Alma 32

Alma 32:1

1 And it came to pass that they did go forth, and began to preach the word of God unto the people, entering into their synagogues, and into their houses; yea, and even they did preach the word in their streets.

Alma 32:2

2 And it came to pass that after much labor among them, they began to have success among the poor class of people; for behold, they were cast out of the synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparel—

Alma 32:3

3 Therefore they were not permitted to enter into their synagogues to worship God, being esteemed as filthiness; therefore they were poor; yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross; therefore they were poor as to things of the world; and also they were poor in heart.

Social: The description of the treatment of the poor in Antionum presents some problems. On the one hand, we have the separation of the poor from the rich in the synagogues. On the other hand, we have the description of the intentional separation of the rich and the poor. The basic description is easily seen as accurate, but the intentional separation, the denial to the poor of entry in the synagogue, should not be accurate.

It is with trepidation that any commentator should suggest that the text is incorrect, but that is precisely what I suggest here. We have Mormon writing this description from a vastly different time period, and with tendencies we have already seen in Mormon to clearly favor sides in this war between the gospel and all apostates. It is most probable that in this case Mormon is overstating the case. He is accurately describing the segregation of the rich and the poor, but the idea that there would be an intentional prohibition of having the poor inside the synagogue would appear to be Mormon’s analysis, and it is most likely incorrect. Of course such a bold proposition requires some support, so we must look at the situation closely.

First, we must understand the nature of Zoramite society. This is a separate city that is physically apart from other Nephite locations. As with virtually all cities that were not at the top of the political feeding chain, Antionum would be required to supply most of its food for its own people. In Mesoamerica, as well as other early agricultural cities, this means a large number of people dedicated to farming supporting a smaller number of people in the center of the city. Lacking a monetary base, the elite in the city are absolutely dependent upon the support of the farmers to maintain their position. They exchange their religious and political services for the agricultural support of those who actually farm the fields.

What we have just described is essentially a two-tiered social system, with the farmers and the elite. Using Mesoamerica as our model, we know that there was no real middle class this early (though traders and merchants became such much later). To place this two-tiered system into the descriptions of Zoramite society, we have the poor being the farmers, and the ones inside the synagogue, the rich, as the elite rulers of the city. There are any number of reasons why the lower farming class would be willing to support the city-elite, but coercion is not likely to be a major one of them. The farmers are in the fields, and physically separated from the city. If there is undue pressure on them, they could leave. In particular, we have the city of Antionum being fairly new, and the probability is that these farmer class people came with the elite to the area, though there were probably already people in the area.

What we must understand is that the relationship between the farmer-poor and the elite-rich had to have some type of beneficial mutual dependence, or else it would be severed. It is this reason that we must question Mormon’s interpretation of the events. We can believe that the farmer-poor were not found in the synagogues for reasons that we will describe below. What would have been socially fatal, however, was an elite mandatory exclusion of the poor. That would have create a rift between the two tiers of the society, and would have led to the destruction of the society as the farmers began to be alienated from the elite and refused to provide them the necessary food and support.

If they were not prevented physically or by law from entering the synagogues, what created the defacto separation that Alma and his brethren found? In this case, Mormon has preserve the clue, though it could have been deduced from the evidence even without Mormon’s clue. The clue comes from verse 2: “… they were cast out of the synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparel.” It is extremely significant that the apparel of the poor be contrasted with the apparel of the rich. This was the very reason that the Nephite prophets have disparaged costly apparel from the days of Jacob (around five hundred years earlier). We see in Antionum among the Zoramites the very social segregation that the Nephite prophets predicted would come from this emphasis on costly apparel.

To understand how this difference in clothing created a de facto segregation in the society, we need to return to the nature of Zoramite worship. The essential facts are that it is very public, it is designed to physically highlight a particular person, and the text of the prayer declares cultural superiority. When an elite stood on the platform, the “cultural superiority” of the Zoramites was visually displayed in the costly apparel of the person on the platform. That visual presentation reinforced the words of the prayer by presenting the economic evidence of prosperity in public view.

Imagine the effect of a farmer-poor standing on the Rameumptom. The very first thing that happens is that the individual is singled out. As a person with little political force, and most likely no social standing, the person is immediately out of place on the platform. The difference in apparel further highlights the difference between them, and the farmer-poor would feel tremendously self-conscious on the top of this very public platform. Next, he would have to present this speech of superiority, when his own position was demonstrably not superior to anyone. Thus he would not only be in a very public and exposed position, but reciting a prayer that highlighted differences in a way that did not favor him. The very public display of the Rameumptom favored the elite, and naturally excluded the poor. The elite did not have to prohibit the poor from entering the synagogue, as everything about the construction of the place and the ceremony was more effective prohibition than any law could have been.

Alma 32:4

4 Now, as Alma was teaching and speaking unto the people upon the hill Onidah, there came a great multitude unto him, who were those of whom we have been speaking, of whom were poor in heart, because of their poverty as to the things of the world.

Alma begins his preaching to one set of people, and will change to address a new set of people who have just arrived. The text does not give us enough information to distinguish between the two, except to note that these newcomers were the poorest among them. That seems to indicate that the first group of people were not of the poorest class. Nevertheless, the physical setting of the hill suggests that this is countryside, and not city. While the first group does not appear to have been the poorest, nor would we expect that they would be of the highest class, for those people would more likely have remained in their city.

Cultural: Alma speaks to people on a hill because it allows him to be seen and heard more readily by a larger congregation. From the standpoint of a public presentation, it is the same principle as stadium seating, but in reverse. The placement of a speaker at a lower position, with the audience rising above is a more logical arrangement, as the audience can more easily see over those in from of them. While the verse does not specifically say that Alma was above his audience, it is highly probable that Alma was closer to the top of the mountain than those who were listening.

The reason for this situation is as much cultural as practical. The pragmatic reasons might be, in addition to visibility, the greater ease of a single person climbing that a larger congregation. In addition to any other benefit, there are some cultural associations that would suggest this as the favored arrangement. The first is that it would more accurately reflect the use of the temple pyramids as presentation platforms. In the temple ceremonies in their cities, the presenter/speaker would walk up the pyramid, and the congregation would be gathered together in the temple’s courtyard. Thus Alma might ascend to hill as a parallel to ascending the pyramid were he in the city.

There is another association that is deeper than the imitation of the city’s arrangement for speaking. The conceptual nature of mountains in Mesoamerica was as a sacred location that allowed communication between the layers of the world; heaven, surface, and underworld. This conceptual understanding of a mountain as an inherently sacred space was also present in the Old World, and underlies the very creation of pyramids as artificial mountains. For Alma, the cultural reasons for ascending a hill would have included this conception of sacred things being spoken in a naturally sacred location.

Of course, we also have the conceptual difference between being in the artificial city and natural outside in the natural land. The typical class of people found in each of these locations would be similarly different as the different classes depended on each type of setting for their livelihood. The elite were in the city, the farmer-poor were in the countryside. Alma is preaching to the farmer-poor in the country, in their own territory, and away from the setting in which their subservience to the elite is manifest in nearly every stone of every city building.

Geographic: Alma is preaching on a hill named Onidah. This is a name that we will see again in the Book of Mormon in Alma 47:5. This latter is not listed as a hill, but as a place of refuge “Alma 47:5 … therefore they fled to Onidah, to the place of arms.” Reynolds and Sjhodahl note the similarity of names and the possibility that they might be the same, but suggest that they are different locations ((George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, edited and arranged by Philip C. Reynolds, 7 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1955-1961], 5: 48.)

In the context of Alma 47, the “place of arms” might appear to be an armory of some sort, as the Lamanites flee to that location after the threat of a military attack. Clearly that it is not a possibility for the hill on which Alma is preaching. He appears to be on a physical hill, and the only connection to “a place of arms” is the name itself.

The settings for the two Onidahs do suggest that they are separate locations. The one discussed in Alma 47 is not very far from Lehi-Nephi in the heart of Lamanite country, and the Hill Onidah is in Nephite territory, even though it is bordering wilderness where there are Lamanites. Sorenson’s suggestion is that the hill Onidah might be so named because it is an outcropping of obsidian, a material much used in Mesoamerican cutting instruments, including weapons of war ((John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985], 252.)

Alma 32:5

5 And they came unto Alma; and the one who was the foremost among them said unto him: Behold, what shall these my brethren do, for they are despised of all men because of their poverty, yea, and more especially by our priests; for they have cast us out of our synagogues which we have labored abundantly to build with our own hands; and they have cast us out because of our exceeding poverty; and we have no place to worship our God; and behold, what shall we do?

One “who was the foremost among them” approaches Alma. In a category of poor farmers, who is the foremost? Here is must remember that underlying all other social and political arrangements is the kinship structure, and each kin group will have its “foremost.” In a kin organization, this is typically a patriarchal position more than an elected one, nevertheless, there is a kin organization, and a structure providing one who may be considered “foremost” and responsible for the welfare of the kin group. This suggests that the people who have gathered to hear Alma are probably from a single kin group that had settled a particular area together. This fits with the general pattern of kin physical organization in Mesoamerica.

This foremost person (assuredly a man in this culture) presents the clear problem of the social segregation. He and the other farmer-poor have been the labor that supplied the trappings of the elite, and yet they are being effectively excluded from the benefits of the elite, even to the exclusion of a recognized place for their worship. They are not happy about this, and approach Alma as one who might have a solution.

It is significant that the question being asked is one of religion and God, not of access to buildings or riches. These are people whose basic lives are intact. They farm, and their lives as farmers are relatively stable. What they miss is not the access to public office, but the access to recognized places to worship their God. They are not unhappy with their economic position, but rather their religious position.

Comment should be made on the fact that this recorded speech tends to support the view of active exclusion. It may be that this is where Mormon got his idea of enforced separation. It is equally as probable that this foremost man is describing the real effect rather than the legal precedent. The reality is the exclusion, and the exclusion comes at the hands of the elite.

Alma 32:6

6 And now when Alma heard this, he turned him about, his face immediately towards him, and he beheld with great joy; for he beheld that their afflictions had truly humbled them, and that they were in a preparation to hear the word.

Alma 32:7

7 Therefore he did say no more to the other multitude; but he stretched forth his hand, and cried unto those whom he beheld, who were truly penitent, and said unto them:

Mormon describes Alma turning to face the newly arrived spokesperson. While it is possible that such detail might have existed in the original record, it is equally probable that we have Mormon heightening the symbolic turning of Alma’s attention. Alma had been preaching to a set of people with whom we must assume he was making little headway. Alma turns physically and symbolically away from the unprofitable audience, and addresses directly those who “were in a preparation to hear the word.”

Alma 32:8

8 I behold that ye are lowly in heart; and if so, blessed are ye.

This verse has the appearance of a contradiction. Alma declares that they are lowly in heart, and then qualifies it by say “if so.” The intent here is not to contradict Alma’s observation, but rather to emphasize the blessing that comes from the perceived humility. The “if” does not apply to Alma’s perception but rather to the humility of the people. Alma is saying that if they are humble they are blessed. The sentence is perhaps better rephrased; “I behold that ye are lowly in heart, and if you are humble, then blessed are ye.”

Alma 32:9

9 Behold thy brother hath said, What shall we do?—for we are cast out of our synagogues, that we cannot worship our God.

Alma is addressing the group that arrived with the spokesperson, but he does acknowledge the spokesperson, or “thy brother.” Alma focuses on the assumption that this group has that they are excluded from religion because they are excluded from the place of worship. What Alma will teach them is that religion is not tied to place, and that they may worship anywhere. This might seem somewhat unusual to a modern audience, as we presume what Alma is teaching. Nevertheless, we might better understand if we were to take an analogy. The best modern corollary is to a temple. That is a particularly sacred place, and the things that go on in that place cannot occur outside of that sacred place. The temple is restrictive, and there are many who cannot “worship their God” in the temple. The difference between this modern example and the one in Antionum is that the entrance requirements for the temple are spiritual, and all are able to meet them. In Antionum the entrance requirement was economic and social. Entrance to the Zoramite sacred space required a change in economic and social status, something to which these people had no access.

Alma 32:10

10 Behold I say unto you, do ye suppose that ye cannot worship God save it be in your synagogues only?

Alma 32:11

11 And moreover, I would ask, do ye suppose that ye must not worship God only once in a week?

Rhetorical: Alma asks two rhetorical questions related to the issue presented by the spokesperson. They are interesting questions, because the answer that this people would have typically given to the questions is “yes,” when Alma clearly intends the answer to be “no.” Thus the beginning of this discourse challenges the underlying religious assumptions of the people, while giving them hope that by understanding religion in a different light there may be a change for them.

Alma 32:12

12 I say unto you, 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; for it is because that ye are cast out, that ye are despised of your brethren because of your exceeding poverty, that ye are brought to a lowliness of heart; for ye are necessarily brought to be humble.

Rhetorical: Alma follows up his first contradiction of expectations with another. These people have come because they are unhappy with their exclusion from the place of worship. They have come because they consider this a bad thing, and now Alma tells them that “it iw well that ye are cast out of your synagogues.” Alma again presents them with a situation that is completely the opposite of the assumptions they began with. What Alma is doing is attempting to awaken them to a complete change in perspective. What Alma must do is reeducate their understanding of the nature of religion. Alma understands that this is a people who are ready to have such a dramatic change because their disappointment with the current state is so great that they are willing to look for hope, even if that hope completely changes their mental world.

How is it that this people has been “brought to be humble?” It is tempting to focus on their poverty and to assume that it is the state of poverty that leads to humility. This would be a mistake. As we have already noted, Alma was preaching to a different group who were on the hill Onidah. The rural setting rather precludes that other group from having been of the higher class, and so we must assume them to be farmers as well. While the newly arrived ones are specifically pointed out to be poor, it is quite unlikely that the first group was much better off economically or socially. Given the probable clan organization we see in the new arrivals, we probably have two clans represented on the hill, one who is still not humble, and one who is. Alma stops preaching to one group and begins with the other not because he notices their poverty, but because he notices their humility.

What creates humility? If we use this clan of Zoramites we can begin to pull out some of the conditions that are essential to generate humility. First, we must understand what the result of this type of humility might be. For Alma, it is that the people are able to learn wisdom. Alma’s implication is that in a state of humility, they may learn wisdom, and in the state of non-humility, they cannot learn wisdom. Thus what Alma is telling them is that humility is the ability to open themselves to the possibility of a change in the way they see the world, the possibility of accepting the gospel.

The key to humility and the state that creates humility is this concept of change. It is a transformation from a prior understanding (not-wisdom) to a new understanding (wisdom). In the case of this Zoramite clan, the “not-wisdom” was their assumption that worship was tied to a particular place and time. “Wisdom” would be changing that fundamental assumption and rethinking the way that they see religion so that it might include all places and times. This is a fundamental and diametric shift in their understanding of how the religious world worked, and would be a difficult change for most people. In their state of humility, however, they are not open to that dramatic change in their worldview.

This is a people who have been brought to be humble, they are open to a world that is very different from the one that they currently believe. What has brought them to this point where they are willing to turn a part of their world upside down? First, we must understand that it is not their poverty that brought them to this position. The easiest way to see this is to contrast the one clan with the other. We may suspect that both are of similar economic and social classes based on their location. The ancient world did not have that many class distinctions, and the higher class would have been located in the city, not in a place where congregating on a hill would be preferable to congregating in a designed public area around a temple.

There are many people in the world who might wish that they were more wealthy than they are, but there are many people who also assume that such a change is not even possible. Indeed, there are many who accept their position and have no desire to change their way of life, but perhaps only to have a greater share in economic well-being. When we remember that we are dealing with farmers here, these are people who do have the fundamentals of life. They have food; they have shelter. What they do not have is costly apparel and access to the places of worship.

The critical difference between the two groups Alma has addressed on the hill Onidah is that one appears to be content with their situation, and the other wants a change. It is this desire for change that is the thing that leads them to humility, not their economic circumstances. These people do not say, “we wish we had fine clothing,” they say “we want access to worship.” Their discontent and desire for change is not economic, it is religious. What brings them to the brink of being willing to change (to exchange not-wisdom for wisdom) is their exclusion from worship, not their exclusion from wealth.

This Zoramite clan has wanted something, access to worship, and they have been denied this desire. Their desire for worship is strong enough that they do not accept their exclusion, and they are willing to seek ways to find worship. What they find in Alma is one who will tell them how to worship and gain their goals, but that ability will come at the cost of a dramatic change in the way these people have previously seen the world. They had previously understood that proper religious worshipped happened at a particular place and time, and this fundamental understanding must change. Their humility is their ability to entertain this fundamental change.

If this humility is the result of desire for a change, and a willingness to entertain it rather than a result of economic deprivation, how do we understand the many occasions in the New Testament that appear to make just this economic division between the humble and the not-humble?

In Luke’s version of some of the beatitudes we find the following:

Luke 6:20-21

20 ¶ And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.

Where Matthew has “poor in spirit” (Matthew 5:3), Luke preserves the more likely original saying that it is the poor who are blessed. This blessing for the poor is highlighted in the next two “blessings.” The first is for the hungry, and the next for those who weep. Particularly in Jesus’ world, these are descriptions of a class of people. These are hungry poor. These are poor who deal with sadness on a regular bases. These are people who Jesus calls “blessed.” This is a very similar contrast to that which Alma used to catch the attention of the Zoramite clan. Jesus is presenting a situation that is completely opposed to their experience. In Israel at this time, the poor were anything but blessed, they were hungry, and they endured sorrows. What Jesus is telling them is that something important can change, and that their hunger can be filled, and the tears dried. This will not come, however, from a change in their participation in economic benefits, but rather through a change in their participation in religious benefits.

The blessing of the poor is contrasted with a rather blanket condemnation of the rich in the New Testament:

Mark 10:25

25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

There are no qualifications on this statement, only the rather shocking image of the impossibility of the camel and the eye of the needle suggesting the impossibility of the rich entering heaven. Is this really a condemnation of wealth? Is Jesus’ message really one of poverty as preferable over wealth? An answer to that might be seen in the events leading up to this declaration:

Mark 10:17-23

17 ¶ And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

23 ¶ And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

The situation is that a man desires to improve his religious life. He asks what he might do, and asks this of the Savior, not of the Sadducees or Pharisees. This is not a bad man. He is, however, a rich man. What Jesus asks of him is the divestiture of his belongings, and the man leaves sadly. Jesus concludes that it is difficult for those with riches to enter the kingdom of God. While this appears to be a continuation of the dichotomy between poor and rich in the kingdom, there is a different motivation. What the young man has is an insufficient desire. He may want something (eternal life as Jesus has taught it) but he is unwilling to make a change sufficient to achieve it. The real emphasis here is not on the riches, but on the nature of the person’s desire to change.

The difficulty with the rich in the kingdom is not the wealth, but the impedance to change that comes with wealth. The difference between poor and wealthy is the theoretical cost of the change required. For the poor there is little danger in a change of beliefs. For the wealthy, and particularly the wealthy of the ancient world, there was a great danger that a true change in their beliefs would interfere with their wealth.

Perhaps our best contrast here is between Alma and the elite of the Zoramites. The Zoramite elite are city people. Alma is a city dweller. The elite of the Zoramites are those who have political leadership in Antionum. Alma was the chief judge before voluntarily relinquishing that position. The difference is not in power, but in the social stratification. In this non-monetary economy, wealth has a very different definition that it does in today’s world. The city dwellers ate the food of those who grew it, but in an independent, non-tributary city, the producers of the food would eat as well as those who were the city dwellers. The economic world of ancient Mesoamerica was not that of Israel under Roman rule, which did actively feed the wealthy and powerful to the detriment of the producers. Alma could be easily considered an elite by the location of his typical dwelling and his social position. Alma, however, had none of the trappings of social distinctions, the equality of man being a major tenet of Nephite religion.

In the end we return to the essential nature of humility. Humility is the desire for a change, and the willingness to entertain even a major change. The young man in Mark could not make the change of divesting himself of his goods, even though the apostles had done so after a similar invitation (see Mark 10:28). The Zoramite clan on the hill was willing to change fundamental understandings of religion. Humility opens us to tremendous change.

Being brought to humility, or the point where we are willing to make tremendous change, comes through our desire for something we do not have that is sufficient to allow us to make entertain the tremendous change. Our economic and social status may influence our willingness because of certain costs that we believe too high, such as the young man discovered. Nevertheless, the humility is not in the economics, but in the willing state of mind to entertain the tremendous and transforming change.

Alma 32:13

13 And now, because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye; for a man sometimes, if he is compelled to be humble, seeketh repentance; and now surely, whosoever repenteth shall find mercy; and he that findeth mercy and endureth to the end the same shall be saved.

Alma now holds out the promise. They have been compelled to humility, and because of that state of heart, there are benefits. This is the explanation of the surprising assertion that it was good that they be excluded from the synagogue. What Alma tells them is that their humility combined with their desire places them in a position to repent, or to seek change. That process of changing can bring mercy and the blessings of the gospel.

Alma 32:14

14 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?

Alma 32:15

15 Yea, he that truly humbleth himself, and repenteth of his sins, and endureth to the end, the same shall be blessed—yea, much more blessed than they who are compelled to be humble because of their exceeding poverty.

Humility is the desired state, and Alma points out that there are more ways than one to achieve it. One may be compelled to humility when their great desire is thwarted by some outside source. What is more difficult is to recognize that it is oneself that is blocking the desire. For these poor whose culture had blocked them from that they understood to be access to God, that culture brought them to the state that they were willing to learn a different way to God. For the rich men in the New Testament examples, there was nothing in the culture that prevented them from access to God. The scriptures that deny the kingdom of God to the rich are not based on external hindrances, but rather the persons very relationship to his own riches that blocks him from God. As with Marks young man, the wealth blocked his access to God. The wealth had a greater hold on his heart than his desire to follow the Savior.

For all of us, there are parts of our complex lives that may block us from humility, from our desire to learn and accept a massive alteration in our worldview. There are families who would have gladly accepted the message of the missionaries, except that it would have disrupted their network of family and friends. There are people who might have accepted the gospel, but could not because of the nature of their employment (such as ministers of other churches). There are those who would accept the gospel, but cannot see their lives without social liquor, or without their liberal understanding of sexuality. All of these things can be the very thing that hinders our ability to alter our world sufficient to accept the gospel.

The difference that Alma is pointing out is that the person who humbles themselves is more blessed, not because the result is any different, but because the effort to achieve that result is so much more difficult. The rich man who can “hardly … enter into the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:23) might lose those riches, and in the aftermath of his loss turn to God for an explanation. The removal of his riches might remove the thing that hinders him from the massive change, but it is possible that even with riches he might be able to school his soul and become humble enough to change. There have been, and are, wealthy people who are tremendously faithful in the gospel. They have been able to humble themselves to place their riches in the proper perspective with God. These are then more blessed, according to Alma, because they have overcome on their own.

Alma 32:16

16 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.

Alma 32:17

17 Yea, 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.

As Alma explains the difference between the self-humbled and those who are compelled to be humbled, he moves away from the external circumstances of poverty, and concentrates on one of the most pernicious of internal hindrances to true humility: pride. The transition from verse 16 to 17, from a discussion of those who are “baptized without a stubbornness of heart” is a direct lead-in to those people who seek signs. Those who seek signs are those who still have a “stubbornness of heart,” and have an internal hindrance to humility rather than an external one. They have a way of seeing the world, and are not open to seeing it change. They typically ask for a sign from heaven not because they would truly believe if they received it, but because they are certain it will not come, and therefore the absence of that miracle can be the reason that they continue to hold on to their previous understanding. The truly humble ask questions that lead to learning and understanding, the prideful ask questions that are designed to defend their own position.

Alma 32:18

18 Now I ask, 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.

Rhetorical: In the context of Alma’s discourse to this point, he notes that the seeking of the sign is yet another hindrance to knowledge precisely because it won’t work. In this case, however, he is dealing not with the individual case, but the general case of what religion is supposed to be. Alma has a congregation that is willing to hear, and he needs to begin to teach them. At this point he begins his transition from introduction to the heart of his lesson. That less will be on the nature of faith, and it is a lesson he needs to teach this people precisely because of their circumstances on the outside of ceremonial religion. It if faith that will allow them worship outside of places and times.

Theological: Alma creates an important dichotomy. Faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive. Alma specifically notes that when “a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe.” This is a critical piece of information about faith, which will be examined after verse 21 below, where the principle is repeated.

Alma 32:19

19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?

Alma 32:20

20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.

Alma is here returning to the question of signs. He has indicated that signs to not generate faith, but rather knowledge, and here he notes that knowledge can be a greater condemnation, should one fall away. Alma says that one who knows and transgresses is under a greater condemnation than one who only believes and transgresses. This is the meaning of his statement, but what is the purpose?

Alma is preaching to a people who are attached to an apostate community. They are coming to Alma because they have been shut out of what Alma understands to be an apostate religion. What Alma is doing is opening a door for them. They may not ask for signs, but they may begin to develop faith in God in the proper way. Alma is laying the groundwork for their ability to change. He tells them, in essence, that they are in the belief state, and that there is not as heavy a condemnation against them for their erroneous belief. They may open themselves, through their humility, to true faith.

Alma 32:21

21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

Alma’s real intent is to teach them true faith, to counter their current belief in the ways of the Zoramites. He began with the distinction between faith and knowledge. That is the beginning point. Now he begins in earnest his definition of faith, and as he does so we see language that echoes Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Alma and Paul see this as the fundamental definition of faith, and Alma gives it right after his important foundational definition that faith and knowledge are not the same thing. What we must do now is understand why Alma so tightly links his “faith is not knowledge” foundation with this definition that is so similar to Paul’s. We will begin by analyzing Paul’s famous definition, and the place that into Alma’s context.

Paul's definition is akin to the questions on certain tests, where you are given an example something like "a rider is to a horse as a driver is to a ...." and you are to fill in the answer based on the conceptual similarities. If we interpret Paul's definition in that form, it begins to make a little more sense. In his we have the formulation: “substance is X as faith is to X; evidence is to X as faith is to X.” What we need, of course, is to find out what Paul intends “X” to mean.

What is substance? It is something tangible. We can feel it, we can experience substance with our senses. If someone offers you a coat against the cold, you will gladly put it on. We laugh at the story of the Emperor's New Clothes precisely because they had no substance. Put simply, we are willing to interact with objects that have substance. With substance, we have a frame of reference, and we can act on that thing of substance.

Evidence similarly provides a frame of reference for our actions. Numbers have no substance. You cannot hold a mathematical formula in your hand, yet our ability to provide evidence allows us to trust mathematical formulae. We have sufficient faith in the evidence of some non-tangible concepts that we were willing to send men thousands of miles to the moon and back. Those astronauts had more than wishes and hopes, they had the evidence of all the tests that had gone before as a springboard to their journey.

Both substance and evidence share a common conceptual thread, the “X”. They both serve as a basis for our actions. We act and react to substance in this life. We act and react to concepts for which there is evidence. It is to that thread that Paul likens faith. For Paul, faith is also a basis for action. For the things we hope for that have no substance, faith stands instead of substance as a basis for our action. When concepts have no evidence, faith becomes the principle upon which we act. Paul’s “X” is action, and substance and evidence allow us to act. What Paul tells us is that when there are things of God for which we have no substance, nor evidence, it is faith that allows us to act nevertheless. (Reynolds and Sjodahl would appear to have a similar understanding of Hebrews 11:1, though not as fully elaborated as presented here. See Commentary on the Book of Mormon. Deseret Book 1977, 4:89).

Alma’s definition is so close to Paul’s that we may assume the same basic understanding. Faith is a basis upon which we may act. Now we need to place this idea in Alma’s contextual definition that faith is not knowledge. Faith and knowledge are frequently conflated because they share tremendous similarities. As in Paul and Alma, they are both motivators, or bases for actions. If they are similar in function, how are they different?

When a young child is learning to ride a bicycle, the parents put training wheels on the bike and send him on his way. As the parents watch, they see that the child is beginning to learn to balance, and they raise the training wheels so that they are used less. At some point in the process, the parent notices that the child is really riding on two wheels, and is ready to have the training wheels removed.

This is the time of the true test. With the wheels off, the young child faces a dilemma. She knows that she can ride a bicycle with training wheels, and has been doing so. She does not know that she can ride a bicycle without training wheels, and in fact, does know that it can be dangerous. She knows that people have fallen and have failed. What does a child do?

It almost seems too simple to spend a long time analyzing it. Of course the child tries to ride the bicycle, but how does she come to make the decision? The answer is faith. There is no knowledge, only faith in the relationship with her parents. They say she can, and based on her faith in their word, she is willing to try.

What happens after that? Of course she continues to ride. Once she has ridden the bicycle a few times, then she gains the knowledge that she can ride. Once experience takes over, substance and evidence move her to knowledge, and her faith is dormant.

It happens the same way in all mundane examples of faith. We need faith to take the first step, but when we know a thing, our faith fades to the background. The analogy of faith to a farmer planting seeds misses this critical point. Planting has little to do with faith, for experience tells us what the result of the action may be. Even when there is not a precisely predictable outcome, we know the range of expected outcome. We know that the crop can succeed or fail, and we know many of the factors that can influence the success or failure. Some have suggested that flipping a light switch might be an exercise of faith. The disproof of this idea if found in our reactions when the light does not come on. All of our expectations are that flipping the switch will give us light. When that does not happen, we are surprised because our clear expectations were not fulfilled. We know what should happen, and evidence contrary to our knowledge is shocking.

Yet even in the mundane world, faith serves an important role. Faith is a mechanism of change. It is that ability we have to take a step into the darkness, to attempt that which we have never done before. Faith is, in Joseph Smith’s words, “the principle of action in all intelligent beings.” (Larry E. Dahl and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., The Lectures on Faith in Historical Perspective [Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1990], 31.) In the temporal world it is quickly and powerfully superseded by knowledge, but when founded in Jesus Christ and tuned to the spiritual realm, it becomes the first principle that transcends mortality and communes with the attributes of Godliness. In the realm of spiritual action, faith is the first principle of progression. Only faith allows us to attune our actions to the principles of holiness so that we begin to stretch our spiritual muscles and experience some of the Joy that awaits us at the end of our process.

Alma 32:22

22 And now, behold, I say unto you, and I would that ye should remember, 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.

Alma continues his discourse on the meaning of faith. He began with a definition of “not-faith (knowledge).” He then gave a definition of what faith was related to knowledge. Now he begins to encourage this humble people to faith. His first point is to comfort them in their relationship to God. This is a people who have come to Alma because they believe that they are cut off from God. Alma has told them that they may approach God personally, and is explaining faith as that mechanism. There Alma assures them that God wants them to have faith. God desires that they believe, and that is why God has provided the information, and the person of Alma, to provide that opportunity for belief.

Alma 32:23

23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned.

This is a continuation of the explanation of how these people may arrive at faith. God desires that they have faith, therefore “he imparteth his word by angels unto men.” God provides the way through the medium of his word, or his gospel. That gospel comes to us through intermediaries between God and us. Alma is clearly not speaking exclusively of the scriptures, but rather of the principle of revelation. That principle of revelation is the one that provides us with God’s words, but it will not always come to us specifically. There will be times when we must be sufficiently humble to listen, especially if the person to whom we must listen is a little child.

Alma 32:24

24 And now, my beloved brethren, as ye have desired to know of me what ye shall do because ye are afflicted and cast out—now I do not desire that ye should suppose that I mean to judge you only according to that which is true—

Alma begins to give them the answer. He starts by indicating that they have desired to know what to do. As he begins this part of the discourse, however, something tells him that some in the congregation might misunderstand. Alma takes care to indicate that he is not judging them all to be humble only because of their humility. To parse the meaning out of his aside we examine it and perhaps restate it.

[now I do not desire that ye should suppose…] Alma is indicating that he does not want them to think that which follows.

[ that I mean to judge you only according to that which is true] Alma has pronounced a judgment on them. He has judged them as “compelled to be humble” in verses 12-14. Here he indicates that he does not solely judge them on that basis. When he says “according to that which is true” he is referring to the fact that they have been cast out of the synagogues. That is the true fact. It is on the basis of that true fact that he made the judgment that they were compelled to be humble. Now he indicates that he understands that this might not be the case for every individual in this group.

Alma 32:25

25 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, let them be in whatsoever circumstances they might.

Here is the positive conclusion to Alma’s qualification of the judgment that he has made. He indicates that he does understand that there are those who would have humbled themselves even without this particular circumstance, and thus fall into the “more blessed” category that he noted in verse 16.

Alma 32:26

26 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.

Alma makes the message very direct and immediate. Just as you have faith yet not a perfect knowledge, so it will be with what Alma teaches. They will not be able to know them perfectly, or believe them completely, at first. At first, they do not believe, and that is logical. Alma will explain that faith is not a single thing, but rather a process, a continuum.

What he now does is deepen the meaning of faith by explaining that it is not a simple result, but a process that has many different stages. What he will explain is that faith can increase in quality and depth with our experiences. This is an important concept, for it is altogether too easy for us to forget that faith is applied to a full continuum of experiences. We are somewhat familiar with the way a single term may apply to a full range if we compare it to some more common expressions. For instance, we understand what it means to “play tennis.” We fully understand that when we are first starting we may take lessons to “play tennis.” After some lessons we may actually plan some games with our friends, and we are “playing tennis.” We also understand that at Wimbledon they “play tennis.” We clearly understand that what is meant by “play tennis” may cover everything from the beginner to the top ranked professional. So it is with faith. Faith may describe a young child, an questioning teenager, and even the prophet. All may have faith, though it is certain that we also understand that the quality of their faith differs in the same way that beginners and professions differ in the ways that they “play tennis.”

Alma 32:27

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

When Alma began discussing the continuum of faith, he began at the very beginning of the line, which was to show where it begins, where the things that are not faith and faith may be separated. That ultimate beginning point was defined when he noted that faith did not equal knowledge. What Alma does now is describe the lowest form for faith. This is the smallest amount of faith that one might have, it is the very first thing on the continuum of faith once it begins after its separation from concepts of knowledge.

What Alma suggests is that the lowest form of faith has nothing to do with believing, but rather with the simple desire to believe. Faith does not begin with faith, it begins with a desire to have faith. This is why he calls it a “particle of faith.” It is just the smallest bit of faith. What is essential, however, is that this desire, this “particle of faith,” is attached to the requirement to do something. Alma tells these people that they must exercise that particle of faith, “even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.”

The desire is the beginning, but even desire is not quite on the faith continuum. We don’t actually become something about faith until action occurs, even if it is a small action. The smallest action is to give place, or to accept the possibility of accepting some of what is said. If the word is preached, and the hearer listens, but immediately dismisses everything that they hear, faith cannot begin. Faith can begin only when the possibility is open that there might be truth in what is heard.

The best example of this particle of belief is found in a text we have already examined, Alma 22:18:

Alma 22:18

O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou are God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and saved at the last day.”

How little faith did the king have? Look at the string of qualifiers used to open his prayer. He does not know of the existence of God, but says this man Aaron has said there is a God. Then, on the basis of what Aaron says, he addresses this God Aaron talked about. He says if there is a God, and if thou are God. He not only doesn't know whether there is a God, but he doesn't even know if the one he is praying to really is that God!

The result of this sincere prayer is that the king is overcome with the spirit, and is awash in the glory of God. I must be pointed out, however, that the real crux of the prayer was not the equivocation, which simply pointed out that he was on a low level of faith. What made the prayer effective was his firm commitment to give away all his sins to know God. It was that part of his prayer, that part which actually gave place to a portion of Aaron's words (to use Alma's phrase) which allowed the transformation from the lowest form of faith to a miraculous outpouring of the spirit.

Cross-reference: It might be suggested that not all people must progress through Alma’s stages of faith. Surely such a man as Joseph Smith might have avoided some of these steps? If Joseph Smith’s own story is read in conjunction with Alma’s discourse, we may find all of the essential steps of faith within that story of Joseph’s own faith.

Here at the beginning we have the lowest form of faith, which begins with a desire put into action. We find this echoed in Joseph Smith – History:

Joseph Smith-History:13-14

13 At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to "ask of God," concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.

14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.

Joseph’s desire leads him to the scriptures, and that desire leads him to act on the information he finds. He attempts a vocal prayer, a form of prayer he had not previously attempted.

Alma 32:28

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

Alma now compares this continuum of faith to something with which this particular group of people will be extremely familiar. We have already noted that the greatest probability is that these are farmers. They are completely familiar with seeds, and the comparison of the word to a seed should make this a very familiar and understandable analogy for them.

The first step is to plant the seed. What Alma is doing, however, is speaking of the process, and noting all that might go well, or might go wrong in the growth cycle of a seed, or of faith. He begins by planting the seed, but points out that not all plantings have the equal result. The seed might not be good, The seed might be rejected. These are things that could cause the seed not to grow.

When a seed is planted, however, if it is a good seed and the conditions are correct, it will begin to grow. It is this growth that all farmers notice, and by which they have the evidence of the goodness of the seed. The seeds may all look alike when they are planted, but the telltale of their value comes with the marker of growth. Only the good seed will grow, so if evidence of growth is seen, it must have been a good seed. This is the way that faith in the word may be understood. We may not know, when first we attempt to understand, when at first we give place to the words, whether or not they are true. What Alma promises is that only the truth will grow. Only the true word will swell within our breasts in ways that we may “feel these swelling motions.” As the farmer measures the value of the seed by the proof of its growth, so too the value of the preached word may be understood when it too begins to grow within us.

What does this growth feel like? Alma suggests that it feels like an enlightened understanding. We understand more; see more clearly. The agricultural imagery is continued when Alma tells us that it begins to be delicious. It is not only understandable, but pleasant, uplifting to our souls. We have increased clarity instead of darkness, increased joy instead of sorrow. By these things we may measure the growth of this particle of faith for which we have made place.

Alma 32:29

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

It is crucial that when we are developing faith that we read the signs of the growth of faith. We should notice that it begins to “taste good.” What we cannot do is decide that this is sufficient. Just as the first shoot is no proof of the mature plant, so too the beginnings of our faith are no proof of the eventual mature faith. We are in a process, and must realize that we must continue to act rather than be pleased with the results of our first small attempts.

Alma 32:30

30 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.

Alma 32:31

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.

Alma 32:32

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

When we recognize that the beginnings of our faith have begun to taste delicious, then we can make our evaluation of the “seed” or the thing to which we gave place. Just as with a seed, if it grows it was a good seed. If this seed of faith has grown, then the seed itself was good. We now have confirmation that the word we began to accept is good and true, and we may allow room for more of it. Remember that at the beginning they might give room to only a portion of Alma’s words. When the seed to which they gave place is proven good, they may be willing to give place to a larger portion of his words, or perhaps even to all of them.

The converse occurs if there is no growth. If the seed does not grow, then it was bad and should be cast out. Whatever we were attempting believe would not be true if it does not grow, and so we should cast out that original seed, and it goes without saying that we will have no reason to give a larger place to any more of those words.

Alma 32:33

33 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.

Alma 32:34

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

Alma ties in this first test of the process by returning to the concept of the continuum of faith and its relationship to knowledge. While he has indicated that faith is not knowledge, clearly there is a great relationship between them. Faith has allowed for the planting of the seed, but once that seed’s goodness is measured by its growth, now the person knows that the seed was good because of the evidence. Once we have evidence, we do not need faith on which to base our actions, because we have knowledge. It is just as with the child riding the bicycle, it begins with faith, but converts to knowledge after experience. Alma is teaching that very principle, that faith moves in a similar arena to knowledge in that they are both motivators to action, but that faith operates in a specialized niche, one where we lack the types of evidence or substance upon which we typically base our knowledge, and our ability to act on our knowledge.

What Alma is also telling us is that people may learn to have a knowledge, a testimony, of certain parts of the gospel, but never return to the fertile soil to plant more faith. Thus the witnesses to the Book of Mormon were firm in their testimony of that one thing, but faltered in their belief of others. For that one thing they had knowledge, but never moved their faith that far in other aspects of the gospel.

Cross Reference: In Joseph Smith’s case, the swelling of the seed and rather dramatic understanding become knowledge were rather dramatic:

Joseph Smith-History:16-17

16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

Joseph’s incipient faith grew rapidly, and grew to the point where Alma describes his knowledge as “perfect in that thing.” Indeed, Joseph’s understanding was so firm that he was unable to deny it afterward (Joseph Smith-History 24).

Alma 32:35

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

Alma suggests that the growth of the word is real “because it is light.” The imagery of light can become quite complex, as witnessed in D&C 88:6-13. It is probable that Alma’s imagery here is slightly more mundane. Keeping with the agricultural theme, “light” is visible, and real. What Alma is saying is that the swelling of the seed of faith in the portion of the word also becomes real. They will notice the evidence just as they notice light – they may not be able to feel it, nor define it, but they know that it is there, and that it is real, and valuable. This is the reason that he adds because it is discernible. It is the ability to be discerned that is the point in this verse, not the esoteric understandings of light from D&C 88.

Once they have discerned this growth, once they know that the seed is good because they can tell that it has grown, then they know that it is good, but they are still short of perfect knowledge. The are still in the process, and in the earlier stages.

Alma 32:36

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; 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.

Just because they have some knowledge (but not a perfect knowledge) does not mean that they abandon faith. Alma noted that their faith was dormant in that thing. Where faith returns to a critical forefront is when new understanding is required. Alma tells them here that they will still need faith because the process has only begun. They will know that the seed is good, but now they must give place to more of the word. The plant must become larger.

Alma 32:37

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.

These are farmers, and they understand the next step. Alma gives it to us briefly. The shoot is nourished “with great care.” Why should we nourish our incipient faith? Because it is a tender shoot, and any farmer will understand the difference in the new shoot and the mature plant in the ability of each to withstand the vicissitudes of weather. The young shoot requires care, and so we too nourish our incipient faith so that it will take firm root, and eventually bring forth fruit.

How is this done?

“Faith may be nurtured and renewed through scripture study, prayer, and works consistent with the commandments of the gospel. Because those who act on faith, repent, and are baptized receive a remission of sins, they have reason to hope for eternal life (Moro. 7:41). With this hope, their faith in Jesus Christ further inspires individuals to minister to each other in charity, even as Christ would have done (Moro. 7:44), for the "end of the commandment is charity out of…faith unfeigned" (1 Tim. 1:5). "Charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever" (Moro. 7:47). Thus, faith, or "steadfastness in Christ," enables people to endure to the end, continuing in faith and charity (2 Ne. 31:20; 1 Tim. 2:15; D&C 20:29). True faith is enduring and leads to an assurance that one's efforts have not gone unnoticed and that God is pleased with one's attitude and effort to implement the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ in one's personal life.” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 484.)

In the gospel, developing faith requires a continuation of the principle of action. We attend meetings, we continue to meet with missionaries, we continue to learn and to place ourselves in a position where we might learn. While it is possible that some seeds grow without much tending, the good farmer will give the seed the care of actions that are designed to nourish the seed. The story of faith is always a story of action, of movement along the continuum.

Alma 32:38

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.

Most of the times, the effects of inaction are to destroy the new shoot. In the agricultural imagery with which Alma has begun, he contrasts the growing seed with one that is not tended and nourished. That seed does not gain root, and is therefore more easily destroyed by the same sun that nourishes the tended seed.

We all live in the same world, and many of the same cultural influences impinge upon us all. When does the world claim us instead of the Lord? When we give in to the world instead of to the Lord. If we do not actively nourish our understanding of the gospel, there are plenty of things to which we can use the scorching sun as analogy. For many, science can become an excuse to abandon the word of God, because it is seen as something with more substance.

Cross-Reference: Joseph underwent a period of time where he might not have nourished his tree as well he might. This did not deny his original knowledge and testimony, but neither did he progress:

Joseph Smith-History:28

28 During the space of time which intervened between the time I had the vision and the year eighteen hundred and twenty-three—having been forbidden to join any of the religious sects of the day, and being of very tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends and to have treated me kindly, and if they supposed me to be deluded to have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me—I was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to any one who recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament.

Joseph notes this as a time of little progress, and further progress was not made until he made further attempts to nourish his seed, as noted below.

Alma 32:39

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.

Alma continues the analogy. A good seed which has begun to grow can die from inattention or poor care. A new convert who begins to immerse themselves in Anti-Mormon literature is not caring for the new shoot, but immediately exposing it to a scorching sun that will actually make the plant grow better when the young plant is stronger. It isn’t that there is anything damning in the literature, but rather the timing that is critical. There are some strong suns which are better for the more mature plant, and would be dangerous to the new shoot. Alma stresses that such a failure is not a failure of the seed, but rather of the farmer.

Alma 32:40

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.

The path to a stronger faith depends upon the person, upon the farmer in this analogy. If the farmer does not care for the plant, it will never grow to the point where it bears fruit. The farmer’s reason for planting will be thwarted, not because of the seed, but because of the farmer himself.

Notice that Alma blends one agricultural analogy with another with which the people must have been familiar. All of a sudden this is no simple fruit tree, but the ultimate fruit tree; the Tree of Life. Alma wants to make sure that they understand that this is an analogy, not a lesson in farming. This is a way to grow faith until it becomes to them a tree of life. The gospel is the promise of this eternal life, not just in enduring through time, but in the quality of the life throughout time and eternity. That is the tree they are attempting to grow, and the one that they would be discarding should they decline to care for it properly. Alma is warning them against destroying the most valuable of end results by inattention to the beginnings.

Alma 32:41

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.

The contrast is, of course, the active nourishment of the tree. If they tend it with the understanding of its great value, it will continue to grow until it fulfills that great value.

Cross-Reference: Joseph’s faith was strengthened when he again took to his knees to ask God of his position.

Joseph Smith-History:29-30

29 In consequence of these things, I often felt condemned for my weakness and imperfections; when, on the evening of the above-mentioned twenty-first of September, after I had retired to my bed for the night, I betook myself to prayer and supplication to Almighty God for forgiveness of all my sins and follies, and also for a manifestation to me, that I might know of my state and standing before him; for I had full confidence in obtaining a divine manifestation, as I previously had one.

30 While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.

What Joseph did was once again act upon his faith. Once again, built upon the foundation of his earlier experience, Joseph again steps into the unknown. The exercise of faith was firm because he knew that he had been answered before, but this was a different question, a different purpose. Nevertheless, the continuation of the mission of the young man had been delayed, and now returned to a rapid track because he had taken action, because he had nurtured the incipient faith.

Alma 32:42

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.

Literary: This is a very clear reference to the Tree of Life in Lehi’s (and Nephi’s) dream (1 Nephi 8:11 for the description of the fruit, including its whiteness). We must suppose that even though we do not see much of that story in the Book of Mormon, it was nevertheless well known such that Alma could make this reference assuming that his audience would understand the reference to the white fruit. Even though the Zoramites were apostates from the Nephite gospel, they must have been participants in the general cultural worldview, and somewhere in that culture or the religion they abandoned, the Tree of Life as understood by Lehi must have been taught. Alma doesn’t explain it, he absolutely expects that the imagery will be understood.

Alma 32:43

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.

The process of faith requires continuous action. The initial steps are insufficient. We may join the church, but that is not the end of our need to learn and grow. The gospel exists to change us from a seed to a mature tree, and it is our active participation in the gospel that nourishes that growth within us.

Textual: The 1830 edition does not break a chapter here, but continues directly into the next text.