Source: https://alma32.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/alma-32-7%E2%80%9313/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:03:09+00:00

Document:
I decided to group my comments by verse in an attempt to impose some sort of structure on my scattered notes … which, as you will soon find, tend to end with questions rather than conclusions. Sorry they got so long—hopefully something here will spark some discussion.
I would like to continue the discussion of place here, in part as a response to Julie’s question in her summary: “can [we] link these larger concerns to this small detail of one person turning toward another” [to the theme place]? This verse functions narratively with verse 6—the actions that Alma begins in verse 6 are completed here. It has been helpful for me to try to visualize the various “stage directions” in part because they ground the action in a specific spatial context, but also because I think that they are potentially intentional details provided by the narrator. One possible reading of the text here is to see Mormon as editor rewriting the narration from his primary sources. Such sources may or may not have actually recorded detailed actions such as Alma turning himself about to face the speaker or stretching forth his hand to the multitude: it is possible that they were added in order to provide an enhanced understanding of Alma’s words. Even if this theory of editorial insertion proves untrue, the alternative is that Alma really did perform these actions and they were considered important enough to record. In each case, I think there is good reason to ask ourselves 1) Why is Alma (described as) taking this specific action here? 2) How does this action relate to Alma’s teachings in this section/chapter? 3) In what way do these actions help us to think about the theme of place?
In fact, the only part of the verse that doesn’t appear to relate a specific action is the descriptive phrase “who were truly penitent” (modifying those whom Alma beheld). Given the action-oriented nature of this verse, this phrase seems important. Does it imply that Alma could somehow see some type of sincerity in the multitude? In specific people? (Did he only really see those who were truly penitent?) The certainty of this description—that their penitence is true—is a bit odd given Alma’s assessment later on that members of the group have been compelled to be humble, and others would have been humble even without being compelled (in my reading, at least, being truly penitent = being prepared to repent, but ≠ being humble due to economic circumstances). Is it possible that this is a demonstration of Alma’s own willingness to “plant the seed” so to speak and give the multitude the benefit of his own belief in them, that they are truly penitent and therefore prepared to receive the gospel and gain their own testimonies? If that is the case, are there ways in which Alma’s discourse on faith here is simultaneously illustrated by his own actions?
The first words that Alma speaks to the multitude are themselves a bit odd: “I behold [again, the emphasis on seeing] that ye are lowly in heart; and if so, blessed are ye.” In verse 5 he is essentially asked a question for which the expected response would be some type of direction or instruction for action (“what shall we do?”), and his response is to turn around, stretch out his hand, and say “I see you are lowly in heart.” Previously, the narrator has taken pains to help us understand that this group is both economically poor and poor in heart and in verse 5 the spokesman referenced their social/economic poverty—it seems like it is significant that Alma chooses to first describe the multitude in related terms. In what way is being lowly in heart similar to and distinct from being poor in heart? Is Alma offering his own assessment of their situation—one in which the focus is not on their economic poverty but their spiritual poverty? Is he choosing how he sees them, and if so, is this another example of Alma’s faith (is he somehow exercising faith in his hope that their primary problem is spiritual impoverishment)?
I don’t mean to ignore the second half of the verse, especially as its meaning is somewhat obscured. What is the function of “and if so”? Is it meant to express room for doubt or uncertainty in his previous assessment? In other words, does the sentence read “I see you are lowly in heart, and if that’s right, then you are blessed”? Or is it simply poorly-worded connective tissue trying to communicate something more along the lines of “I see you are lowly in heart, and as such, ye are blessed”? What are the implications of the differences between these two options, specifically in terms of Alma’s (possible) demonstration of faith here? In either case, do we see another example of Alma’s faith in his evaluation of the multitude as blessed? Are they really blessed? Or are they simply prepared to be blessed? Or does Alma see their potential to be blessed?
Finally, I think it’s important to point out that the structure of this verse is essentially two adjectival clauses connected by an uncertain conjunctive phrase (A ≈ B). I’m struck by Alma’s first verbal response to the question put to him—essentially, his response is to provide to somewhat equivalent descriptions. I’m trying to follow his logic here. “What should we do?” “You are lowly in heart and blessed.” It reads almost like Alma’s response is to recontextualize his audience, or perhaps provide a verbal disorientation or shock in order to help them look at themselves anew. They have come to Alma with their own diagnosis, but his response essentially interrupts that diagnosis. In this sense, it might be important that structurally Alma’s response is a repetition: he immediately provides two descriptions, one right after the other.
Here, Alma now repeats the question put to him by the spokesman. My old MTC training kicked in—I’m having a hard time reading this without thinking “Wow, what a great missionary! He’s totally repeating the question for them to make sure he understands what their concern is!” Which, of course, is what he’s doing. Rhetorically, I think Alma’s making an important point: after verse 8 with its somewhat unintuitive response, Alma immediately returns to what the multitude sees as the question at hand. In doing so, he reaffirms that he is willing to listen to them and that he does take their concern seriously. If he had skipped this step, it’s possible that the multitude could have decided to not listen to him, as he apparently had not heard their original request.
I’ve grouped these because I read them as serving a similar purpose. These verses serve as Alma’s second response to the original question. This time, instead of two descriptions, Alma responds with two rhetorical questions. (Again, he seems concerned with providing repetition in his remarks. Does this trait continue throughout the discourse?) However, these questions also serve to “de-center” the multitude in that each question is one to which the multitude would normally have answered “yes” but which, in Alma’s rhetorical use, now clearly are to be answered “no.” This expected negative response is underscored in the actual negative construction of the questions themselves. We understand verse 10 as asking “do you think you can only worship God in your synagogues?”, but Alma uses the negative construction “that ye cannot.” In verse 11 we understand “can you only worship God once a week?”, which Alma constructs with “that ye must not worship.” Is there any significance in reading these questions—questions for which the answer is an inversion of the expected answer—as parallel to the question put to Alma by the spokesman? In other words, should we also expect an “inverted” answer to his question?
Again, I find these verses structurally suggestive. In verse 9, Alma begins with “Behold” and then restates their self-diagnosis by repeating their original question. Verse 10 also begins with “Behold,” marking both its relationship to and separation from verse 9. In response to the question put to him by the multitude, Alma provides his own questions. Again, there is something analystic in this move. The content of the questions could be read as irrelevant—the important point is that formally Alma asks in response to their asking. Is it possible to read this response as a structural “che vuoi”? If we read the content of Alma’s response here as disrupting the poor Zoramites’ cohesive perceptions of the world, can we read the form of the response as simultaneously disrupting their understanding of their desires?
Following the “disorientation” in the previous verses, Alma now moves into a series of assertions that continue the theme. Being cast out of their synagogue is changed from a problem into a blessing. I believe that the language used in the first half of this verse subtly evokes edenic themes. Consider the following: “cast out” (mentioned twice); “that ye may learn wisdom”; and “it is necessary that ye should learn wisdom.” Why would Alma draw upon the idea of the Fall here? I think it’s possible to read this as a strategy in which Alma compares the poor Zoramites’ current state to being fallen and wherein the development of faith is then aligned with redemption. This redemption is specifically described in terms of cultivation (a return to the Garden?), and results in the consumption of a superlatively precious, sweet, white, pure, fruit that fully satiates (bringing one to a state where, without the danger of hunger and thirst, death no longer threatens life). Is this edenic recontextualization another form of disrupting the multitudes’ expectations perhaps?
Whichever option is followed, the result is the same: their humbling appears to have been necessary.
Again, this verse contains statements that could initially be disorienting or unexpected, beginning with “because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye.” Generally, we do not equate compelled humility with blessing, and yet the distinction Alma will draw between freely given humility and compelled humility is one of degrees of blessing: the humble are blessed and more blessed. In either case, they are blessed. This emphasis on being blessed in both cases recalls for me our earlier discussion of the implicit idea that there is some type of belief or blessing found in simply hearing/reading the word (see Jim’s question on 33:14, for example). Is Alma making a similar type of claim here?
I read the structure of Alma’s description of the path to salvation as deeply personal: this story is Alma’s conversion story (I’m going to use ch. 36 for the following). Alma himself was one compelled to humility through the words of an angel which stopped his actions and caused him to view his reality (that he might be destroyed vs. 9-11). In that state, Alma had a choice to seek repentance. After remembering all his sins and being wracked with torment for three days (in which he desires to stop existing—in other words, he loses his desire for his sins and wishes to completely change his being [the only way he can conceive of being different from what he is at that moment is to not be], vs. 12-16), Alma suddenly remembers the name Jesus Christ and his mission (to atone, v. 17). He seeks Christ—he seeks mercy (v. 18). And immediately mercy is given to him and he can remember his pains no more (v. 19). After his conversion, Alma labors for God from that time forth (he endures to the end; v. 24). In the end, he knows he will be lifted up and saved (v. 28).
When Alma testifies to the poor Zoramites that “whosoever repenteth shall find mercy,” he’s relating his own personal conversion. It is this testimony that provides the logic that motivates the previous seemingly illogical statements in these verses: being lowly of heart = being blessed; it is well that ye are cast out; because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye. Each of these statements, in the context of Alma’s personal conversion, works, so to speak. Although his audience may not be aware of it, Alma is effectively equating himself and his experience with those before him. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say he sees himself in them (and, most likely, in all unrepentant sinners). His own role, however, is different this time: he, as the messenger, must provide the words that will fundamentally disrupt the Zoramites.
Finally, to return to faith, a few questions. Do these verses (12 and 13) continue to demonstrate a facet of Alma’s faith? Perhaps faith as a principle of action; faith in the ability to repent and change; faith in the surety of mercy? Does Alma show faith in the poor Zoramites by continually recasting them as blessed? Regarding the relationship between the word and faith, what can we make of the centrality of words (the words of the angel) in Alma’s own conversion and the fact that Alma arguably uses his own words for a similar (disruptive) purpose as he begins to speak to the multitude?
I think you’ve nicely begun to anticipate some real difficulties and tensions in the chapter: in the verses following the section we’re studying this week, Alma will say things that seem to call into question the narrative descriptions of verses 1-7: were they “truly humbled” or not?
The primary tension this sets up, it seems to me, is one between dialogue and narrative: what Alma says is at some odds with what the narrator has to say. How might we respond to this? Which of the two is ignorant, misguided, or presumptive… or is it just that we are (all three)?
I want to think about this more (as well as get to your comments on the remainder of the verses here!).
Thanks, Jenny. I really like your observation of Edenic themes in verse 12.
and if so, blessed are ye.
Behold thy brother hath said, What shall we do?
that we cannot worship our God.
And moreover, I would ask, do ye suppose that ye must not worship God only once in a week?
–for ye are necessarily brought to be humble.
–and now surely, whosoever repenteth shall find mercy; –and he that findeth mercy and endureth to the end the same shall be saved.
(2) In v7, Alma decides to say no more to the other multitude, but that multitude was introduced in v4 as “of whom were poor in heart, because of their poverty as to the things of the world.” This makes me think that being “poor in heart” isn’t enough. . .
(3) Jenny calls our attention to “stretched forth his hand” and I’d like to think about that more. I get dozens of hits for it in the scriptures and a quick scan suggests that most have to do with exercising God’s power and/or compassion (for example: “And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea” and from Alma 14: “And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames. But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand”) So what does it mean that Alma would stretch forth his hand in this context?
(5) V9: Alma calls him “thy brother;” in v5 the narrator called him “the one who was the foremost among them.” Is it pushing too far to suggest (and I’m working with the tension between Alma and the narrator that Joe mentions in comment 1) that Alma doesn’t see/recognize the class distinctions that even the narrator does?
(6) There are substantial differences between v5 and Alma’s summary of it in v9. One is the switch from “my brethren” to “we.” Another is the elimination of all of the causality (priests, poverty, etc.) for a simple statement of the problem. What to make of these changes?
Jenny, I think you’re quite right in your reading of verse 8. If the tension between the “I behold” and the “if so” begins to disorient/reorient the Zoramite poor, the following verses end up doing this much more directly, confirming or even radicalizing verse 8.
Regarding verse 9: doesn’t Alma repeat the question precisely in order to set it up in a kind of contrastive relationship with his own statement: “Behold thy brother hath said” (v. 9) is set over against “Behold I say unto you” (v. 10) and “I would ask” (v. 11)? To what extent does the “great missionary” do this, that is, repeat the question not only to allow the “investigator” to confront the autonomy of her desire as represented in the wording of her question, but also to reinforce that autonomy by interpreting the question implicitly through contrastive repositioning? Might this, moreover, be compared to Jesus’ method in the Sermon on the Mount: you have heard it said, but I say…?
Regarding verses 10-11: I really like Jenny’s points about Alma structuring his rhetorical questions negatively. I wonder if this doesn’t also highlight what Alma sense as a kind of inability/impossibility on the part of the Zoramite poor. That is, by speaking of what they “cannot” and “must not” do, does he not highlight the structural inability that results from their constructivism? This would nicely emphasize again the contrastive relationship Alma establishes between what the poor’s “brother hath said” and what he has to say: while the Zoramite poor have spoken of what to do (action), Alma speaks of their obsession with action as essentially disabling (inaction). One could see this as an almost necessary interpretation of their question: to ask what one should do is to reveal that one is hesitating, Hamlet-like, because of one’s structural inability.
To put all of this another way, Alma could be said effectively to have reworked the proffered question thus: “What work can we do to save ourselves?” And to this, of course, the only answer is: none!
I find it interesting, though I’m not at all sure where to go with this, that verses 10-11 have the double focus of space and time: verse 10 deals with where and verse 11 with when one can worship. Space and time are arguably brought into existence by the constructive effort of the work of building (cf. Hegel, Heidegger, etc.). But, of course, Alma sees that very existence as an unbearable burden: the existence of space and time make worship impossible.
Jenny, your comments on the Edenic themes of verse 12 are fascinating. I think you’ve hit on something very, very promising there. I wish I had something to add to it!
I don’t know that I have any comments on which of the two options provided for verse 12 is the better reading, but I do find the mention of “learn[ing] wisdom” interesting in light of all the Hegelian (master-slave) themes of the first verses of the chapter: “the fear of the lord/master is the beginning of wisdom,” that is, of philosophy….
Reading verse 13 at this point is a bit of a chore, because it is the verses immediately following it that give it is meaning. The “And now, as I said unto you” that opens verse 14 essentially erases the majority of verse 13 (everything after, I think, the closure of the inclusio), saying something like “I’m getting ahead of myself, so let’s go back to, as Alma explicitly does, the question of being compelled to be humble. Only then does the meaning of this compulsion (to repeat?) get its significance because it is set forward in its difference from another form of humility.
I see much or most of next week’s discussion ultimately turning on this question of two humilities and what the relation between them ultimately is.
That said, I think the connection with Alma’s own conversion experience, laid out by Jenny, is of major importance, especially since Alma is going to bring angels up specifically in verse 23.
A’ save it be in your synagogues only?
I don’t see this as enormously helpful, though it might be seen to play into the contrastive I discuss above: Alma reverses the relationship between synagogue and worship by placing worship before synagogue rather than synagogue before worship (as he has the Zoramite spokesman do). But then I would not exactly be reading it as the chiasm Parry suggests.
Julie’s second point, regarding the two multitudes, is fascinating, primarily because I had never read any of the “positive” narrative comments as referring to the “bad” multitude. Julie’s reading makes me realize that there are some real ambiguities in the text about what descriptions refer to which multitudes. I want to look at this closer.
As well as at some of the other points Julie raises, especially her number six: it would be worth putting these two texts side by side and doing a more extended critical comparison that one is wont to do. Hmm….
Jenny, the first point you make is a crucial one for the way we are reading the scriptures. Historical evidence may be relevant to understanding certain things within the text, but in the end as scripture readers our interest is in what the text says, not in whether it says that because the original writer, or a compiler, or an editor, or an inspired prophet wrote it that way. As you make clear, we aren’t interested in the history of the text, we are interested in its meaning. (History can impinge on meaning, so it is not completely irrelevant, but for the most part, we can ignore it.) The questions you ask are exactly the kind of thing a good reader asks as she reads. They provide a good model for some of the things we should ask whenever we read.
Why do you discount being humbled due to economic circumstances as a possible way of being truly penitent? It seems to me that the plain reading of verse 7 is that the group at which he is looking are the truly penitent. Verse 6 underscores that reading: he turns to face the man who has asked him how they can worship, and he is seized with joy, seeing that “their afflictions had truly humbled them.” On that reading, I find verses 11 and 12 interesting because they show that true penitence is possible even for those who are compelled to be humble. As someone whose humility, if it has ever come, came by compulsion, I appreciate that teaching. Verse 13 continues that message: even those compelled to be humble have humility sufficient for salvation.
I read the last half of verse 8 as you suggest: “I see you are lowly in heart, and as such, ye are blessed.” But I don’t assume that the text itself is (or is not) poorly worded. I think we have to be careful about applying our rhetorical and grammatical expectations to a text from a time and culture alien to our own.
Your point that Alma appears to recontextualize his audience with his response is very interesting to me because my own thinking about this chapter has been along these lines. I’ve seen his answering their question with a non-answer only to answer their question in 33 with the answer to their first question. Thanks for pointing out that has been his strategy at a smaller level as well, as in verses 9-10 and verse 13. Alma appears to think that he cannot answer the question they ask unless he can move them into a different world. Within their current world, there is no answer to their question. Only by being in the world differently will there be an answer. We are going to see him try to move them into that other way of being in the world.
I read verse 10 as saying “Do you suppose that you cannot worship God unless you are in a synagogue?” I have a harder time understanding the grammar of verse 11. Is it an inversion? I’m not sure. “You must not worship God only once in a week.” He must mean “You must worship God only once a week” or “You can worship him only once a week,” but I don’t see how to get one of those meanings out of the grammar in question. Anyone else know how to parse the assumption to which Alma points?
Your insight about Edenic themes in verse 12 is brilliant! Thanks. Thanks also for the comparison of verse 13 to Alma’s biography. The message that salvation, though of course not final salvation, is available in this life, that it is not just “pie in the sky when you die,” is important.
Jim, might we read verse 11 this way, by taking “only” to mean “except”: “do ye suppose that ye must not worship God, except once in a week?” The “only” would thus emphasize that the possible (“only”) is only an occasional bone thrown to one by the much more imposing impossible (“must not”).
Thanks, Joe. It is amazing how the obvious can be so difficult to see until someone else points it out.
– I agree that your observations about the edenic themes in v12 and the autobiographical dimension in v13 are excellent, especially because they open a lot of doors in thinking about the rest of the chapter.
– One other comment about a comment. I also find Joe’s comment about v5/v9 very helpful. He points out that asking “what shall we do?” is generally indicative of being in a particular subjective predicament: finding oneself unable to act (a la Hamlet or, more especially, Romans 7.19). This is useful because it directly connects their predicament with their sinfulness: to be in sin is to have lost one’s capacity do what one would because of the perceived constraints of ones situation.
In this way, we might read Alma’s response (his explication of faith) to be an answer to exactly this kind of question: Finding oneself unable to act, how is it possible to become once again capable of action?
It may be of note that Alma’s sermon is aimed at a collective “multitude” rather than to an individual. A different spiritual dynamic?
Alma’s explication of faith is a response to the question: how do we worship?
I’m interested in the connection between finding mercy and enduring to the end. Is the difficulty of enduring to the end the difficulty of enduring mercy itself? That is, its difficult to endure mercy because we find the necessity of it so onerous? It constantly bursts the bubble of my pretension to sufficiency (i.e., pride)?
on June 25, 2008 at 10:54 pm | Reply Robert C.
Wow, so many great comments have been made while I was gone—it’s been so thought-provoking that I hope I can download some of my many, many thoughts in a semi-coherent way.
First, to add to the ongoing discussion of place, I think the “cast out” phrasing has not been explicitly pointed out yet (though I haven’t double-checked Joe’s cross references): in vv. 5, 9, 12 and 24 the Zoramite poor are described as being “cast out” and then in v. 28 the seed is also described as being “cast out” by unbelief. I think this lexical connection helps justify much of the kind of thinking that has already been done regarding the figurative significance of the physical descriptions given.
To that end, I think Alma’s turning and beholding the Zoramite poor can be taken as a kind of giving place in himself to the situation of (i.e., listening to or seeing) the Zoramite poor. In this sense, it’s noteworthy that the narrator chooses to give voice to the Zoramite poor (via the one who represents them, which I think might be productively thought in Christological terms…) before giving any specific content to the words that Alma spoke (Joe, I think this might also be productively related to your/our thinking about Isaiah 6 and the way in which the council’s voices become intelligible only after the live coal was pressed to his lips…).
Regarding the phrase “lowly/poor in heart,” I think this should be read in light of the later “swell within your breasts” description of the seed (32:28, 34; 33:23; also, cf. 30:31 where Korhior used “swelling words before Alma”). Whereas Korihor and the Zoramites exalt themselves in their clothing, buildings, and socio-economic despising of the poor, God promises to exalt those that abase themselves by causing the seed within them to swell, leading eventually to fruit as “rewards” (32:43; I think this “reward” phrasing is also interesting in light of the economic terminology used in 32:1-6…). Rather than being their own cause of their own neurotic fantasy of blessedness, real blessedness is a result of giving place to the word, messengers, the poor and needy via charity (per ch. 34), etc.
Building on Adam’s point about patience in Alma 34, I think this delayed reward furthers a theme of delayed gratification in this chapter as well as in 30-35 more generally. For example, Korihor advocates measuring prosperity immediately as it correlates to with genius and strength (30:17) whereas Alma responds “immediately” to a request to know what to do (32:6) by giving them the word that will only (possibly) yield fruit after careful (32:37) and diligent (32:41-42) nourishing (32:37-42) and patience (32:41-43). I think Julie’s comment (#2 point 6) about Alma’s non-reference to the priests as the cause of their predicament is also important in this light—as has been mentioned earlier, Alma is loosening up the aporetic situation that the Zoramite poor see themselves in, and he does this by challenging (implicitly here) the causal logic that makes the Zoramite poor feel stuck (or at least confused as to what to do). I think this impatient, causal logic is also the target of Alma’s later sign-seeking discussion, but more on that next week.
Also regarding the immediate turning in verse 6, this made me think of the “eye to eye” phrase in Isa 52:8 (cf. Mosiah 12:22; 15:29; 16:1; Alma 36:26; 3 Ne 16:18; 20:32), which is also in the context of a messenger/servant delivering a message to a multitude (Israel). I’m not sure how this should be read, but I do think it supports reading Alma’s im-mediate turn to behold as having connotations of unmediated, unveiled, direct, unfeigned etc.—connotations which I think fit nicely with the “brother”(32:9) address Alma uses to, as I take it, suggest a brotherly-love kind of relationship, un-mediated by pride or accusations, that he’s hoping the Zoramite poor will establish among themselves (cf. how Amulek refers to Alma as “brother” in Alma 34:3, 6-7; cf. 34:11). To stretch this a tad more: Christ, as Mediator, allows us to see through accusations of guilt (by Satan, the Accuser, and by our own pride-induced, works-oriented view of our fallen state…) so as to discern and experience God’s grace (as represented by the natural growth of the seed) and love (as represented by the finally-obtained fruit).
on June 25, 2008 at 11:00 pm | Reply Robert C.
Jenny, do you have something specific in mind regarding the mention of wisdom as an explicitly edenic theme (I have the feeling I’m simply having a mental block on this one…)?
These are great comments—where to begin? Joe (#1), I like how you name this tension as that between dialogue and narrative, in part because calls up the relationship between words/text and time/place. I wonder, though, if the point may be to first recognize such tensions exist in scriptural texts as opposed to deciding who’s misguided/presumptive. Whoever the narrator is, they do appear to have created (intentionally or not) a tension with Alma’s words—but we generally accept both voices to have been inspired. I’m not finding the words I want to clearly articulate my response here; I’ll have to think about this and return later.
If we can establish specific poetic forms in the text (and I think Julie’s provided enough evidence to support that), the questions I run into are why would Alma speak this way? Is this spontaneous poetic discourse, or something formalized after the fact during the writing process? I also think it is suggestive of a prophet’s relationship to words generally. We would be surprised to hear Pres. Monson deliver an entire discourse in iambic pentameter, yet at the same time, we tend to take his words delivered during conference with a greater sense of weight—possibly something akin to how we understand poetry?
Julie asks: “what does it mean that Alma would stretch forth his hand in this context?” This isn’t a definitive answer, but given the instance you describe where Alma decides not to stretch out his hand to exercise the power of God to save the women and children from the fire, I think we could read this image as an instance where Alma does decide to exercise that power. In other words, perhaps the action physically foreshadows what Alma will do in his discourse: extend to them the power of God unto salvation.
Re: Julie’s fifth point, I’m not sure the text supports a reading where Alma is blinded to the class distinctions. We know in verse 12 he is conscious of the “exceeding poverty,” which to me suggests awareness. Also, his use of the word “brother” here has been read as Alma seeing the multitude as a kin-group.
I really also liked Julie’s sixth point in that Alma’s rephrasing of their problem eliminates the middle-man, so to speak. He removes the explicit blaming of the priests for the group’s problem, a move that allows for the return of autonomy/responsibility to the multitude themselves. I wonder if reading it that way then somehow connects up with Joe’s observations about verse 9 (#3).
More responses to the rest later … oh, but really quick for Robert (#9). I see the connection in Eve’s realizations that it might have been better for them to eat the fruit and be cast out because they have learned (and continue to learn) wisdom. Does that help?
Verse 7: That clause can be read as Adam suggests, but it can also be read to say that those whom he beheld were truly penitent. I take it that way since, like Adam, I don’t care for the other possibility. If someone were to object that surely not every individual in the group was truly penitent, I would respond that the writer (Mormon?) writing hundreds of years later wasn’t imputing some claim about the righteousness of each and every individual. He was saying something about the group as a whole, a generality.
Verse 9: Adam’s question is also mine. I’ve wondered for a long time how to understand a lecture on faith as a response to the question, “How shall we worship?” But Jennie’s notes have helped me think about that a bit. Alma knows that there is no direct answer to that question, at least not one that they can understand. Before he can answer their question, he has to entice them to change their way of living in the world. If they will do that, he can answer their question.
Verse 13: As I read “findeth mercy and endureth to the end,” the point is that finding mercy and enduring to the end are the same. I suppose that does mean that the difficulty of finding enduring is the difficulty of finding mercy, but I see it from another direction: the lightness of finding mercy makes enduring to the end light. I take it that is related to the point that Robert makes at the end of #8: Christ allows us to discern and experience God’s grace: he allows us to find mercy. If we have mercy, then we will endure to the end. That puts the emphasis on finding mercy rather than on enduring to the end, which I think is a more productive way to think about enduring to the end.
Great comparison of Alma stretching his hand out here and not to those executed by fire—a troubling contrast itself, but a great insight on your part.
on June 26, 2008 at 10:53 am | Reply Robert C.
Regarding Alma’s “non-response” in ch. 32 to the question posed by the Zoramite poor (which in verse 5 is, technically, what should we do as a result of not having a place to worship), I remain a bit skeptical. That is, it seems to me that Alma gives his answer in verse 22, namely, to believe on God’s word (tantamount in the later metaphor to giving place to and nourishing the seed). I agree that this is not the kind of answer that the Zoramites expect in response to their question (since believing is not much of an action—but then, neither was looking to Moses’s staff…), but I think it is an answer nonetheless, and I’m inclined to read chs. 32-33 as a rather systematic approach by Alma to try and get the Zoramite poor to understand the significance of this seemingly insignificant action (though not an action that doesn’t require effort, as the discussion of nourishing and having patience and diligence attests—actions which form an interesting contrast with the “simply looking to the staff” advice given in, e.g., 1 Ne 17:14ff or Alma 37:44ff…).
Also, I find very interesting the contrast between the conditional/uncertain rhetoric used regarding the response of the Zoramite poor (“if so” in v. 8—cf. “if” as used in vv. 13, 17-18, 21, 27-28, 32, 36-38, 40-41; “do ye suppose” in v. 10 and repeated in v. 11—cf. vv. 14, 24; “sometimes” in v. 13) and the unconditional/sure rhetoric used in the response to these conditionals (“cannot” in v. 10; “must not” in v. 11; “necessary” and “necessarily” in v. 12; “compelled,” “surely” and “shall be” in v. 13; Alma’s immediately turning in v. 6 might also be productively thought in this light). I think this theme of conditionality vs. sureness is worth thinking more about, esp. since it seems to take a new twist with the seed experiment where conditionality is discussed in terms of whether the seed is good or not….
Regarding Alma stretching forth his arm, I would add that I think that the Book of Mormon uses this image in a positive manner that is distinct from the way it is (typically) used in the Bible (Ex 6:7 might be an exception—some time ago, in response to one of Jim’s Sunday school questions, I posted some more detailed thoughts and x-refs regarding this at the wiki here).
By calling Alma’s answer a non-response, I didn’t intend to suggest that he simply did not respond at all. Rather, I meant that he did not respond with what the Zoramites would have recognized as a response. I can easily imagine someone in the Zoramite crowd saying, “What in the world is he talking about? This isn’t an answer to our question.” However at the beginning of chapter 33 we see that they no longer are asking that question. Their hearts have been changed, probably not the might change that Alma has experience, but changed enough that they want the seed he has told them of. So, they ask how to get it. That very question, though, tells Alma that they are in a position to have their original question answered in a way that they will understand.
In other words, I don’t think there is a disagreement here.
The conditional rhetoric which the Zoramites use compared to the unconditional rhetoric that Alma uses sets us up to see him as steadfast rather than wavering. It also prepares us to understand what might be taken for conditional talk when he speaks of the experiment on the seed is in reality steadfast talk. It is sure.
Jim, that is a very helpful way of putting things.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.