Just adding a public note here with a link to the Mormon Theology Seminar’s new home page:

www.mormontheologyseminar.org

Also, here’s a link to a podcast about this seminar and the upcoming conference.

Well, a very short discussion left me with little to summarize. But I stumbled upon something else that I thought I’d share.

I was thinking about Alma 31:36 with its odd double referent to Alma clapping his hands upon his co-workers. I found the word in Isaiah 55 and also found, much to my surprise, that virtually every word of that chapter lines up with something we’ve seen in Alma 32. I’ll reproduce Isaiah 55 in full and then comment after each verse:

1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.

Alms 32 ends with the note that those who plant the seed and nourish the tree will not thirst. It stands to reason, then, that those thirsting would be those listening to Alma. Isaiah’s reference to those with no money is obviously applicable. What Alma describes as growing fruit that “ye shall feast upon . . . even until ye are filled”, Isaiah calls buying without price. I like the way that the Isaiah chapter ties together the poverty of the audience to the price-less-ness (two meanings) of the fruit that faith can produce. The thing about the end of this verse is that there is a price for wine and milk–it just isn’t paid by the consumer. There is a subtle but important Christology here . . .

Sorry this got a little long. . .

(I decided to include the verses for convenient reference.)

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

Notice the repetition of the four-fold sequence of (1) nourish, (2) root, (3) grow up, and (4) fruit. In both, (2), (3), and (4) are seen as the results of (1). The first instance is introduced with “ye will say” and the second is Alma’s words affirming that it will in fact happen. So the verse makes a neat parallel between what ye (the audience) will say and what Alma in fact says. We, the audience, are invited to do what Alma does. I also note that both iterations are reminiscent of the creation narrative in that someone “says” and then it happens; the audience is invited to do what God does as a creator. In this case, it is faith/knowledge that is created.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

Although it isn’t stated explicitly, the nourishing care of the tree must be to adequately water it—if that isn’t done, the sun will scorch it. The unmentioned but essential element here is water. It is tempting to develop a negative theology of Jesus-as-living-water, but I wonder why Alma doesn’t mention it explicitly here.

The language is strongly reminiscent of Jesus’ parable of the four soils (see Mark 4:6: “But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.”) Both involve a teacher teaching multitudes about developing faith using very similar parables, but Jesus mentions four types of ground and encourages His audience to identify itself with the fertile ground. In Alma, only two scenarios (not four) are included and the audience is to identify with the farmer, not with the soil. Further, in Jesus’ parable, the problem is that the seed fell on stony ground; in Alma’s the problem is that the seed wasn’t nourished.

The natural result of a scorched plant is the need to “cast it out.” This language isn’t new in this chapter; the audience had been cast out of the synagogues. We discussed last week how their experience prepared them to hear this parable. Were they not nourished because of their poverty? Did they wither because they weren’t nourished? They certainly were cast out.

Notice the (interrupted) repetition in these two verses:

A And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say:

B Let us nourish it with great care,

C that it may get root,

D that it may grow up,

E and bring forth fruit unto us.

A And now behold,

B if ye nourish it with much care

C it will get root,

D and grow up,

E and bring forth fruit.

A But if ye neglect the tree,

B and take no thought for its nourishment,

C behold it will not get any root;

D and when the heat of the sun cometh

E and scorcheth it,

The first two strophes set up an expectation of a four-fold sequence for the third. But in this third strophe, the B and C lines mention nourishment and root (albeit negatively), then expectations are violated in the D and E lines where bringing forth fruit is replaced with being scorched.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

I can almost “hear” Alma saying “this is not because you were not good, neither is it because you were not capable of producing good fruit, but because your clothing was poor, because they refused to provide for you, therefore they cannot enjoy your fruit.” Remembering that the root of the problem here is their poor clothing, it seems significant that the crux of the parable is about where the fault lies—in the thing itself or in how the thing is treated.

Here’s this verse with positive and negative statements indicated:

-Now, this is not because the seed was not good,

-neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable;

+but it is because your ground is barren,

-and ye will not nourish the tree,

-therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

It’s a nice arrangement that emphasizes the real problem: barren ground. But the ground isn’t inherently or unchangeably barren; it is barren because it wasn’t nourished.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

I find it interesting that Alma drops the pretense of the parable and says “nourish the word” instead of “nourish the tree.” This is the first time that the fruit is identified: we have obvious parallels to the creation story. But in that story, the fruit of the tree of life is something God provides; humans don’t need to plant a seed or nourish it or anything. Why do humans have to work for *this* tree of life? “Eye of faith” is an interesting phrase; there are only two other BoM references; I’m not at all sure what it means.

Note in v38 that the same verb—pluck—is used for removing the scorched tree. Is Alma making the point that the actions are similar? If so, why?

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

There is an interesting progression of ideas in this verse and the previous two: v39 ends with reference to the fruit, v40 to the fruit of the tree of life, and v41 to the tree of everlasting life. Each of the three verses begins with the need to nourish the word and ends with increasingly specific references to what exactly the fruit is/does.

Other trees: Garden of Eden, Nephi’s vision, end of Book of Revelation. How do these all relate? Or is that the wrong question to ask?

42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

So the tree grows IN you and then you eat of its fruit. Is this where the parable breaks down? If not, what does it mean to consume a fruit grown within you? Is it just another way of saying that eternal life is an inside job? What else might it mean?

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

Does the reaping happen while the waiting happens? That seems to be the most natural reading of this verse.

General Comments on Alma 32

I want to make a few general comments about the discourse because I want to be sure that our “a few verses per week” approach doesn’t mean that we miss sight of the big picture.

I’m struck by how many references there are to Alma saying something (“I say unto you”) and references to the audience saying something (“ye will say”) in this chapter. The phrase “I say unto you” is completely unnecessary: of course the speaker is saying to the audience what the speaker is saying to the audience! One wonders how this phrase (or variants) made it into this chapter 14 times; I suspect it must be doing something besides the obvious. Here’s a chart with the actual phrases on the right and my simplification of them on the left:

OTHER (asks) Thy brother hath said . . .

I SAY (ask) I say unto you . . .

I ASK I would ask . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

I SAID As I said unto you . . .

OTHER (says) There are many who do say . . .

I ASK Now I ask . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

I SAID Now as I said . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

I SAID As I said . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

I SAID As I said . . .

YOU SAY Ye will begin to say . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

YOU SAY Ye will say . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

I SAY I say unto you . . .

YOU SAY Ye will say . .

Notes on this:

(a) The sequence begins with the ‘other’ and ends with ‘you.’ The point of Alma’s discourse is to get them away from thinking that the others (=the leaders who have kicked them out) matter and into thinking that what they choose to do matters. The audience literally gets the last word in determining what will happen. In a discourse on the word, addressed to people who have been isolated from “the word” by their leaders, this seems significant.

(b) The first chunk consists of three questions; the last chunk of Alma’s consists of three “sayings,” which may imply that the questioning that begins the discourse ends with the certitude of statements in a symbolic as well as a literal way.

(c) The material appears to move through three stages: first, asking alternates with saying; next, saying alternates with “having said;” finally, Alma’s “saying” alternates with what ‘you’ “say.” So the progress is from questioning, to the dialogue between past and present, to that between Alma and the audience. The audience takes the place (if you will) of Alma’s past as his discussion partner; they are invited to ‘be a part of history’ as it were, as questioning is replaced by . . . them. The three stages of the material are also characterized by different discussion partners: (1) other-Alma, (2) Alma’s past—Alma’s present, and (3) Alma—the audience.

(d) The first time the “you” says anything, it is “ye will begin to say.” That makes obvious sense. But it also point up the fact that at that moment, the audience has begun to interact with the word. And the thing that you will begin to say is that the seed is good.

(e) When Alma says that the audience “will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us,” the emphasis isn’t just on the nourishing process but also on the saying process. That is, the decision by the people to verbalize their plans, or even just to have those plans, is the primary constituent of their faith. Back to the Korihor story, I wonder if we need to read more into his muteness as a symbolic sign and not just a punitive sign. And I also wonder how all of this “saying” relates to the “word.”

(f) The point is to show the back-and-forth of faith development by casting it as a process that swings between what Alma says and what the people say. I note that the larger discourse is in reality an answer to the question posed by the people and that that answer consists them of a lot of hypothetical sayings by the people.

(g) One final thought: Or maybe my “of course the speaker is speaking to the audience” was a little hasty: the Zoramite poor have gotten used to be treated as non-entities. Maybe this relates to the physical “turning” I noted early on; maybe the phrasing is meant to remind them that Alma really is speaking to them—the opposite of kicking them out.

Another general comment: there are three phrases that are each repeated (in whole or in part) at least three times in this chapter:

We talked about the first bunch last week, although I don’t think we noted the way that “begin to be enlightened” parallels the “begin to grow” phrase. As for the next chunk of repeated phrases, I addressed those above. I would note here that the chart suggests that “looking forward with the eye of faith” is what “taking root” and “growing up” allude to, but I’m still not entirely sure what that means. The final chunk is more literal and less a part of the parable. I note that the terms don’t occur in the same order but I don’t know if that is significant. While there is some overlap between the second set and the third, the order of the repetitive phrases is remarkably stable. It may be that they are used to mirror the growth process. Not sure—I sense that there is something else important going on here but that I haven’t quite pinned it down.

Another big picture item: in v10, Alma asks, “Behold I say unto you, do ye suppose that ye cannot worship God save it be in your synagogues only?” Inasmuch as the parable of the seed teaches a process by which eternal life can be grown within you, it makes it clear that the synagogue is not necessary for worship.

Another thing: We know that the audience is poor, but I’m wondering if there are any clues to their specific situation that I have missed. I ask because an urban street beggar (for example) would read this parable quite a bit differently than a subsistence farmer. Anyone?

]]> http://alma32.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/alma-3237-43/feed/ 4 juliemariesmith http://alma32.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/discussion-summary-alma-3230-36/ http://alma32.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/discussion-summary-alma-3230-36/#comments Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:29:16 +0000 Robert C. http://alma32.wordpress.com/?p=63 ]]>

I had a rather crazy week last week, so sorry for not posting this earlier. Since we’re rather late in the seminar now, let me try to summarize (“muse about” would be more accurate here…) both this week’s and previous weeks’ discussion as it relates to the first seminar question:

What does Alma 32 teach us about exercising faith?

Faith is something that occurs before the attaining of knowledge. Faith is what sets the process of the attaining of knowledge in motion (as the frequency of the term begin attests). Once faith is exercised, and the word/seed is given place to do its thing, then the word/seed reproduces its goodness.

Experiencing this goodness is knowledge, and should be recognized as such. Alma describes this recognition step by saying “you must needs say that the seed is good” and, later, “ye must needs know that this is a good seed” (v. 33). Regarding the growth of the seed, and the recognition thereof, Alma also says this will “strengthen your faith” (v. 30). Interestingly, faith is in the objective (grammatical) case here, so it may be a mistake to describe this recognition step in terms of “exercising faith”—after all, the seed/word is described as being the agent of this increase in faith. Verse 36 seems to support this idea when—repeating the terms “exercise” and “faith” which first occur in verse 27—Alma says “ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.” Exercising faith is associated here, again, with the planting of the seed, and the amount of faith needed to initiate this growth is referred to with the modifier “only”: it is not a large amount of faith that produces knowledge, but a relatively small amount of faith that unleashes the miraculous reproductive power of the seed.

This “only” in verse 36 seems to have two different, non-mutually exclusive connotations. As just described, it might be emphasizing the small degree of faith needed to get the seed to start growing. A second, more obvious connotation is that this verse is pointing to an additional role that faith will play in the eventual attainment of fruit. To whit, verse 40 associates faith with the nourishing of the seed in the following negative construction: “thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit.” Although this increased faith needs to be accompanied “with great diligence, and with patience,” the continued exercise of faith might now be thought of as being the direct result of the growth of the seed, and only indirectly related to the initial exercise of faith. That is, the wording of the later verses in the chapter seems to keep this faith which was increased by the growth of the seed (rather than by the listener-as-agent) separate from the diligence and patience that the listener (presumably) exerts.

I think this suggests a slightly different notion of faith than is usually conceived. Perhaps this difference is best articulated by considering again the way that diligence and patience are paired “with” faith in verse 40. That is, whereas faith is often thought as being synonymous with diligence and patience (as in the common expression, “a trial of faith”), here it seems faith is something distinct, something that does not in and of itself connote diligence and patience. That is, verse 41 does not say “nourish the word . . . with your faith, with great diligence, and with patience,” putting each of these terms into obvious parallel; rather, it says “nourish the word . . . by your faith, with great diligence, and with patience.” It is the “by” instead of “with” preceding “your faith” that I think suggests a distinction between the word faith and the words diligence and patience.

So, if faith should not be taken to (primarily) connote diligence and patience, how should faith be understood? As we’ve discussed previously, I think faith is being used here more as a synonym for belief. “Trust” might also be a good synonym: how much are the Zoramite poor willing to trust that what Alma is saying is true (or “good”)? Whereas diligence and patience are usually thought in terms of virtues that are within our “own” sphere of control, the contrastive juxtaposition that I think is present in the text suggests a much more vulnerable-to-the-ego aspect to faith. Faith is a relinquishing of one’s own control, yielding to the power of someone or something else (the word/seed, in this case).

This is, I think, why Alma does give a very direct answer to the Zoramite poor about what they should do—because to have faith is not like the simple self-exerting way that patience or diligence are exercised (though there are similarities in these concepts). What is important yet difficult for Alma to convey is the sense in which what must be done is a kind of un-doing (the “without” that Joe has been talking so much about). In short, what the Zoramite poor need to do is to believe Alma’s word(s) over the Zoramite authorities’ word.

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):

1. Desire –> at least a particle of faith (F1)
2. –> plant seed/word
3. –> growth of the seed
4. –> knowledge in that thing (K1)
5. –> increased faith (F2)
6. –> nourishment of the tree
7. –> 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.

An indexing project I’ve been waiting for all summer arrived this week. Of course, after taking two months to send it to me, the press sent it with a two-week turnaround deadline (for the absolutely final version). I’m hoping to have the first draft completed by Monday so I can send it to the author and then sort through the rich discussion from this week. Thanks to all.

I hope the discussion Adam initiated last week concerning the relationships between the key terms of this chapter will continue, as I found it very useful last week. In that vein, I have tried to focus the majority my thoughts around exploring specific phrases and words.

Verse 26

Alma begins “Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words.” We should note the introduction of his “words” to the concept of “word/s” in the discourse. After the preceding verses in which God’s desire (that we believe on his word) and God’s method (he imparts his words via angels), I find it significant that Alma’s practical application of these principles is to instruct the multitude how to come to believe in his own words. This specific identification promotes the idea of substitutability as a quality of the word: Alma’s words may be his own, but in sharing them he acts as a messenger from God and his words simultaneously serve as God’s word so that God’s desire may be realized.

 The second half of the verse—“Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge”—implies through the phrase “at first” that this lack of knowledge is temporary. If the multitude will at some future point be able to know of the surety of Alma’s words perfectly, does the same conclusion follow the comparison to faith and perfect knowledge? Is our lack of perfect knowledge temporary?

 Additionally, I find the phrase “know of a surety” here very interesting. Joe’s cross-references were very helpful here and I would highly suggest looking through them. Reading through them, the phrase appears to be used to express testimony related to God’s covenants, angels, power, miracles, etc.—in other words, God’s acts and interactions with men. The contexts often implied a ritual use of these words, which is also worth thinking about. What is it that makes knowledge sure? That secures knowledge? Or, reading the phrase in its entire context, what is it that secures words themselves?

 Verse 27

This verse begins by setting up a condition: if those receiving Alma’s words will awake and arise (a possible reference to ritual actions, following v.26?), which is equivalent to experimenting upon his words, which experiment can begin with as little as a desire to believe and involve letting that desire work, then they will reach a point where they will be able to believe “enough” to give place to a portion of Alma’s words.

 This conditionality is important because it casts the remainder of Alma’s discourse in terms of individual choice. Although Alma has talked about conditionality and choice before (for example, the “sometimes” in v.13), this is the first time where such a conditional choice is put by Alma directly to the multitude themselves (“if ye will awake …”). Alma has recently reiterated his understanding of the multitude’s desire as desire to know what they should do (v.24), and his response here is the first specific action which they can choose to do. Of course, the implications of this choice to act inevitably admit one’s own insufficiency (as Adam has often pointed out) and hence the prior necessity of humility.

 Regarding several terms used in the verse, I would like to call our attention to our third Key Question (what is meant by the use of the term “experiment” in Alma 32:27) and suggest that we discuss this together, in part because my own thoughts on the subject are far from coherent at this point.

 I do think it’s worth pointing out the phrase “exercise particle of faith” in that this description of faith seems markedly different from earlier descriptions—faith here is conceived as something tangible, particular, and constituted. It is able to be “exercised” by individuals, which connotes a concept of faith as utilized, held, wielded, practiced, etc.

 To help us think through the role of desire in this verse, let me observe that this is the third appearance of desire linked with words in Alma’s discourse. In v.22 we are told that God desires that we should believe on his word. Vv.26–27 express Alma’s desire that those listening to him should believe his words. And v.27 also articulates the possibility for the (humbled) subject’s desire to believe Alma’s words. The multitude’s desire has been repeatedly identified as desire for knowledge concerning a course of action (vv.5, 9, 24). This “worldly” desire contrasts with the “heavenly” desire of God, his messenger, and his humbled subject: they each desire the same thing, namely, “belief in his words.” The interpretation and significance of that phrase shifts according to who is desiring, but the overall result is the same—that the unbeliever may believe on the word/s.

 Alma also tells the humbled subject what to do with his/her desire: “let this desire work in you.” Is it significant that desire here is active, and apparently active on its own merit (merely be being desire)? How does desire “work” in someone? What work is accomplished? Does the result—believing “in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words”—describe the work in some way? The act of giving place implies a removal of one’s self, an allowing that might be recognized as humility enacted. Again, humility is both a necessary and negating action (in the sense the self removes its illusion of self-sufficiency). 

**My apologies for the tardy and partial post—I will have the remainder up later today** It’s up now. Thanks for your patience.

Verse 28

“Now, we will compare the word unto a seed”: how do we understand “word” here? Why the shift from “my words” in v.27 to “the word” here? Alma’s previous discourse has seemed at times somewhat disjointed—perhaps tangential or deferring is a better description. Alma has been unable to sustain a direct answer to the question of “what shall we do?” That changes, however, with the introduction of this comparison, which will sustain the remainder of the chapter. Perhaps there is something inherent in the structure of metaphor or parable that allows for a sustained approach?

 Note that the word/seed will remain as long as the humbled subject remains humbled—God will not remove the word/seed, but the humbled subject take actions that will cast it out: unbelief (which seems it should be as complex a concept as belief/faith, and would be interesting to explore) and resisting the Spirit of the Lord (which I see as echoing v.16 “stubbornness of heart”).

 If the opposite choice is made—belief and accepting the Spirit of the Lord—the result is the swelling of the word/seed. While much of Alma’s discourse centers on faith, it appears that the power of faith simultaneously implies a relationship with the Spirit of the Lord (who is this?), a spirit which appears to aid the swelling of the word/seed.

 Regarding the word/seed “begin[ing] to swell within your breasts” and the “swelling motions” felt, I find it interesting that Alma specifically does not begin with the sprouting and growth of the word/seed. Instead, he follows the biology of seed growth rather explicitly: before they sprout, seeds absorb water and swell, which activates their capacity for growth. But this growth will not occur until v.30; growth apparently can’t actually begin until after the subject, in response to the swollen word/seed, begins to recognize the word/seed as good.

 (As a side note, I see this swelling as subtly referencing a physical, embodied subject [it takes place in the breast and is felt—conditions which may be metaphor, but still require embodiment to understand].) 

 Alma presents both the swelling and the initial subjective response (recognizing the word/seed as good) as unconditional: they will happen, provided the previous condition (not casting it out) is met. The reasons for recognizing the word/seed as good are phrased to emphasize the way in which the subject is acted upon by the word/seed:

 for it beginneth to enlarge my soul;

yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding,

            yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

 If the consequences for giving place to the word/seed and not casting it out are unconditional, it follows that the subject will be acted upon by the word/seed and hence must be previously prepared to receive those actions. Again, Alma’s prior emphasis on humility as necessary comes into play in that only the humbled subject may be acted upon by the word/seed—any pride of self-preservation casts out the word/seed and voids the process.

 Verse 29

Alma’s analysis appears straightforward—“Now behold, would not this increase your faith?”—and yet I’m not sure it’s necessarily that clear. How does a recognition of the word/seed as good increase faith? Does the verb here indicate that faith is a quantifiable, measurable, object? Is faith only quantifiable when it is examined in its particularity, either particularity of situation or particularity of relation (i.e., a specific person’s faith in a specific thing)?

 The second sentence—“nevertheless, it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge” again returns us to the questions in v.26 regarding our apparently temporary lack (and therefore ultimate gain) of perfect knowledge. Although we would expect the phrase “grown up” to apply to the word/seed given v.28, Alma actually applies it to faith itself. Does this then create a third layer to the concept of the word/seed, so that it’s actually the word/seed/faith? If so, does the end result of matured faith being perfect knowledge imply a parallel between perfect knowledge and the ultimate result of the word/seed (i.e., the tree with its pure fruit)?

 Final Thought (just one, I promise)

Working through these verses this week I spent a fair amount of time thinking through the relationship between faith and knowledge. I’m wondering if it might be useful to think of it in terms of process. Is there something essential saving about having faith before knowledge—about the process of receiving the word, giving it place, recognizing it as good—as opposed to simply starting with the knowledge in the first place? Perhaps because there is something vital about faith itself? Not to jump ahead, but when perfect knowledge in a specific thing is reached (v.34), notice that faith does not cease to exist, but is simply dormant. Faith may not be active, but its power and strength are still there. The end point is the same—perfect knowledge—but the difference is whether one reaches that point with faith intact.

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’?

If we were to risk definitions of some key terms and then constructed these definitions by referring only to information presented thus far in the chapter, what might we venture?

The Word

The narrative introduction to Alma’s sermon (32.1-7) mentions “the word” on three occasions.

Twice in the first verse – initially qualified as “the word of God” and then simply referenced as “the word.” Here, the word is the direct object of Alma’s preaching.

In verse six we are told that Alma sees the multitude to be “in a preparation to hear the word.” Their preparation consists of having suffered afflictions that “had truly humbled them.”

Alma preaches “the word of God” and in order receive it one must be prepared by true humility.

In the body of his discourse (32.8ff), Alma first mentions the word in verse 14. Here he says that “they are more blessed who humble themselves because of the word.” This seems to indicate that humility may not only precede the word by way of preparation, but follow the word as an effect.

In verse 16, Alma says that “blessed is he that believeth in the word of God . . . without being brought to know the word . . . before they will believe.” Here, the word is identified as the object of belief and/or knowledge.

In verse 22, Alma says that “God is merciful unto all who believe on his name; therefore he desireth, in the first place, that ye should believe, yea, even on his word.” Here, the word is directly identified as the object of belief and indirectly associated with what God desires. God desires us to believe in his word. The possessive “his” suggests that in the phrase “the word of God” the “of God” should be understood not primarily as “the word about God” but as “the word spoken by God.” We might even understand “his word” to refer expressly to a promise (as when one “gives one’s word”).

In verse 23, Alma describes “the word” as something that God gives or imparts: “He imparteth his word by angels unto men.” Here, the word is a gift given by the intermediary of an angel.

Finally, in verse 23, the word is pluralized to refer to the way that “little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned.” Here, again, the word is described as something “given.” Further, it is associated with that which can confound us – especially if we take ourselves to be wise and learned. Its power to confound is likely what accounts for the necessary preparation of humility in order to receive it and the potential effect of humility that its reception can induce.

We might, then, say something like this: the word is what is preached by God’s angel/messenger to those who are humble/prepared in order to extend to them a promise that will bless them with humility by confounding them.

The content of this promise appears to be most clearly indicated in verse 22 when Alma says that “God is merciful unto all who believe on his name; therefore he desireth, in the first place, that ye should believe, yea, even on his word.” “His word” appears to directly implicate the promise that he “is merciful unto all who believe on his name.”

Given this identification of “his word” with the promise of mercy, we might read verse 13 in a similar way as Alma’s clearest and fullest expression of what he then summarizes in verse 14 with his initial use of the phrase “the word.”

“And now surely,

Whosoever repenteth

shall find mercy;

and he that findeth mercy

and endureth to the end

the same shall be saved.”

Faith

As I mentioned last week, I believe Alma 32 generally uses the terms “faith” and “belief” in a way that is more or less synonymous. This is evident especially in verse 18 where Alma asks: “Is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.” This verse is, in fact, the first verse in the chapter to use the word “faith.” Verse 16, however, is the first to use the word “believe.”

Verse 18 is also interesting because it appears to provide a relatively stringent, negative delimitation of faith: it is possible to believe “a thing” only under the condition that one does not know it.

If, however, faith is understood to be synonymous with belief then verse 16 pretty explicitly equates belief with humility:

“Therefore,

blessed are they who humble themselves

without being compelled to be humble;

or rather, in other words,

blessed is he that believeth in the word of God and is baptized

without stubbornness of heart.”

I’ve arranged the scansion of this section of the verse slightly different than previously. Here, “humbling oneself” is parallel to “believing in the word” + “being baptized” and “without being compelled” is parallel to “without stubbornness of heart.”

In verse 21, Alma returns from his aside about cursedness to address again what he means by “faith.” He begins by offering a re-statement of his initially negative delimitation: “as I said concerning faith – faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things.” This restatement is less stringent the first description. The mutual exclusivity of faith and knowledge is softened by the inclusion of the modifier “perfect.” This seems to indicate that faith may overlap with knowledge, but not with “perfect” knowledge.

In the second half of verse 21, Alma then offers a positive definition of faith: “if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.” This double modification of the “things” for which faith hopes seems to function as a commentary on the first half of the verse. What would “perfect” knowledge be? It would be knowledge that is seen? Faith bears a relation to knowledge of the “things” it hopes for insofar as these things are qualified as “true,” but faith is not knowledge insofar as the “things” are not seen. Sight here operates as the condition for the “perfection” of knowledge?

Thus far in Alma 32 we know several crucial things about faith. The object of faith is God’s word. Believing in the word without stubbornness of heart is equivalent to humbling oneself without compulsion. Faith entails hoping for “things” not seen. If we know something (perfectly), then we have no cause to believe it.

What causes us to believe in “things” not seen? Is the “cause” of faith humility? Also, if the word of God is his promise of mercy, then is God’s mercy what is not seen, but true? In the absence of visible mercy, our humility is what causes faith in the thing unseen?

Knowledge

In verse 12, Alma introduces the term “wisdom” and connects it with humility: “it is well that ye are cast out of your synagogues, that ye may be humble, and that ye may learn wisdom; for it is necessary that ye should learn wisdom.” Here, both humility and wisdom are described as “necessities” that are given in parallel with one another. We are, Alma continues, “necessarily brought to be humble.”

What is the relationship between this wisdom and knowledge? Is wisdom a particular relation to knowledge? A humble relation to knowledge?

What is the relationship between wisdom and the word? Is wisdom a necessary but uncompelled relation to the promise of God’s mercy?

Verse 16 is the chapter’s first use of the term “to know”: “blessed is he that believeth in the word of God and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe.” Here, “to know” is introduced as a verb whose direct object is the word. It describes a possible relation to the word that is contrasted with a relation that would be without stubbornness of heart. The intensifying repetition that moves from “to know the word” to “compelled to know” appears to mark the initial difference between belief and knowledge in terms of compulsion. The verse’s earlier use of the word compulsion refers to being humble without being compelled to be humble. There is something about knowledge of the word that compels humility.

In verse 17, Alma reports the received “wisdom” of the crowd/”the many” to be the following: “there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.” Alma doesn’t dispute the proposed connection between knowledge, signs, and surety. He does, however, dispute the conflation of knowing and believing on the grounds that “if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe it.” Again, the key difference appears to be compulsion. In the face of a sure sign, knowing is compelled and in light of this compulsion the “cause” for believing is removed. Belief is “caused” by an absence of compulsion? Belief is caused by a certain kind of lack?

In verse 19, Alma proposes a connection between being cursed and knowing the will of God without doing it. However, he does not contrast knowledge with belief on this point. It is also cursed to “only” believe and not do it. The difference is potentially one of degree: to know and fail to act may be “more” cursed than to only believe and not act. But this, Alma tell us, we’ll have to decide for ourselves. However, the diminuitive “only” associated with “only believeth” and the “more” associated with knowledge indicates that knowledge may differ from belief in its addition of something “more.”

In verse 21, Alma qualifies the kind of knowledge that is exclusive of faith as “perfect knowledge.” This modification, especially in light of its later use (cf. verse 34), appears to put a positive spin on knowledge. Also, as I suggested earlier, the difference between a knowledge that does not exclude the cause of faith and a perfect knowledge seems to turn on the question of hope. Faith must hope and hope involves a relation to what is not seen. Presumably, a “perfect” knowledge would then be one that involves the visible presence of what is not seen in such a way that the need for hope is unnecessary because the hope has been realized. The perfection of knowledge is the actualization of hope?

Finally, in verses 24-25, Alma casts the Zoramites’ request as a desire “to know what ye should do.” Here, knowing is an object of desire and it is that which directs an action. In these same verses, Alma also uses the following interesting phrase: “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 be humble yourselves; for I verily believe that there are some among you who would humble themselves.” The initial statement about “that which is true” may be of note in here in connection with knowledge. Alma doesn’t want to judge them just on the basis of what is true. He wants to additionally take into account what might have been the case (or, what will have been the case?): if they weren’t compelled to humility as they manifestly are, then might have been humble nonetheless. Is the use of the phrase “that which is true” parallel to the use of the same locution in verse 22 where “ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true”? Is Alma invoking the same distinction? It is true/visible that the poor are compelled to be humility, but in order for there to be room for faith we must additionally take into account what is not seen: the humility that they might have had anyway? Otherwise, the situation is literally hopeless and faith is without a cause? In this sense, the “perfection” of knowledge would involve the actualization of the humility that they might have had if they (like all of us?) hadn’t first been compelled to humility?

Tying Knots

Well, I’ve rambled around quite a bit here, not only through my own verses for this week but through everyone else’s preceding verses as well. Nonetheless, some ideas are on the table. At this point in the chapter, we’ve got a constellation of key terms:

The word, mercy, humility, faith, belief, hope, knowledge, and compulsion.

Figuring out how to constellate their relationships is, I think, the key. I’m out of time now (and already late!), but I’d propose the following “activity” for those interested: take each of these eight terms and define their relationship to each of the others only on the basis of what we’ve already been told in this chapter.

Thus:

What is the connection between the word and mercy? the word and humility? the word and faith? the word and belief? the word and hope? the word and knowledge? the word and compulsion?

And, what is the connection between mercy and the word? mercy and humility? mercy and faith? mercy and belief? mercy and hope? mercy and knowledge? mercy and compulsion?

Etc.

Because most all of our discussion this week turned on the three “withouts” of verse 16, I spent some time trying to formalize/diagrammatize/mathematicize that without within the broader structure of faith I see unfolding in Alma 32. As such, I worked out the following “matheme” or diagram:

faithmatheme

What I will do in the remainder of this summary is, following Jenny’s lead, try to explicate this matheme a bit by analyzing it in light of the four questions we are addressing in the seminar. Before turning directly to the four questions, though, I should probably be quite forthcoming that this matheme is a product as much of my reading in the rest of the Book of Mormon as it is of my reading in Alma 32, though it would have been impossible without our discussions this week, etc. I should also mention that there is an obvious influence of Badiou on my thinking here (there is some loose connection between the matheme I present here and Badiou’s “gamma diagram”).

Moreover, I think this matheme can be broken into four “stages” of development: creation, fall, atonement, and veil (a persistent theme throughout the Book of Mormon). I’ve shown this here:

creationfallatonementveil

Now, all of that said, onto the four questions themselves. It might be wise to have the matheme open or printed and handy.

(4) How might paying close attention to the textual, historical, and political contexts of Alma 32 (re)shape our understanding of Alma’s treatment of faith?

The first part of Alma 32 reveals a remarkably Hegelian setting for Alma’s speech. The rich-poor dialectic that obtains among the Zoramites can be read—with remarkable rigor—as parallel to Hegel’s master-slave dialectic. The matheme adopts this by placing the master-slave dialectic itself on the left half of the diagram: the master and the slave are interlocked in a dialectic that entails the development of an entire encyclopedia of knowledge. Of course, as Hegel makes clear—though he is drawing on a tradition stretching back to at least Socrates/Plato—the development of this encyclopedic knowledge unfolds only as a response to death (within, as Jenny as shown us again and again, the fall).

This, of course, points back to Alma 31:5—Alma wants to take an approach that avoids the violence of the sword, of death, and he proposes to do it by introducing the word. That would seem to mean that there is a way of fixing the situation that leaves off death for life (a la Kierkegaard, or perhaps even C. S. Lewis [in his The Great Divorce]).

(1) What does Alma 32 teach us about exercising faith?

Alma sees faith as being structured by a “without,” on which verse 16 is decisive: “Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe.” Given the clarifications in verses 17-18 (and again in verses 19-20), it seems that it would be best to summarize Alma’s conception of faith as belief without knowledge or humility without compulsion. The matheme is a model of what this might look like: a subtractive humility will have to traverse and transgress the compelled humility of the poor/slave.

But if Alma speaks of two humilities, the logic of verses 13-16 can also be read as trying to work these two humilities into a single one (the “blessed” of verse 13 and the “more blessed” of verse 14 being collapsed into a single “blessed” in verse 16): one must ask how the two humilities are ultimately intertwined. The matheme attempts to capture both the apparent split between two humilities (the slave is on one side of the veil, and the humble believer is on the other side) and their apparent connection (the traversing/transgressing arrow connects the two humilities). But how is it that the two are brought into relation?

(2) What does Alma mean by “the word” and why is it so central to faith?

It seems that it is only the advent of “the word” that enables a crossing of the two humilities. The supplementation of the dialectical situation of the Zoramites—the supplementation of the word, indeed, of the Word—makes it possible for the entire encyclopedia to be rewritten, recategorized, recoded, reinterpreted, etc. To speak in terms of typology: the Word that suddenly supplements the situation makes it possible to read everything in the encyclopedia typologically, as pointing to the Word that suddenly intervenes. As a result, faith, as fidelity to the event of the advent of the supplementary word, cannot be disentangled from preaching. The slavish person, who is obviously far more open to supplementation than the master, has her compelled humility typologically rewritten in light of the supplementary word: compelled humility is effectively reconfigured as faithful humility, as humility without compulsion.

The word, then, is vital because it is effectively what breaks the totalizing play of the master and the slave and thus makes it possible for compelled humility to be rewritten as humility without compulsion (or, as Alma puts it, humility “because of the word”).

(3) What is meant by the use of the term “experiment” in Alma 32.27?

Looking ahead a bit, then, it might be possible already to anticipate the “experiment” of verse 27 to be the work of trying out a bit of typological reading. That is, one receives the word and attempts to rethink the encyclopedia of the situation in light of the word as a kind of experiment, and one determines along the way whether it is something one would like to continue doing.

Some of this will be complicated, however, by the play of “the word” and “words” as the chapter continues to unfold. (Are experiments only performed on words, while faith is fidelity to the word? And what is the relationship between the plural and the singular? Is the word simply the Word, namely, the One Name above all names, etc., while words are the flesh the Word assumes in the preaching of the faithful?) But nonetheless, it is perhaps possible already to suggest that the diagonally traversing arrow on the matheme is precisely the movement of the experiment.