I will look more closely at Alma 33 than at 34 because Alma 33 is a continuation of the sermon which begins in Alma 32. In Alma 34 Amulek repeats in a different way what Alma has preached in chapters 32-33. I will look only at the fist 30 verses of Alma 34.
Alma 33
33:1 – The question which the people ask Alma is intriguing. How does believing in one God have anything to do with whether they can obtain the fruit, plant the seed, exercise faith? Does the first part of the question have something to do with the Zoramite rejection of Christ, which might be couched as a rejection of more than one God? If so, then they are asking, “Do we obtain this fruit by believing in the God of the Zoramites?” When Alma asks “How can ye disbelieve on the Son of God?” (verse 14) he may be responding to that way of understanding their question.
33:2 – In Alma 32:5, the poor of the Zoramites have come to him and said, “We have no place to worship our God [having been rejected by the priests because of our poverty]; and behold, what shall we do?” Alma’s response in chapter 32 has not been an answer to that question. Instead, he has told them that they need to try the word and promised them that if they do, they “will repeat the rewards of your faith, and you diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting fo the tree to ring forth fruit unto you” (verse 43). Now, when they ask him how to obtain the fruit of which he has spoken, he answers their question about what to do about being cast out!
The people are wrong because they assume that, having been rejected from the Zoramite synagogues, they cannot worship at all. However, for those who had come from a tradition of the Mosaic Law—though clearly the Zoramite religion was not Mosaic, it nevertheless may have been influenced by it—this assumption may not be so unreasonable. The Zoramites have pronounced them unclean (though, of course, for the wrong reasons), and the unclean were not allowed to enter the Israelite temple. If ritual worship is the essential core of worship (as it is in Israelite temple worship), then it would be reasonable to assume that when the prayer on the Rameumptum becomes the religious ritual, to be excluded from that prayer would be to be excluded from worship. In other words, Alma teaches them that the scriptures do not teach that they cannot worship, however their belief that they cannot is reasonable, given what we can reasonably assume about their cultural background.
33:3 – Alma, like the Zoramites, equates prayer with worship! Of course, Alma’s prayer and theirs are light years apart, but they share that particular assumption.
33:4-11 – Alma quotes the prophet Zenos. Zenos praises God for hearing his prayers—showing mercy—in a variety of circumstances.
Zenos’s prayer:
4 Thou art/wast merciful:
Because Thou hast heard my prayer in the wilderness
Because when I prayed about my enemies thou didst turn them to me (presumably making them allies)
5 When I cried to thee in my field
6 When I cried to thee in my house
7 When I cried to thee in my closet
8 Thou art merciful when thy children cry unto thee—if they do so to be heard by thee and not by other people.
9 Thou hast been merciful and hast heard my cries:
In thy congregations.
10 When I was cast out by mine enemies
11 Thou didst hear me because of my sincerity.
Thou hast been merciful to me because of thy Son
So, I will cry unto thee whenever I am in affliction.
Reference to praying when persecuted by enemies begins and ends this prayer (verses 4 and 11), so it is relevant to the people’s situation. Prayer (which is the same as worship—verse 3) must be sincere (verses 8, 11), so the Zoramite prayer does not count as worship.
What are we to make of the movement from exterior to interior—field, house, closet?
33:12-13 – Having just quoted scripture to the Zoramites, Alma asks them whether they believe the scriptures. Then he draws their attention to the last part of verse 11, quoting it: “Thou has turned away thy judgments because of thy Son.” He returns them to the theme of his sermon in chapter 32, exercising faith in the Word. I take it that this part of the sermon answers the question of whether “the word” in Alma 32:28 refers to Christ. Yes, though the fact that he has also just asked them whether they believe the scriptures also shows that he was referring to the scriptures. The connection between the word and the Word is explicit in his words.
33:14 – Alma’s claim is bold: If you have read the scriptures, how can you not believe on the Son of God? What is it about scripture which allows Alma to make this claim that reading scripture should be sufficient to bring one to belief?
33:15-17 – Zenock also testified explicitly of the Son of God. Zenock’s testimony provides a case in which the Israelites did not understand God’s mercy, given to them because of his Son. Does that mean that they did not understand his mercy? Or does it additionally mean that they did not understand that God’s mercy came to him through the Son? If the latter, does that mean that they read or heard that teaching and did not understand it, or that they did not receive that teaching in the first place?
That Zenock refers to the teaching seems to require that the people of whom he writes heard that God’s mercy came because of the Son of God: they received the teaching about God’s Son providing them with mercy but did not understand it, would not understand it.
33:18-19 – Other prophets, including Moses taught of the Son of God. Moses did so at least typologically, if not otherwise. Merely looking (verse 19) is much like allowing the seed to be planted. It is a very small act, requiring little faith. Is reading scripture like merely looking or allowing the seed to be planted? If so, how so?
33:20 – Few understood the figure that Moses raised for them. Their hearts were so hard that they would not look. Not believing that it will heal them is equated with being hard-hearted. A hard heart, like hard soil, is one in which the seed cannot be planted. Presumably it took more than mere doubt about the serpent on Moses’ staff being able to heal them to get them to refuse to look. Their refusal was not just a matter of doubting, it was a matter of denying. So “did not believe” means here “refused even to allow the smallest particle of belief.”
33:21 – Alma makes the connection between the Israelite experience and his sermon almost explicit: If all it required for you to be healed was to look at Moses’ staff, wouldn’t you do so? Notice that it does not require that they believe that looking can heal them. It merely requires that they try the “experiment” (Alma 32: 27) of looking.
33:22 – Alma connects the figure of the serpent on Moses’ staff explicitly to its prefigure in Christ coming to Israel, suffering and dying to atone for its sins, being resurrected, and judging all human beings.
33:23 – “This word,” namely the teaching of Christ, is what is to be planted in their hearts. He quotes himself when he says that this word “will become a true springing up in you unto everlasting life.” compare Alma 32: 41.
Alma 34
34:1-2 – The Zoramites cannot be ignorant of the teaching of Christ that Alma has repeated to them.
34:3-6 – Amulek says “You wanted to know what to do about your problems, and Alma said some things to prepare you for his answer. First he said to have faith and be patient.” Though we often discuss Alma’s sermon as if it starts with verse 25 of chapter 32—or even verse 27—Amulek begins with verse 8. Amulek takes Alma’s preaching of humility (verses 12-16) as an exhortation to patience. I assume that he understands the preaching of faith to begin in verse 17, with Alma’s condemnation of sign-seeking (perhaps with Korihor in mind).
34:7-13 – Amulek preaches Christ and atonement, which is what, presumably, the preaching of patience and faith was to prepare the Zoramites for.
34:14 – Every point (!) of the Mosaic Law points to the atoning sacrifice of Christ.
34:15-16 – The intent of Christ’s sacrifice is to bring salvation to those who believe on him. That is how mercy can satisfy justice. Justice is satisfied by being overpowered by mercy, not overpowered as in dominated, but overpowered as in overcome with emotion: Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection “bringeth about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice.”
34:17-27 – Given Christ’s sacrifice for those who believe on him, the Zoramites should humble themselves in prayer in all of their circumstances—prayer not only for themselves, but “also for the welfare of those around you” (verse 27).
34:28-29 – Besides prayer, you must exercise charity for those in need. The Zoramites asked Alma, “How do we plant the seed?” Amulek has answered “By prayer for yourself and those around you, and by charity.”
34:30 – The many witnesses of what Alma and Amulek have preached, witnesses found in the scriptures, should be sufficient to cause the Zoramites to “come forth and bring fruit unto repentance.” Once again, the assumption seems to be that reading the scriptures is enough at least to plant the seed. Reading the scriptures is comparable to looking at Moses’ staff, a small thing that can have the eventual effect of saving one.
I’m rather captivated by 33:9 where Zenos says “thou hast been merciful unto me, and heard my cries in the midst of thy congregations.” The word congregation only shows up again in the BofM in 2 Ne 24:13 (Isa 14:13). I’m inclined to think of both verses in terms of the the heavenly council (interestingly, the D&C frequently uses the phrase “congregations of the wicked”—see here).
The following verse (33:10) uses the phrase “when I have been cast out” which seems very appropriate to the situation of the Zoramite poor. So the progression that Jim asks about, from wilderness (33:4) to field (v. 5) to house (v. 6) to closet (v. 7) seems to climax in verse 8, “thou art merciful when they cry unto thee, to be heard of thee and not of men, and thou wilt hear them.” This climax—an image of Zenos praying alone in his closet, but in unison with, or at least along with, the heavenly council of angels— forms a poignant contrast with the Zoramites in ch. 31 who prayed with “a loud voice” (31:14) where only one person prayed at a time (31:13), presumably so that their own individual voice would be heard and admired….
One of the issues I’m still thinking about from chs. 30-31 is the reasons Korihor and the Zoramites gave for not believing in Christ. Korihor says “no man can know of anything which is to come” (30:13), and that belief in the future coming of Christ “is the effect of a frenzied mind . . . because of the traditions of your fathers” (30:16) and, perhaps more relevant to my thoughts above, “ye cannot know of things which ye do not see” (30:15). I think Julie was right to point our attention to the way in which Alma begins his response to Korihor in 30:35 by referring to the preaching that “causes such joy in their hearts” because this is precisely the point that Alma draws out in Zenos’s words to God, “that in thee is my joy” (33:11). I think all of this is important context for thinking about the swelling seed “within your breasts” in 32:28 because of the contrast between what is felt from within by believers, versus what can be observed from without.
To link this up with Marion, he moves in meditations 2-3 of The Erotic Phenomenon from a question of “Does anyone out there love me?” to the question of “Can I love first?” (he calls this “the advance” in ch. 16). I think this progression in Marion’s thought is similar in that it requires something from or in me in order for progression or growth to occur, a kind of “making place” for the other person—a willingness to listen or passively respond that displaces my own ego. (I haven’t thought through this very much yet, but I wanted to mention the link as a reminder to myself and invitation to others to think about this more.)
Regarding the Zoramites, they explicitly state in their prayer to God, “though hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ” (the following sentence in v. 17, “But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever” could be taken as a reason or justification for that belief, but my point here is that they seem to refer explicitly to some method of revelation…). It is this belief that would seem to suffocate any potential planting or growth of a seed—there is no space given, no willingness to respond to the word as a result. Alma’s petition later in ch. 31, then, is like the words he quotes from Zenos in ch. 33 in that Zenos is crying to God in his afflictions, and as a result of this petition/cry, God hears the prayer and joy/comfort is experienced.
To use Marion, again, to try and think about the structural similarities between Alma’s response to Korihor and the Zoramites in chs. 30-33, Alma explicitly and implicitly seems to advocate a kind of lover’s/believer’s advance that approaches in an effort to see and hear and to be given/responded to (cf. “ask and ye shall receive,” but be sure to ask first!). This can be done by: looking for God in the signs of the earth and planets (30:44); calling upon God for comfort (31:31-32); giving place to plant and noticing the swelling in our breasts of the word (32:27-30); crying unto God and feeling joy in return (33:4-11); recognizing Christ in the type raised in the wilderness by Moses (33:19); and/or believing in order to look to the serpent and be healed (33:20ff).
Robert says:
Regarding the Zoramites, they explicitly state in their prayer to God, “though hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ” (the following sentence in v. 17, “But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever” could be taken as a reason or justification for that belief, but my point here is that they seem to refer explicitly to some method of revelation…). It is this belief that would seem to suffocate any potential planting or growth of a seed—there is no space given, no willingness to respond to the word as a result.
I like the point that you’re making here and am inclined to agree.
A couple of comments about Alma 33 (with thanks to Jim for his post):
v.1, “. . . they sent forth unto him desiring to know whether they should believe in one God, that they might obtain this fruit of which he had spoken, or how they should plant the seed, or the word of which he had spoken, which he said must be planted in their hearts; or in what manner they should begin to exercise their faith.”
I think that Jim’s question about this verse is crucial: what does believing in “one God” have to do with faith? Is the implication of this belief positive or negative? Does it refer (positively) back to Abinadi’s claim that God is Christ (“and God himself shall come down among the children of men,” Mosiah 15.1) or (negatively) to Korihor’s denial of Christ?
Also, I’m very interested in the persistent use of “or” in these couple of chapters. We get some really interesting equivalences set up by them. Here:
“whether they should believe in one God”
OR
“how they should plant the seed/word”
OR
“in what manner they should begin to exercise faith.”
Should we read all three of these as more or less synonymous? Or is it sometimes a disjunction (as Jim suggests regarding the first one)?
v.2, “. . . if ye suppose ye cannot worship God, ye do greatly err, and ye ought to search the scriptures; if ye suppose that they have taught you this, ye do not understand them.”
Is Alma’s audience literate? Would Nephites in general be able to read? Would the Zoramite poor, in particular, be able to read? Would they have had anything to read, even if they were able?
I wonder about the extent to which the answers to these questions would inflect our understanding of what the Zoramite poor would have understood by Alma’s (central!) references to “the word.”
Wouldn’t I have a very different relation to “the word” if I couldn’t read and if texts were rare? Wouldn’t my access to “the word” via a priestly caste require an immense amount of faith – faith needed just to take “their word” that this is in fact what the text says? Would my relation to “the word” be much more abstract, generic, and/or magical?
If Alma’s audience is illiterate, how does this very material class difference come into play as a dynamic in Alma’s preaching? Does it show up as a class difference? This may be an important question.
v.4, “. . . thou wast merciful unto me when I was in the wilderness; yea, thou wast merciful when I prayed concerning those who were mine enemies, and thou didst turn them to me.”
Is the image here (psalm-like) of a man hiding in the wilderness from his enemies, a la the “cast out” Zoramite poor? Does the “turning of his enemies to him” mean a kind of reconciliation?
vs. 9, “. . . my cries in the midst of thy congregations.”
I don’t know that I can add further support to Robert’s reading of this verse as implicating “the heavenly council,” but I like it.
vs. 19-20, “. . . And many did look and live. But few understood the meaning those things, and this because of the hardness of their hearts.”
(Here, I think I’m reading v. 20 differently than Jim. Where I read the beginning of v. 20 with the end of v. 19, Jim follows the verse break. He may certainly be right in doing this, but if not . . .)
Is there a sense here in which the power of the “type” operates to save people apart from whether or not they “understand the meaning” of the type? This doesn’t appear optimal (they didn’t understand because of the hardness of their hearts), but they did look and live.
Is this generally descriptive in the Church: we may look and live, but we still (in our hardness) do not understand?
vs. 23, “And now, my brethren, I desire that ye shall plant this word in your hearts . . .”
How important is Alma’s own “desire” here? Is his own desire essential to provoking and supporting the fledgling desires of his audience? Is his desire even more important than the meaning of his words? Could we be “saved” by the desire of another (say, a missionary’s desire for their convert to believe or a parent’s desire for their child to repent) without having “understood” that desire? The case, here, mirroring my comments on v. 19-20?
“Now, when they ask him how to obtain the fruit of which he has spoken, he answers their question about what to do about being cast out!”
I love this observation. I am wondering about its implications; at a basic level, it suggests a link between the two, but I am wondering if there is more to it than that.
“Would the Zoramite poor, in particular, be able to read?”
Comparisons to the world of the New Testament are speculative (to say the least), but if you were to ask this question about the NT audience, I would say that no, they couldn’t read (literacy rates are deduced to be something like 5-10% overall, disproportionate to the wealthy), but that they would have been in the habit of gathering to have the text read to them and they would have memorized (or at least have been _very_ familiar with) large chunks of it and in that sense would have known it far better than we do.
I mention this only because it suggests that “search[ing]” doesn’t mean “flipping pages for that verse that you think was on the lower right hand corner of the left page somewhere in Alma” but might mean something like “ponder more deeply texts that you already have committed to memory.”
In any case, he then repeats the text that he has in mind, so if they weren’t familiar with it before, they know it now!
Lots of excellent comments. I want to say something briefly about two in particular:
#4 – I think that Adam’s reading of Alma 33:19-20 is better than mine. I overlooked the force of the “but” which begins the second sentence of verse 20. If that is contrastive, as it seems to be, then the first sentence of the verse cannot be referring to those who would not look. It must be referring to those who didn’t understand the type, but looked anyway.
#5 – Julie’s remark about memorization is reasonable. I’ve known a couple of people, for example, who have memorized the entire New Testament. Each was semi-literate and memorization was their way of dealing with their inability to read well.
However, Julie, how strong is the evidence for wide-spread memorization of texts among pre-NT people, or among NT people for that matter? Or, can you think of any evidence from within the Book of Mormon that suggests that at least village leaders or family heads were memorizing scriptural texts? Also, what do you do with what seem to me to be suggestions that the Nephite people were not generally conversant with scripture. It isn’t clear that Nephi is familiar with Isaiah until after they get the brass plates. (However, that he seems to know “the manner of the Jews” — 2 Nephi 25:1-2–is evidence that he was not only literate, but schooled in reading scripture.) And, at least as I have been reading the sermons of other BofM prophets, they seem to be talking to the people about what they don’t already know.
Jim, I wish we had the data to answer the excellent questions that you pose!
I think Abinadi’s use of the ten commandments and Isaiah 53 could be used as evidence of memorization (I’m assuming he didn’t have access to texts at that point). I’m not sure what to make of Jacob’s “Behold, my brethren, do ye not remember to have read the words of the prophet Zenos.” Is the assumption that they all had copies at home? I don’t know.
In the absence of data allowing us to offer any clear answers about Nephite literacy/memorization, it’s (of course!) essential to go ahead and ask anyway what literacy/illiteracy might mean for our understanding of “the word” in Alma 32. (In philosophy, we never let little details like not have any data get in the way of our definitively answering certain questions :)
As I posed the question before, might I not have a very different relation to “the word” if I couldn’t read and if texts were rare? Might my relation to “the word” be much more abstract, generic, and/or magical?
In the context of illiteracy, is the relation between faith and “the word” strongly inflected by the need to “take the word” of someone else for what “the word” actually says?
Is the interpersonal dimension of promise/trust foregrounded by illiteracy?
Does the need to “take his word about the word” also highlight the point made in 33.19-20 about how we can look on the type and live with haven’t understood (or read) it? Here, the type functioning (without understanding) as a magical symbol/word?
(And maybe, does this come back to thinking through, a la Alma 31, the persistent claims about knowing what the other person does/does not or can/cannot know?)
Jim, I think this reversal of questions and answers is really a key insight, though I’m not entirely sure why it seems so important to me. I will be thinking more about this.
The Zenos passage might be read as telling a brief story: Zenos had been, for whatever reason, excluded from the community, but his prayer had turned the people to his favor again, and he proceeds through a sort of threefold triumphal return (from field/courtyard through house/holy place to closet/holy of holies). When he dares, however, to broach the increasingly private prayer to which he has been restored (by praying in the congregation), his disfavor returns, and he finds himself in the wilderness lamenting/celebrating the destruction of the people.
This little story plays about many of the themes of public/private that Robert has been highlighting.
Why does Alma set Zenos, whose rejection in the name of the Son resulted in the destruction of the people, against Zenock, whose rejection in the name of the Son resulted in his own death at the hands of the people? Is there something that ought to be read in this pairing?
Can “looking” be disentangled here from the use to which Korihor puts it in ch. 30? There, “looking” is associated with “hope” and, if it is (incorrectly) associated with “seeing,” results in a frenzied mind. What more might be said about “looking” as used here?
Jim, your focus on reading, though complicated by comments from Adam, Julie, and yourself, is resonant with questions that can be raised about the final scene of Alma 30, where there is a focus on writing. It would seem that when Korihor is forced to write, he can see where he has gone astray, but can the same be said for the one who reads? That is, as the complications introduced here into the question of reading attest, reading need not be a visual experience, but writing cannot escape it. How do we riddle out the relationship between reading, as Alma promotes it, and writing, the task to which Korihor is set by God?
Unfortunately, I’ve been so involved in attempting to sort out my thoughts about last week, I’ve got little to add to this discussion for now!
There’s so much here that is so interesting—sorry to be late joining in.
Concerning Jim’s first question regarding 33:1 and Adam’s observations regarding the use of “or” in between the clauses, I’m inclined to read them as somewhat synonymous, in part because doing creates an interesting effect: I read it as an indication of the level of excitement and interest Alma’s words have created in the crowd. I think it can be read as creating the effect of a group of people speaking simultaneously—what is interesting are the various levels of comprehension demonstrated by the remarks. Some people want to who/what to believe in, while others are more interested in the practicalities of the planting process, while others wonder what they have to do to exercise faith. Seeing this as a fragmented response highlights the theme of having an individual response to the word(s) and an individual’s relationship to his or her own conversion and salvation.
Another way of looking at these questions might be to see them as facets of the same general question: what do we do? How are we to proceed? Which emphasizes the theme of action. Something in their response also reminds me somewhat of the general responses to Christ’s miracles with the loaves and fishes: some people were just interested in getting more free food (how do we get this fruit?), while some people recognized the miracle and what it pointed towards.
Regarding the use of “congregations,” I thought Robert’s insight was quite interesting (something about the progression into sacred space through prayer perhaps?). Although this may be a deliberate misreading given the information Robert provided, verses 5-11 could also be seen as a move first towards the private and then out through the public (in congregations, in the midst of enemies before they cast him out). If the poor Zoramites understood congregations as we tend to read it (as public gatherings), this verse could be quite apt for their situation—they could see Alma telling them they can pray (privately) even when out (in public).
Also I think it’s important to note that Alma quotes prophets available on the brass plates, but no others (he doesn’t, for example, give them the words of Abinadi). Could he be appealing to some type of common ground (wherein the Zoramites accept the authority of the brass plates, but perhaps not the authority of the religion as continued through Nephite prophets)? We have a previous historical example of a group with access to the texts of the brass plates who were unwilling/unable to read them or understand them in terms of an atoning messiah (priests of Noah), so it might be possible that something similar has gone on with the Zoramites. If so, that might explain the emphasis on the word/Word relationship or identity with Jesus Christ—could Alma be trying to emphasize the scripture’s ability to testify of an atoning messiah? Along those lines, it’s probably significant that both references from Zenos and Zenock explicitly name the Son. I’m not sure on this, but wouldn’t the majority of the Hebrew scriptural texts at that time talk about God in terms of Yaweh as opposed to the Son or Son of God? Which would make these passages somewhat distinctive in their ability to emphasize the reality of an atoning messiah (the Son of God)? (Which would also then reinforce Alma’s interpretation of Moses and the serpent on the staff as a type of Christ in terms of healing/atonement [as opposed to John’s emphasis on the image of being “lifted up”—the crucifixion]—I read that distinction somewhere lately, that’s not my own thinking.)
I think this possible/probable emphasis on a healing/atoning Christ comes into play explicitly in verses 18-22. Alma goes into great detail explaining the symbolic behind Moses’ actions, with the emphasis, as Jim notes several times, being on the simplicity of the action required of us: we simply look, we simply read, and with that opening comes healing/grace (whether or not we are sufficiently humble to recognize it as such is another matter, but Alma appears to be emphasizing the importance of that opening, that possibility). In thinking back through Alma’s own conversion experience, I see reasons for him to create such a focus.
In Alma 36, he tells how he’s being wracked by the pains of hell when suddenly he “remembered also to have heard my father prophesy … concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world” (v. 17). Notice how Alma remembers this—it’s a thought, or memory, of words he heard at some point but which he never (until now) really considered or paid attention to. But the words were there because he had been exposed to them. He then describes how his “mind caught hold upon this thought [and he cried]: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death” (v. 18). Upon merely thinking this thought in his heart—merely turning towards Christ in His role as the mediator (Alma doesn’t cry to the Father, he cries to the Son) and asking for mercy, he receives relief (and eventually further instruction).
This is getting long, so I should wrap it up. I did want to note that the movements Robert mentions in comment 2 from “Does anyone out there love me?” to “Can I love first?” in The Erotic Phenomenon seems to link up with Amulek’s discourse in chapter 34: he first focuses on Christ and his role as the infinite and eternal sacrifice (i.e., yes, someone [Christ] loves you) and then 27-29 qualifies his words with an exhortation to charity (i.e., I must love first). I’m not sure what to make of that at the moment, but there it is.
I’m also in agreement with Adam’s reading of 19-20—he asks if this is generally descriptive of the Church and I’d say yes, we look and and live but generally do not understand (both Christ and each other). My question, then, is what does this interpretation imply about the role of understanding? How do we seek understanding? How are understanding and humility related? Is understanding something we can actually seek, or is it something that distills after we do all we can to prepare our ground (Alma and Amulek both seem to value this quality of preparedness—they tell them how to prepare over and over, but don’t tell them necessarily how to seek understanding. Or I might just be misreading here.)
Finally, regarding the discussion of reading, my sense (based off of a few history of reading lectures attended years ago) aligns with what Julie says in comment 5. In cultures where actual texts and skills in reading them are not common, the ability to memorize and the oral performance of the text were often developed to a degree that would seem impossible for us today. (How’s that for a vague statement….) In any case, I like the idea of relating searching to memory and pondering. Is there something about Korihor’s ability to actually read (and write) that leaves him more vulnerable to deception? Julie asked at one point why Korihor couldn’t work anymore once he was mute—as far as wild speculation goes, could he have earned money at some point by reading aloud for others? And, as Joe notes, is there some necessary link between conversion and writing? As in, once converted (or at least once convinced of the reality of God?), one must/can/should write? I’m going to have to think more on this one to come up with anything real.
A couple of comments about “faith” in the first half of Alma 34:
v.2, “. . . Christ, who is taught by us to be the Son of God.”
Is this their unique teaching? That God, as Christ, will be/appear as the “Son” rather than the “Father”? That is to say, that the Messiah will be a “suffering servant” (i.e., Son) rather than a “triumphal ruler” (i.e., “Father”)?
v.3, “. . . he hath exhorted you unto faith and to patience”
I like, here, the conjunction of faith and patience: faith, in its humility without compulsion, will be able to persist without impatience in sacrifice.
Perhaps the essence of faith is patience. Patience being the ability to persist on a course without being overrun in the meanwhile by the impatience of our desires for satisfaction or demands for acknowledgement.
Patience describing both persistance (the “eternal”) and a changed relation to our own desires.
v.4, “. . . have so much faith as even to plant the word in your hearts, that ye may try the experiment of its goodness.”
Just a note that the word “experiment” is used again here by Amulek. Here, faith is the subjective disposition needed in order for one to try the experiment “of the word’s goodness.” Rather than being the “end” of the experiment, faith is what’s needed in order for the experiment to get underway and produce goodness?
v.16, “he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.”
In this chapter, Amulek consistently characterizes faith as “faith unto repentance.”
In this verse, lacking faith unto repentance = Being exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice.
I wonder if the phrase “demands of justice” might be important here. Faith being what shelters us not from justice, but from a relation to justice that experiences justice as a demand, or even a demand for satisfaction.
Perhaps faith as patience changes the quality of our experience of justice, shifting justice from the register of “retributive demand” to “distributive mercy.” (Justice, in light of faith unto repentance, being the enactment of mercy rather than the obstacle to it?)
Jenny says:
“I’m also in agreement with Adam’s reading of 19-20—he asks if this is generally descriptive of the Church and I’d say yes, we look and and live but generally do not understand (both Christ and each other). My question, then, is what does this interpretation imply about the role of understanding? How do we seek understanding? How are understanding and humility related? Is understanding something we can actually seek, or is it something that distills after we do all we can to prepare our ground (Alma and Amulek both seem to value this quality of preparedness—they tell them how to prepare over and over, but don’t tell them necessarily how to seek understanding. Or I might just be misreading here.)”
I like this characterization of “understanding” as something that can’t be directly sought or demanded (especially when the question of understanding has to do with understanding someone else, as in your parenthetical reference to understanding Christ or “each other”). Perhaps failing to understand has to do with the hardness of our hearts in that hard hearts demand answers now and on their own terms, thus denying the essential patience and humility of faith?
Adam, thanks for your rereading of “the whole law of the demands of justice.” Very helpful.
Great stuff, all. I will try to bring all of this together in some kind of synopsis before Sunday.
Final thoughts about “faith” in the last half of Alma 34:
v.17, “Therefore may God grant unto you, my brethren, that ye may begin to exercise your faith unto repentance, that ye begin to call upon his holy name, that he would have mercy on you . . .”
The construction “faith unto repentance” is here used again, though the meaning of this phrase is then glossed in some detail.
Having faith unto repentance = calling upon God’s holy name for mercy. Faith manifests in this particular act.
The rest of vs. 18-27 can then be taken as an elaboration of how/where such faith is to be expressed via calling (namely: everywhere!). Here, the business of “calling” on God clearly amounts to “crying unto him” for “your welfare, also for the welfare of those around you” (see v.27).
So:
1. Faith that’s not unto repentance isn’t faith.
2. Faith unto repentance that doesn’t actively call on God for mercy isn’t faith unto repentance.
3. A “calling” on God for mercy that is not a “crying” unto him is no kind of calling.
4. And crying unto him is not crying unless it is internally and externally pervasive.
v.28, “if you do not any of these things, behold, your prayer is vain, and availeth you nothing, and ye are as hypocrites who do deny the faith.”
This is, I think, the chapter’s final use of the word “faith.” Here, talk shifts from an indefinite “faith unto repentance” to a definite “the faith.”
Interesting that “the faith” is directly connected to taking in the needy and the naked, visiting the sick and afflicted, and imparting of your substance to those in need. The upshot being that we can pray all we want and have all the “spiritual experiences” we’d like, but they will all be empty of faith unto repentance (they’ll all lack “the faith”) unless they involve some real interaction with the frailties of some concrete, particular others.