Peterson and Margaret Barker—have begun to explore some of these wisdom motifs in the Book of Mormon, and I think that kind of work might prove very helpful in understanding what’s going on here.
I’ll say something about the meaning/implication of my structural comments above in a new comment.
Below are some lengthy musings (mostly thoughts on cross-references for “likeness”) in an attempt to respond to Jim’s question about what the implications of the structural thoughts above are for meaning. I feel like I still haven’t bridged the gap between my more reckless theological musings about this chapter and what I’m finding in a close reading of the text and its structure, but here’s a shorter version of where my musings have taken me:
In verses 30-33 I think we have a slowing down of the discourse in order to highlight what amounts to the miracle of life/reproduction in verse 31 where “every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.” I think this miracle-of-life sense of this central phrase suggests that we should read “perfect knowledge” in terms of experience—i.e., experiential knowledge that we can have in our soul (cf. vv. 28, 34)—including all of the symbolic, mystical, and sexual connotations of this kind of knowledge. So, if in verse 42 we read about being “filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst,” then in these earlier verses it seems we are reading about what leads up to this climax.
Thus, if in verses 30-33 we read a carefully structured, repetitive account of how experiential knowledge is obtained, then we don’t have to worry so much about the difference between what this kind of knowledge is versus what perfect knowledge is because both kinds of knowledge will be qualitatively the same, at least in some sense (i.e., from the same seed—the taste or flavor will be the same; kissing someone lovingly is tantamount to making love in this sense, though it’s not making love in the “complete” sense…). This means I want to take back some of the emphasis I was previously trying to put on the “in that thing” phrase of verse 34, and the “nay” of verse 36 (which I wanted in order to emphasize the difference between knowledge and perfect knowledge), and shift it to verse 31 with a dose of wonderment about the miraculous experience we see being described there where the seed “bringeth forth unto its own likeness.” Knowledge itself, when experienced as the product of faith, is beautiful, sweet and miraculous, and if we continue in faith, we can experience (infinitely) more of the same….
(Lengthier musings posted below—read at your own risk.)
__
Regarding the meaning/implication of the structural comments I’ve made above, I’m really not sure what to make of it all yet. I’ll confess that on my first (re-)reading of these verses, 30-33 in particular, it all seemed very repetitive without really saying much substantively—this is largely the reason I spent so much time looking at the structure of/and the repetition there. The only substantive point that verses 30-33 seem to be making is that if the seed grows than it is good—a point this seems almost trivial, banal even. However, precisely because of the lengthy way in which Alma makes this point, and in this key part of his sermon (that is, roughly about where one would expect the climax of the sermon to be), I think these verses should be read quite carefully.
To that end, the center of the chiasm of verses 30-33 as I’ve structured it (and let me repeat the tentativeness with which I present this chiasm—I’d feel much better if someone else carefully considered this and other possible ways of thinking the structure of these verses…) is this curious phrase in verse 31: “Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.” The word “likeness” doesn’t strike me as particularly significant in other Book of Mormon passages, but I do think some of the uses in Genesis, the PofGP, and the D&C are worth commenting on.
1. In Abraham 4:26 we read, “And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness” (cf. Genesis 1:26). Interestingly, we read a few verses earlier, “Let us prepare the earth to bring forth grass; the herb yielding seed; the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, whose seed in itself yieldeth its own likeness upon the earth; and it was so, even as they ordered.” Here, we have—in a text where Joseph is again serving as translator—an intriguing link forged by the term “likeness” between seeds reproducing and the Gods reproducing. This suggests to me that thoughts like Jenny and Adam have been proposing regarding the seed and tree referring to something like a family tree are, indeed, worth pursuing further. I think this also suggests an interesting way to think about “likeness” as it’s used to describe idolatry in several places, starting with the commandment given in Ex 20:4, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” (Below I’ll make a comment related this curious “in the earth beneath” phrase as it relates to the planting of the seed.) D&C 1:16 and surrounding verses also seems worth studying in this light,
What’s interesting to me here in light of Alma 32 is the use of the term likeness adjacent to a metaphor of Babylon falling, perhaps like a tree that is producing wild fruit or no fruit….
2. In Moses 6, “likeness” appears 3 times. In verses 8 and 10, we seem to have repetitions of texts in Genesis (God created man in “the likeness of God,” and Adam “begat a son in his own likeness, after his own image, and called his name Seth”). In verse 63 we read:
What is striking to me about this passage, in light of Alma 32, is the way in which the seed-growing-to-a-tree fits this repetitive description so well: “things which are under the earth [the planted seed], both above [the fruit] and beneath [the seed, again].” I’m not sure how to pursue this thought further, but these connections seem quite interesting.
Also, a potentially interesting cross-reference for this spiritual-temporal likeness is D&C 77:2 where we read in response to a question about the four beasts in Revelation 4:6, “that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.”
3. In D&C 128:12-13, we see the term likeness occurring in a discussion about baptism for the dead. Quite some time ago, Joe made an interesting observation on the wiki about this passage, that we seem to read here about baptism being instituted “to form a relationship with the ordinance of baptism for the dead, being in likeness of the dead”—as though baptism for the dead predates the ordinance of baptism for oneself. Without getting too distracted by that curiosity, I do think that the way in which baptism is discussed here in terms of “likeness” and the explicit mention of the symbolism of the grave being “a place underneath” is all very provocative the way it interweaves some of the same themes of Alma 32—remember the curious mention of baptism in verse 16, and of course seeds must first be planted under the ground, or “die” (cf. 1 Cor 15:35-38; John 12:24), in order to sprout, etc.
Now, coming back to Alma 32:30-33 (finally!), how might this intertextual excursion help us understand better what’s going on in this seemingly trivial, repetitive set of verses? It seems that Alma is discussing here nothing less than the wondrous—and yet seemingly commonplace in a botanical setting—miracle of life and reproduction. Remember, the seed must be planted in our heart (v. 28—again, this curious preposition in; cf. Jim’s comment #3 on v. 34, “perfect knowledge in that thing…). So, inasmuch as baptism marks the beginning of a new life, so too the planting of the seed represents a new, life- and heart-transforming event in which we partake of the sacred(/sacramental) nature of God (by his “breathing” the word into our soul?). It is this kind of internal experience of something other, an experience which is rhetorically accomplished by the intertwining of saying and knowing in verses 30-33, that Alma is describing. Faith in the miracle of life, represented by the growth of the seed, is reinforced when the growth of the seed is felt and experienced. And although these feelings and experiences of growth testify to the goodness of the seed, they are only a shadowy foretaste of the kind of knowledge(/love) that can be experienced if we continue true and faithful….
__
Great discussion this week, Robert. My heads spinning in so many directions!
I’m not sure what’s left to add, really.
A couple of brief notes:
1. I’m curious about the status of the “musts” that Robert draws attention to.
“It must needs be that this is a good seed” (v28).
“You must needs say that the seed is good” (v30).
“Ye must needs know that the seed is good” (v33).
“Ye must know that it is good” (v35).
Are all these “musts” identical in usage? Is there a difference between the first three “must needs” and the final just “must”? Do they function as prescriptive or descriptive? Or is the difference between prescriptive and descriptive here the difference between humility without compulsion and a compelled humility? A humility without compulsion would understand the “must” as a prescription that is to be taken up, whereas a compelled humility understands the “must” as a description of a necessity to be borne?
2. So much emphasis in these verses on the “good.” Do we have a working understanding of the meaning of “good”?
“Good” has already been paralleled with truth in v28 (“if it be a true seed, or a good seed”).
And then we get the concatenation of v35 that links the “real” to what is “light” to what is “good” to what is “discernible” and back again to what is “good.”
The “good” seems to be deeply connected here to things epistemological: truth, light, discernibility. How close is the connection between the “good” and “knowledge” (or, better?, wisdom)?
In v32 we get the “good” associated with growth: “if a seed groweth it is good.” The “good” entails movement, growth, productivity?
Putting this all together could we say:
The good is thinkable only in connection with the production/growth of light/discernibility/truth/reality?
3. Have you ever “tasted light?” What a great image.
Is this a provocative conflation of two different senses (sight and taste)? Or are we talking about the concrete form that light takes when it is converted (via photosynthesis?) into something edible (e.g., fruit)?
4. Just a note that in v28 we “give place that a seed may be planted” (note the passive construction). But in v33 and v36 the construction is active: “ye have tried the experiment and planted the seed” and “ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed.”
Does this mean anything? Does the intervention of the “saying” between v28 and v33 change our relation to the planting from passivity to activity?
Adam,
1. Yes, I like this. This seems related to what I poorly articulated in the post (parenthetically) that “Alma is advocating that one acknowledges this swelling by professing, rather than describing that this profession ‘must needs’ follow” (I’m quoting myself for reference when it comes time to summarize…), and I like you’ve shown a link to our compelled humility discussions.
2. Great question and thoughts about “good,” much I want to think more about here. Culturally, I think it’s interesting how, as “the” Mormon religion, we have a cultural pragmatism to us that seems at least somewhat related to this notion of good being what works (i.e., grows, reveals, tastes good, etc.).
3. Conflation of senses—brilliant insight I hadn’t thought about.
4. From passive to active planting marked by “saying”: yes, I really like this.
So much to think about—I feel like I say that every week, but I already know I’m going to be revisiting this thread many times in the future!
Robert, your chiastic readings here have been incredibly helpful for me. I want to combine your thoughts concerning likeness in #6 and Jim’s observation that the fruit of the tree does not appear to be knowledge and then draw on the first chiasmus you describe in v.29-34. I think the central point—”every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness”—is vital for understanding where Alma eventually wants the Zoramites to end up.
The principle Alma presents is, essentially, that good seeds grow. Biologically, seeds produce a mature version of their parent, and in becoming their parents, also create their own seeds. The phrase “bringeth forth unto its own likeness” is a bit tricky, but I think it could potentially refer to either, or both, parts of that process.
In this case, the tree, properly nurtured, will produce fruit which is precious, sweet, white, and pure. We’re familiar with this tree thanks to Lehi and Nephi—and Nephi’s vision makes it fairly clear that this tree can be identified with/as the Son of God (although it also makes it clear that this tree is not limited to one single interpretation).
So I think it’s possible to see the entire metaphor as planting the word/seed/Christ and nurturing it so that as it grows, one becomes like Him (perhaps more literally than we normally think?). The first half of the book of Mosiah makes it clear that we are spiritually born of Christ—we are his seed, in a sense—and Alma himself alludes to an underlying physicality in conversion, which results in His image being “engraven upon [our] countenances” (5:19; as an aside, it’s interesting that that chapter/discourse culminates in an invitation to “also … by partakers of the fruit of the tree of life”).
If we’re willing to allow for the tree of life to be Christ, it lends some interesting possibilities to the Garden story. We could see Adam and Eve as being barred from the fruit of the tree of life as their being barred from approaching Christ/the atonement from the outside—essentially, they cannot be the agents that pluck that fruit and eat it themselves (they cannot give themselves redemption/eternal life). But they still must have that fruit if they are to have eternal life; post-Eden, however, the only way to obtain that fruit is through the process described in Alma 32: giving place, not casting out, and nurturing. With the result being that instead of their reaching out to take the fruit, the inner tree instead becomes the active agent, “bring[ing] forth fruit unto you” (43).
That final phase of the chapter echoes the central chiastic point of verses 29-34: “every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.” Which now can be re-read not necessarily as only a description of a seed maturing into the parent, becoming a parent itself, but also as a promise: the seed will bring forth fruit (Christ will bring forth eternal life) to those that are of its likeness/look like it (to those who have cultivated Him and have become like Him).
Wow! I’m never leaving town in the middle of a seminar again!
Fantastic thoughts. The more I reflect on the conversations for the week, the more I wonder whether we aren’t taking the last part of the chapter far too quickly: our comments seem far more scattered than they have generally been. I don’t know, however, that there is anything that can be done about that now.
I’m particularly struck by three things from this discussion.
First, the question of likeness. I find myself interested in doing comparative study between Alma 32 and 1 Corinthians 15. At any rate, the discussions of creation texts here are certainly quite relevant.
Second, Adam’s thematic of the “saying” that runs through these verses is immensely helpful for thinking about what Alma is doing. I’m very eager to see this theme worked out in greater detail.
Third, I still want to emphasize that knowledge/knowing does not at all show up in the chapter after verse 36. Which is to say, I’m not at all sure that there is a K2. And I think we need to look more carefully at the ideas of “increase” and “strengthen” when they are applied to faith. What do these things mean?
I’m left with questions I would like to have asked and addressed during the week…