Home > Doctrinal Development, Scripture > Reevaluating Alma 13: Premortal Performance or Foreknowledge of God?

Reevaluating Alma 13: Premortal Performance or Foreknowledge of God?

Alma 13 is commonly used as support for the premortal existence.  In particular, it is sometimes used to support the notion that circumstances today are the result of actions taken in the premortal existence.  However, a careful reading of the Book of Mormon narrative including the purposes and structure of Alma’s discourse, and an examination of early Latter-day Saint understanding of the Book of Mormon compel us to reconsider and reevaluate this particular reading.

The Nephite socio-religious context

Readers of the Book of Mormon are generally aware that the narrative describes two warring clans, the Nephites and the Lamanites.  While this is a useful frame of reference, the group dynamics are much more complex.  In particular, the Nephites often faced individuals who defected from the Nephite polity and who openly challenged the Nephite religion.  Understanding these dynamics is a key to an enhanced understanding of the text.

The Book of Alma opens with the Nephite confrontation with Nehor, the founder of an competing priesthood who taught that “every priest and teacher ought to become popular; and they ought not to labor with their hands, but that they ought to be supported by the people” (Alma 1:3).  Nehor’s teachings were in opposition to the Nephite priesthood where “when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors; and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength.” (Alma 1:26).  While Nehor was ultimately put to death for the crime of murder under Nephite law, many Nephites defected and became part of the Order of Nehor.

After a civil war with the Nehorian faction that nearly brought down the Nephite government, Alma, the high priest and chief judge of the Nephites who had ordered the death of Nehor, steps down from his position as chief judge to engage in a mission to cleanse the church and reclaim Nephite defectors.  While Alma has success in Zarahemla, the main Nephite city, he is not so fortunate when he arrives in Ammonihah, a city far removed geographically, politically, and perhaps ethnically, from the Nephite polity, and which has become an enclave for the Nehorian priestcraft.  Without the protection of his secular position as chief judge, he is reviled and cast out of the city.  However, he finds Amulek, an Ammoniah social elite who identifies himself as “Nephite,” accepts Alma as a prophet, sacrifices his social standing, and joins Alma in seeking to reclaim the people of the city.

Alma’s religious discourse

Alma and Amulek, speaking to the lawyers, judges, and rulers of Ammonihah who are of the Order of Nehor, preach concerning judgment, eternal life, and resurrection of man.  When one ruler begins to question Alma concerning the creation account, Alma backs up and starts from the beginning, from the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve, from the time the Lord gave them “first commandments.” (Alma 12:31).  Alma preaches that after the fall, God sends angels unto man, and makes known the plan of redemption “according to their faith and repentance and their holy works.” (Alma 12:30).  His goal is to reclaim his Nephite kinsman, and call them to repentance, just as God commanded men to repent after the fall, thus re-enacting the scriptural narrative.  However, in his last discourse Alma knows he must speak out against the Nehorian priesthood, which has been the cause of much bloodshed and wickedness.

In chapter 13, Alma continues from the fall of man and teaches “when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children” (i.e. after the fall), the Lord God “ordained priests after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.” (Alma 13:1).  By doing this he challenges the priesthood after the Order of Nehor.  Most critically, Alma teaches that priests were ordained “in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.” (Alma 13:2).  What manner could possibly do this?  The rest of his discourse is to explain “this manner.”  This is the crux of Alma 13.  Alma seeks to answer the question of why some are called to the holy calling of the priesthood and why others are not. (Alma 13:4).

According to the foreknowledge of God

Alma explains that priests were ordained “on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish.” (Alma 13:10).  Alma hearkens back to the principle of equality, that all were “on the same standing with their brethren” but that the holy calling was “prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would [future tense] not harden their hearts.” (Alma 13:5).

Thus, from the Alma’s previous discourse on the fall of man, it is clear that he is referring to faith and repentance and holy works in this life as the determination for being called to the holy calling.  Alma twice invokes God’s “foreknowledge of all things.” (Alma 13: 3, 7) —both times in relation to what has been “prepared from the foundation of the world.”  This is the only time in the Book of Mormon that these terms are used. It would seem Alma would not invoke the foreknowledge of God unless he is refering to a future state, since foreknowledge, by definition, refers to knowledge of something before it happens. (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines foreknowledge as “Knowledge of a thing before it happens; prescience. If I foreknew, foreknowledge had no influence on their fault” (emphasis added)).

Another reason it seems like a strained reading of the text to assume that the “faith and repentance” occurred in a premortal realm is because nowhere does Alma teach a doctrine of premortal repentance.  This repenting can only be understood to happen in mortality especially since Alma just finished teaching that “this life” is a “space granted unto man in which he might repent” and “a time to prepare to meet God” (Alma 12:24).  Indeed, the whole thrust of his purpose is to call the Ammonihah city to repentance.

Rather, the prophet Alma draws a parallel between the high priesthood and the Son of God.  The holy order of the Son is “from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things” (Alma 13:7).  This is appropriate, Alma explains, because the Son of God, “the Only Begotten of the Father . . . is without beginning of days or end of years.”  (Alma 13:9).  Indeed, the atonement of the Only Begotten, the plan of redemption, was “prepared from the foundation of the world.” (Alma 12:30;13:5).

Alma invokes Melchizedek (which means king of righteousness), and teaches Melchizedek was a high priest after the same order who preached repentance and established peace in the land (Alma 13:18).  Alma teaches that one of the purposes of the holy calling is to “teach [God’s] commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest.” (Alma 13:6).  Alma paints not only Melchizedek as fulfilling this role, but also points to himself when he exhorts the people to repent so that they may enter into the rest of the Lord, thus again re-enacting the larger narrative and serving as a proof of his priesthood calling.  (Alma 13: 6, 12-13, 16, 29).

In this way, the holy order becomes a type of the Son of God.  Both are without beginning of days or end of years, both are prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, both urge men to repent, and both lead to redemption.

Early Latter-day Saint readings of Alma 13

In his recent work on the history of preexistence in Western thought, Terryl Givens notes “Some Mormons see Alma 13 in the Book of Mormon as referring to human preexistence.  Joseph Smith and his contemporaries, however, apparently did not.”1

On December 15, 1872, twenty eight years after the martyrdom of the prophet Joseph Smith, Elder Orson Pratt addressed a congregation one summer afternoon and devoted his entire topic to the pre-existence of spirits.  Elder Pratt explains that his first exposure to the doctrine came from Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible.  Turning to the Book of Mormon and preexistence, Pratt explained: “I do not think that I should have ever discerned it in that book had it not been for the new translation of the Scriptures, that throwing so much light and information on the subject, I searched the Book of Mormon to see if there were indications in it that related to the pre-existence of man.”2

Pratt refers to the Book Ether, chapter 3, where the brother of Jared sees a vision of the premortal Christ, where the brother of Jared sees Christ in the form of a man.  Christ tells the brother of Jared, “See thou that ye are created after mine own image?”  Pratt views this as a reference to the premortality of man.  After quoting Ether 3:15, Elder Pratt remarks “This is about the only place that refers pointedly to the pre-existence of man in the Book of Mormon” although he seems to suggest there could be one or two other references.3

Notably missing from his talk is any reference to the Book of Alma.

Examining similar language in the Bible, Charles Harrell argues that the language Alma uses

is identical to that used in the New Testament to describe how the elect are “afore prepared” (Rom. 9:23) and “chosen . . . before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4) “according to the foreknowledge of God” (1 Pet 1:2).  The Saints in 1830 would have been no more disposed to infer preexistence from Alma’s teachings on foreordination than their contemporaries would from the New Testament teachings on election.4

Conclusions

It isn’t clear when Latter-day Saints began to see the premortal existence in Alma 13.  However, much of it is due to reading notions of the “first estate” into Alma’s usage of the term “in the first place.”

For example, Brown in “Premortal Life,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, who also assumes the “exceeding faith and good works” referred to in Alma 13: 3 and 10 occurred in the pre-mortal realm, assumes that the phrase “in the first place” in Alma 13:3-5 refers to the “first estate” (Jude 1:6; Abr. 3:26) or premortal realm.  However, a plain reading of Alma 13 indicates that “in the first place” simply means “in the first instance” without any allusions to a doctrine of premortal existence and surely not to a doctrine of premortal performance as the explanation for mortal callings to the high priesthood.

The phrase “first estate” is deliberate in Abraham 3:26.  However, Alma simply makes no reference to the first estate.  To read the first estate into the text seems to misconstrue a contextual reading of the Nephite narrative.

In addition, some readers may wish to harmonize Alma 13 with Abraham 3.  However, this is not recommended.  Abraham and Alma speak to different types of knowledge.  In the Abrahamic narrative, God does not rely on foreknowledge.  He stands in the midst of the spirits and has direct knowledge that they are noble and great ones (without offering a theory of how they became noble and great ones).  In contrast, in Alma, it is not according to the knowledge of God, but according to the foreknowledge of God as to who will not harden their hearts and repent.

The drive to harmonize the scriptural accounts is very strong.  However, by doing so, we often overlook and fail to appreciate the internal structure and consistency of the scripture narratives.  We need to let the scriptures speak for themselves, sometimes independent of the narrative of other accounts.  Alma’s narrative understood in within the socio-religious context of Nephite history best explains why he chooses to speak about the priesthood at all.  Rather than lifting Alma 13 out of its narrative to make it support the doctrine of pre-existence ex post facto, we need to ask “Why here?” “Why now?” does Alma decide to make this argument?  Only a careful reading of the text can inform us of this and also produce fruitful insights into the carefully constructed and beautifully woven account of God’s plan for redemption.

Notes

1. Terryl Givens, “When Souls Had Wings: Pre-Mortal Existence in Western Thought.” Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 360 fn. 21.

2. Orson Pratt, December 15, 1872, Journal of Discourses, vol. 15, p.250.

3. Ibid.

4. Harrell, Charles. “The Development of the Doctrine of Preexistence, 1830-1844,” BYU Studies (Spring 1988) 28:2. pp. 77-78

  1. January 9, 2010 at 10:14 am | #1

    aquinas, I am not sure I understand how you are dealing with Priesthood holders “being called and prepared from the foundation of the world”. Are you saying this first instance does not refer to the Holder, but rather the ordination, based on the other two usages in the chapter?

  2. January 9, 2010 at 11:50 am | #2

    Matt, I appreciate the question. Forgive what will be a long answer, but I feel it will help clarify my view.

    I view Alma to be drawing upon the previous revelations available in the Nephite tradition. There had been a consistent teaching that the atonement or plan of redemption was “prepared from the foundation of the world.” Following Lehi’s initial message about the “redemption of the world” (1 Nephi 1:19), Nephi taught “the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world” (1 Nephi 10:18). King Benjamin taught that the “atonement … was prepared from the foundation of the world for all mankind.” (Mosiah 4:6). This theme is carried on by Abinadi who taught the priests of king Noah that the “redemption which he hath made for his people . . . was prepared from the foundation of the world.” (Mosiah 15:19). Alma the Elder who witnessed Abinadi’s teaching repeats the teaching when he later baptizes Helam and prays “may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world.” (Mosiah 18:13). Alma the Younger repeats his father’s teaching in Ammonihah (Alma 12:30; 13: 3, 5, 7).

    After Alma ends his labors among the people of Ammonihah, the sons of Mosiah, Ammon and Aaron, repeat this teaching to king Lamoni and king Lamoni’s father, respectively. (Alma 18:39; 22:13). This is one of the last teachings Alma passes on to his son Corianton (Alma 42:26).

    I recount this tradition to put Alma 13:3 in perspective.

    And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

    I agree that the statement “being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God” taken in isolation, could be understood to mean that man exists from the foundation of the world and is “called” at that time and “prepared” at that time. However, I believe Alma clarifies himself in the second half of the same verse.

    I believe Alma is saying that the holy calling is prepared from the foundation of the world at the same time as the plan of redemption. Alma is teaching that priests are called, and the calling is prepared, from the foundation of the world, but according to the foreknowledge of God.

    The fact that the calling is made according to the foreknowledge of God tends to preclude premortal performance. Alma discusses man’s actions only after the fall not actions of good works or choosing good, or exercising faith and repentance in premortality. Second, because Alma uses the holy order as a type of the Son of God, both clearly are prepared from the foundation of the world, so a calling to the holy order must also be prepared from the foundation of the world. I don’t read Alma to be using “preparation” in terms of man acquiring some sort of premortal training from the foundation of the world. Alma is using the term “preparation” in the same sense as the entire tradition preceding him, in the sense that redemption is prepared from the foundation of the world.

  3. January 9, 2010 at 12:14 pm | #3

    Ok, if the calling is done via foreknowledge, does this not imply the calling was made before any acts occurred to merit the calling, and thus the calling could have occurred in the preexistence? Or is it just that the priesthood was prepared in the preexistence by the foreknowledge of God, and thus our potential calling to it was prepared as well.

    In either case, I agree with this:

    “I don’t read Alma to be using “preparation” in terms of man acquiring some sort of premortal training from the foundation of the world. Alma is using the term “preparation” in the same sense as the entire tradition preceding him, in the sense that redemption is prepared, according to the foreknowledge of God.”

  4. January 9, 2010 at 1:45 pm | #4

    According to Alma’s teaching, the ordination to the holy order happens in this life (Alma 13:1, 3, 10). However, I believe Alma is stressing that the ordination occurs in a manner such that it serves as a type of the Son. I read Alma to be teaching that the Son is redemption, both are prepared from the foundation of the world. What Alma is doing is linking the holy order to redemption by teaching that the holy calling is also prepared from the foundation of the world, and thus serves as a type of Christ. Alma is speaking to those of a competing Order who teach there is no Son of God. In response, Alma is teaching the the holy order is the Son of God. To me, that is the logic of his discourse.

    I think I understand your question, but in a sense, it seems to me to fall outside the domain of Alma’s discourse, which is only concerned linking the holy calling to the “foundation of the world” to serve as a type of the Son or redemption, rather than suggest “when” the calling “occurs.” Therefore, I’m not sure how to answer. I’m tempted to say it depends whether you identify the “call” more closely to the “ordination” or more closely to the “holy calling.”

    I think understand your argument, that if the calling is done according to the foreknowledge of God, then it would imply it “occurs” before this life, but that doesn’t necessarily require a premortal existence of man. Alma also says that the holy order of the Son was prepared according to the foreknowledge of God. So, I’m skeptical that Alma is teaching that “a call” “occurs” from the foundation of the world (and not certain we should understand “foundation of the world” to be the equivalent with “preexistence” in this instance). Given that I do not think Alma is teaching or assumes as premortal existence for man, and his audience doesn’t assume such, I believe Alma is saying that priests are called and ordained in this life (Alma 13: 4, 6, 8, 11), while the holy calling is prepared from the foundation of the world. (Alma 13: 3, 5).

  5. WVS
    January 9, 2010 at 7:11 pm | #5

    This is interesting for several reasons, but one is that it parallels the discussion among early Christians about passages like Jeremiah’s (“before I formed ……”). If find the question interesting, but I confess to being agnostic about the answer. Kevin Barney has written something about the biblical question that may be relevant in a general way.

    And thanks for this well-written post.

  6. January 9, 2010 at 7:23 pm | #6

    WVS, thanks for the comment. I believe you are referring to Barney’s mention of an ideal pre-existence, rather than an actual. It’s an important concept to be familiar with as most Latter-day Saints tend to view actual pre-existence as the only way to interpret the scriptures. Even with Alma’s discourse, I’m struck by his tenacity in arguing for a connection between priesthood and redemption to such a degree that he seems not concerned with emphasizing even an idealized pre-existence of man, although it’s clearly possible and does seem suggestive that he assumes that worldview. Modern interpretations tend to mask that fact and instead latch on to one opening sentence in his discourse that Alma later spends a great deal of time carefully unpacking.

  7. WVS
    January 9, 2010 at 9:04 pm | #7

    I mentioned Kevin Barney’s article because he argues that for the possible idealized view for the passages (and some early LDS writers like Parley Pratt may have shared that view prior to 1842). But Christian interpretations of such (biblical) passages have been all over the map. Literal preexistence, ideal or neither. Your post brought to my mind that the range of views about Alma 13 is similar to the range of views about certain biblical passages.

  8. January 9, 2010 at 9:49 pm | #8

    WVS, thanks for the clarification and I really do appreciate you raising these other related issues. There is a lot to consider here.

  9. January 10, 2010 at 12:22 am | #9

    aquinas, you make a good case. I’ve been thinking that all the talk of pre-existence doesn’t fit with the context of the speech and doesn’t seem to follow any logic (as to why he would mention it), so I am already primed for your reading. I still think the wording is strange “being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God.” Pretty much every other phrase makes good sense (and more sense) in relation to this life, but that one is odd. I think the strong parallels between 3 and 7-9 are enough to make a strong case for reading 3 in the context of 7-9, which leads to your conclusion that there is no reference to a pre-existence in these verses. The more I think about it the more sold I am, nice post.

  10. January 10, 2010 at 8:47 pm | #10

    Jacob J, I really appreciate your comment. I agree that in light of the rest of the speech, that one statement, the one statement quoted most often, does seem strange and almost unintended. I can’t think of any reason why Alma would suddenly start preaching the doctrine of premortal existence to the people of Ammonihah. Doing so would serve no purpose to his goals, and it seems wholly out of place to his discourse since he began with the creation and the fall. In addition, if he did preach premortal existence, one could only conclude it was excised from the rest of the Book of Mormon narrative, or ignored, as it never resurfaces in the Nephite tradition. That seems unlikely to me. Thanks again.

  11. January 11, 2010 at 11:26 am | #11

    Interesting post. A lot of food for thought here concerning this pivotal chapter in Alma. On a related note, I find the contrast between the priests of the order of Nehor and the holy order significant. In this regard, see the post Holy Order in the Book of Mormon.

  12. Comet
    January 19, 2010 at 5:58 am | #12

    aquinas, I’m definitely sympathetic with your desire to resist the harmonizing of scriptures that we in the church, which results in mushy oatmeal scriptural thinking. I like how you clarify the immediate context and let the logic and structure of the text stand on its own first. That seems like the first critical step before we fly off to proof texting la-la land.

  13. March 9, 2010 at 3:59 pm | #13

    This really gave me a lot to think about. One question I had, was are you arguing against the whole doctrine that the premortal life had anything to do with things we have in this life or just against Alma 13 referring to premortality?

    It seems to me that you can actually place Alma 13 in a context of Alma teaching about the premortal life as having influence on what we receive here. In examining Alma 12, the last section of that chapter, is to answer the question of one Antionah, who has basically questioning Alma in regards to why it matters what we do in this life, because there is no life after this life. Alma 12:20-21 states, “But there was one Antionah, who was a chief ruler among them, came forth and said unto him: What is this that thou hast said, that man should rise from the dead and be changed from this mortal to an immortal state, that the soul can never die? What does the scripture mean, which saith that God placed cherubim and a flaming sword on the east of the Garden of Eden, lest our first parents should enter and partake of the fruit of the tree of life, and live forever? And thus we see that there was no possible chance that they should live forever.”

    Thus, it seems it can easily be concluded, that in Alma 13, Alma is moving on to a discussion of how the previous life mattered in regards to this life, and that this life matters in regards to the next. He perhaps is challenging the priesthood after the Order of Nehor but in reading the previous chapter, it seems just as likely if not more so, that he is teaching them about the responsibility for our actions and that all things are based upon previous righteousness.

    And in regards to the foreknowledge of God, since “all things are present to the Lord” (D&C 38:2, Moses 1:6) it doesn’t seem that foreknowledge then can only be limited to this life. God’s knowledge encompasses all things, so the premortal life is included in His foreknowledge as well. It seems this applies specifically to Alma 13 since, it says several times that it was before the foundation of this world. And since we have no clear idea of how long the world was created before even Adam and Eve were placed upon it, it can be seem that God’s foreknowledge is of our premortal, mortal and postmortal actions and choices. Part of the difficultly I think, is placing time on the Lord, who we know does not operate within time as we do. There is no limit or time limit to His doctrines, which mean, if we have a doctrine here – such as agency, because we know that as a doctrine from the Lord, we can also know that it is an eternal doctrine – meaning it doesn’t just seem to apply to this life. Thus, it seems safe to say; that taking the overarching understanding we have of God, doctrine, and agency we can apply that doctrine to premortal, mortal and postmortal life.

  14. March 9, 2010 at 10:37 pm | #14

    Cherilee, thank you for taking the time to read the post and also to respond. I really appreciate it. You are correct that the question about our previous life having anything to do with this life is a separate issue from whether Alma in Alma 13 is referring to the premortal existence. My post is limited to addressing Alma 13.

    In regards to the Alma-Antionah exchange, essentially Antionah is responding to Alma’s teaching that the soul is immortal and can never die. As I explained in my post, the people of Ammonhiah have disassociated them from the Nephite polity but come from that tradition. As a result they have access to Nephite scriptures, but they interpret them differently (as do the Zoramites later in the story). This is why Alma tells them that they have the scriptures but if they distort them it will be to their destruction. (Alma 13:20).

    In particular, Antionah is citing the tradition found in Genesis 3 as an argument against Alma’s teaching that the soul cannot die (Alma 11:45). In other words, Antionah is claiming that the scriptures contradict what Alma is teaching because the scriptures clearly show that the only way for man to live forever would have been for Adam to have eaten of the tree of life. Essentially, Antionah believes he is refuting Alma’s teaching by appealing to the Garden narrative.

    That is the exchange, but none of that touches on a doctrine of premortal existence. It begins with the creation of Adam and Eve and Alma says nothing before this existence. The people of Ammonihah do not seem to accept the idea of a final judgment or resurrection of bodies. In order for Alma to counter this, he doesn’t need to say anything about a premortal existence, he only needs to retell and clarify the creation account, which is exactly what he does.

    Therefore, I don’t see Alma to be teaching that “all things are based upon previous righteousness.” Such an idea is out of place with the structure of his sermon, and such a reading would presuppose that Alma is teaching about a premortal existence.

    In regards to foreknowledge, there is no evidence that Alma has D&C 38:2 or Moses 1:6. So, while from our perspective we have this knowledge, we cannot impute that knowledge to Alma or read that into the text. To do so would not let the text speak for itself. As I explain in comment 2, every time the Book of Mormon speaks of the “foundation of the world” it is in reference to redemption or atonement being prepared from the foundation of the world. And it is according to the foreknowledge of God that redemption is prepared from the foundation of the world. In fact, Alma 13 doesn’t specifically speak concerning foreknowledge of man’s specific actions at all, but rather that God’s preparation of the plan of redemption was according to God’s foreknowledge. In my view, Alma only speaks of the actions of man in relation to this life, the judgment and the resurrection.

  15. March 10, 2010 at 8:48 am | #15

    Thanks for the response. I really appreciate this discussion. It is helping me to clarify what I know and understand.

    It seems to me either way – premortal life or not premortal life, you are presupposing certain things. In regards to Alma not referring or teaching of the premortal life, that presupposes that when we teach a principle of the gospel we only teach that specific principle. But it seems to me that all things in the gospel are connected – meaning you can’t simply teach about ONE principle. You have to take into consideration the gospel whole – or all the teachings that we know because it is all connected. So when Alma is teaching about the Creation and the Fall – how can you really teach about either, without knowing and thus teaching, even if indirectly, the doctrine of the premortal life?

    Also, it seems to presuppose that Alma didn’t have all the knowledge that we do…but why wouldn’t he have? They had the gospel and when the gospel has been on the earth, I believe that it has been the Lord’s church as we know it – since Joseph Smith brought about a restoration…meaning it had to have been here previously.

    And again with foreknowledge – I totally agree that Alma does use the phrase “before the foundation of the world” in connection with redemption. However, in verse 3 when speaking of the foreknowledge of God, it states, “And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works…” I’m not sure how that could be said to be specifically and only referring to redemption. Since it speaks of being called and prepared on account of their exceeding faith and good works…that seems to be referring to people not the redemption of Christ. And then with that, verse 5 when it talks of being prepared again, that connects back to verse 3, which seems to indicate it isn’t ONLY speaking of redemption and the Atonement, but of people being prepared.

  16. March 10, 2010 at 5:23 pm | #16

    Thanks for your continued interaction. I’m glad you find the exchange helpful.

    First, to clarify, I’m not suggesting that gospel principles are not interconnected. Rather, I’m suggesting that we should take the scriptures as we find them, and avoid reading into the text connections that may not be there. Alma is teaching the Creation and the Fall without referring to man’s actions in the premortal life. That is what the text tells us. We would essentially need to rewrite Alma’s sermon to include the premortal existence. In fact by doing so, we would be doing violence to Alma’s sermon and would risk overlooking and ignoring the specific gospel connections that Alma is teaching.

    If we want to teach about the premortal existence, it would be more effective to utilize the scriptures that actually perform that work, namely the Book of Abraham and specific passages in the Doctrine and Covenants. To use Alma 13 to teach the doctrine of premortality is to use it for a purpose never intended, and as a corollary, I suggest we risk missing out on Alma’s sermon as he intended it.

    Second, I don’t find any support for the assumption that all the Nephites were in full possession of all the knowledge that the Latter-day Saints possess today. A careful reading of the Book of Mormon text shows that this is simply not the case. The narrative describes a people who are continually progressing in their knowledge of the plan of redemption, as they receive dreams, revelations and visitations by angels. Even examining the history of the early LDS Church, knowledge was not had all at once, but it came over a long period of time. See my post Joseph Smith’s Revelations on Preexistence and Spirits. To assume a kind of unity between gospel knowledge across space and time is simply unwarranted. I can see how you might argue that this is the case from God’s perspective, however, the scriptures are written from man’s perspective, in the language of man, through a particular socio-cultural milieu.

    More importantly, the view that individuals who live in completely different cultures, across space and time, have a kind of identical database of gospel knowledge tends to lead to superficial readings of the scriptures. In other words, we can know what Alma, Noah, Enoch, Abinadi, Melchizedek, Abraham and Nephi knew, not by actually struggling with the text, but by merely asking ourselves what we know and assuming they all knew the same things and that they knew then what we know now. This practice doesn’t lead to a serious reading of the scriptures. In fact, it is a short-cut for a serious reading of the scriptures because we don’t have to make any kind of effort; we simply conclude it before we even approach the text. In my mind, this approach is backwards.

    As to your final comment, it seems like you are raising the same issue as in comment (#1). My reply would be the same as in comment (#2).

  17. March 17, 2010 at 7:20 am | #17

    In my final studying of this, I finally looked in the Index of the Book of Mormon which actually lists Alma 13:3 under premortal existence. So it seems any other discussion is a moot point since by placing it in the Index the Church is officially saying that scripture is about that doctrine.

  18. March 17, 2010 at 2:22 pm | #18

    (Haven’t read the comments yet) I think the biggest reason for not reading the doctrine in Alma 13 is that few really studied the Book of Mormon heavily in theological terms in the 19th century. While I think the thesis that it was just there as a testimony of the restoration is vastly overstated it seems clear that for theology the Bible was dominant. While I don’t have a good reason for why this is (some passages are pretty forthright after all) my suspicion is that Biblical commentaries provided a bigger theological role than scriptural texts did. That is when we see appeals to the Bible they are arising because folks saw the ideas in some commentary originally. That’s a pretty loose hypothesis though and may turn out to be false.

  19. March 17, 2010 at 3:51 pm | #19

    Clark, not reading which doctrine in Alma 13?

  20. March 17, 2010 at 9:56 pm | #20

    Sorry, that’ll teach me to write on an iPhone. I get too brief. I was replying to this quote you gave from Givens. “Some Mormons see Alma 13 in the Book of Mormon as referring to human preexistence. Joseph Smith and his contemporaries, however, apparently did not.”

  21. March 17, 2010 at 11:42 pm | #21

    Clark, the hypothesis that early Mormons didn’t see a human preexistence in Alma 13 because Book of Mormon scholarship was in its infancy, requires one to assume that the doctrine was there in the first place, and hence it is not a good hypothesis because you must assume that it does in the first instance.

  22. March 24, 2010 at 12:03 pm | #22

    That’s not quite what I mean. It’s a text, it can point but there never is a “there” independent of interpretation. So I agree with you that far. The question is basically why the early Mormons didn’t read it into the text when they were quite fine reading things into say Biblical texts. The fact that early Mormons just didn’t use the Book of Mormon as an prooftext much is one possible answer to this. I certainly don’t mean to imply that the only cause nor the only interpretation of the data. But proof-texting tends to project onto texts whatever can be used. (Just look that missionary work in the 70′s and 80′s and the kinds of prooftexts used) So the question of why this text wouldn’t be significant is quite interesting.

    The debate about what the text ought to be taken as seems a slightly different question.

  23. March 24, 2010 at 4:33 pm | #23

    Clark, thanks for the clarification. I agree that one could attempt to proffer a general explanation that (one reason) Mormons didn’t use Alma 13 as a proof-text for the premortal existence is because Mormons didn’t use the Book of Mormon as a proof-text for any doctrine. Is that what you mean to suggest?

    Obviously, modern Mormons who have inherited the hermeneutic lens created by those before them are going to be conditioned or predisposed to read Alma 13 as teaching premortal existence (See comment 17). Pointing out that early Latter-day Saints did not read Alma 13 to refer to the pre-existence isn’t by itself an argument that Alma 13 does not teach a premortal existence. It is noting that historically it was not, and for decades it was not used as such by the Church, it is absent from early sermons on preexistence, suggesting that nothing really demands this reading. My thesis, however, doesn’t rely solely on early Latter-day Saint readings of Alma 13, but also on a structural, functional, and contextual analysis of Alma’s sermon.

    I agree that the separate issue of what proof-texting is, how and why it occurs, or may not occur, in any given faith community that has sacred texts is an interesting topic.

  24. WalkerW
    May 6, 2011 at 1:24 am | #24

    I know I’m over a year late, but I thought this might be helpful. Alma 13 speaks of the priests as a group. It is not meant to be about particular individuals (post-Protestant Reformation individualism I find to be an unwarranted paradigm for ancient texts). The link made to the epistle to the Romans is important. I think Gregory A. Boyd provides some insights that shed light on this issue:

    “When Paul refers to those who were “foreknown” as well as to those who were “predestined,” “called,” “justified,” and “glorified” (Rom 8:29-30), he is clearly distinguishing this group of people (believers) from other people (nonbelievers)…[T]here is no good reason to take ‘proginosko’ [foreknew] in a cognitive sense. It is more likely Paul is using the term “know” in the customary Semitic sense of affection rather than in a merely cognitive sense. To “know” someone is to love that one. So to “foreknow” someone means to love that one ahead of time. Three chapters later Paul refers to Israel as “[God's] people whom he foreknew” (Rom 11:2). If this is in fact its meaning in 8:29, then Paul is simply claiming that God loved the church before he called them just as he loved Israel before he called them…It is not that God foreloved select individuals (as opposed to other individuals whom God didn’t forelove) and then called and predestined them. What God loved ahead of time (ultimately from the foundation of the world) was the bride of Christ, the body of Christ, the church considered as a corporate whole…God predestined this group to be saved (2 Tim 1:9), to be holy and blameless (Eph 1:4), to do good works (Eph 2:10), to be glorified (1 Cor 2:7) and to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ (Rom 8:29). Once you or I freely align ourselves with this corporate whole, this new people of Israel (Gal 6:15-16; Phil 3:3), all that is predestined and foreknown about the group now applies to all of us who choose to believe.” (Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy, InterVarsity Press, 2001: 117-118)

    It was (as stated earlier) the holy order of the priesthood (i.e. the priests as a group) that was “called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God” (Alma 13:3), not the priests themselves (i.e. the priests as individuals).

    I actually think the pre-existence interpretation runs into theological problems and paves the way for Calvinism. It would assume that some were not ordained to the priesthood in the pre-mortal life. Then you get into the whole fence sitter nonsense.

    This blog post was fantastic. Thanks so much.

  25. WalkerW
    May 6, 2011 at 1:32 am | #25

    I forgot to add this:

    The term love was understood to have covenant implications within the ancient Near East as demonstrated by its usage in a variety of ancient treaties. This was not some romanticized emotion, but a declaration of loyalty and brotherhood. Therefore, God foreknowing/foreloving (i.e. planning beforehand to covenant with) those who choose to enter the holy order of God should make obvious sense. It has everything to do with the covenant.

    See the following:

    Frank Moore Cross, “Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel” in his From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1998).

    William L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25:1 (1963).

    J.A. Thompson, “The Significance of the Verb Love in the David-Jonathan Narratives in 1 Samuel,” Vetus Testamentum 24:3 (1974).

  26. May 6, 2011 at 7:14 am | #26

    WalkerW ~ Thank you for your comment. All the posts are active as far as I’m concerned and I welcome your comments.

    Your reference to Gregory Boyd raises an issue that I don’t think I discussed at all in the post, and that is the issue of free will.

    By way of background, Boyd is writing from an openness theology perspective, which argues, among other things, that the notion of God having exhaustive definite foreknowledge contradicts the notion of human free will. Boyd furthermore believes the notion of exhaustive foreknowledge isn’t supported by the biblical data, and thus he provides in this writings exegesis of scripture that won’t support exhaustive foreknowledge. Many Mormon philosophers have found openness theology attractive because of its emphasis on free will.

    So while I speak of foreknowledge in this post, I never addressed the issue of how or whether to reconcile divine foreknowledge with human free will. My reason for that was based on a decision to take a close look at the narrative structure of Alma and how the sermon functions in that narrative.

    I recognize, however, that since I argue that Alma 13 is not predicated on human preexistence, the issue remains whether foreknowledge proves problematic for free will.

    As you suggest, one could apply Boyd’s exegesis of Romans to Alma 13. He is offering a way to understand foreknowledge as applied to groups but not specific individuals. That seems a possible reading of the text in Alma and is definitely something to consider.

    Thanks for the references.

    Incidentally and somewhat tangentially, whether to consider using ANE religious knowledge to inform us of Book of Mormon passages would depend on one’s theory of Book of Mormon translation.

    One of the claims the Book of Mormon makes is that it was written directly to people of the future, and therefore, it seems somewhat inconsistent to claim that people of the future won’t be able to fully understand that book as it was written specifically for them. On the other hand, the book claims to be an ancient text so it makes sense that gaining knowledge of the culture from which it originates will help to understand the text. Exactly how much of this knowledge transfers and whether and to what extent there was independent cultural and social development during the Book of Mormon time period is difficult to ascertain. Should one take the theory of translation that Joseph Smith adopted New Testament passages or phrases (i.e. from Paul) in which to couch religious concepts to be understandable to 19th century readers, then it makes more sense to look at 19th century religious understanding and not necessarily ancient ones unknown to 19th century readers. Even this is problematic because we can’t know whether or to what extent these concepts don’t undergo some change as they are applied to the Book of Mormon narrative.

    For these and many other reasons, because translation theory is contested and unresolved, I tend to base my arguments on a structural, functional, and contextual analysis of Alma’s sermon proper.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: