Once the decision was made to serve the mission, I took my preparation
terribly seriously. I completed 4 years of seminary, read the Bible, the
Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and inspired by President
Benson’s counsel regarding its centrality to the LDS faith, I focused in particularly
on the Book of Mormon[i].
To ensure I had the most adequate understanding of the Book of Mormon that I
possibly could, I read it multiple times, sometimes focusing on the theology,
sometimes the history, sometimes on the message/prophecy for our present times,
etc.
A fascinating Institute class that I took in the months
prior to checking into the MTC suggested an entirely different approach to
studying the Book of Mormon. The Book, we were told, was not just a book, it was a tool of personal
revelation, and if we read closely and carefully, in its pages we would
discover the keys to unlock mysteries and truths available only through direct revelation.
One of the central keys to this approach to studying the
Book of Mormon was found in Alma 32—Alma’s sermon on faith to the outcasts of
the Zoramites.
A brief note on context. The two main groups through a
majority of the BoM narrative are the typically righteous Nephites, and the
typically less righteous Lamanites. The Zoramites were a group of people who
separated from the Nephites. They believed themselves to be God’s chosen and
holy people (Alma 31: 16-18), and had become fixated on external signs of
prosperity (Alma 31: 25-28) and religiosity (Alma 31: 20-23). Curiously they
claimed that God had revealed to them that there would be no Christ[ii]
(Alma 31: 16, 29). Consequently, Alma leads a missionary delegation to the Zoramites
(Alma 31: 5, 6) to win them back to Christ (Alma 31: 34, 45). As the delegation
begins to preach, they find the poor who have been cast aside and neglected by
the wealthy Zoramites (Alma 32: 2, 3) to be particularly receptive. It is to
these cast outs that the sermon in Alma 32 is directed.
As a teacher lecturing in areas relating to the nature of
knowledge, I have had a number of students make reference to Alma 32 as being
something that they believed to be profoundly insightful. In an introductory
lecture that involved trying to derive the necessary conditions for a knowledge
claim, one student (a recently returned missionary), without directly referencing
the Book of Mormon, suggested that true knowledge is when one no longer has
doubt. Another student referred specifically to Alma
Definition: epistemology is a branch of philosophy that
tries to define and understand knowledge.
That is what this post is about: epistemology and Alma 32.
My contention is that Alma 32 adds nothing to our real understanding of
knowledge, and can impede the acquisition of true knowledge in at least two
ways. First it convinces us that we have knowledge when we only have belief,
and second, it inoculates us against evidence that might demonstrate to us that
we are mistaken.
Alma 32 is set out like a proposal for an experiment[iii] (v.
27) and suggests that the purpose of the experiment is take our beliefs and see if we can transform them
into full blown certain knowledge,
one principle at a time (v. 34).
Alma proposes that seekers of truth plant a seed in their
hearts—meaning that reader ought to try to live a gospel principle. If one lives it sincerely, one
will feel a swell of emotions (v. 28) as the "seed" grows, you will stop having
faith in the principle, and your faith will be replaced by knowledge of that
principle. One will know that the
principle is true.
There are issues with this experiment.
My first observation is that the whole notion of using Alma
32 as a blueprint for the acquisition of knowledge is logically dubious in that
it is a circular argument.
The fact that you are willing to try the experiment means
that you already have decided that you want to believe in the principles taught
in the Book of Mormon, and that you are already inclined to accept that the Book
is what it purports to be. The seeker has to already accept the conclusion,
perhaps implicitly, prior to running the experiment. It seems rather unlikely
that if you desire to believe a principle, that following the principle in
order to prove it to yourself could lead to anything but an affirmation.
At the same time, any other book (Quran, Bible, the Vedas) could
be making similar claims. After running the proposed experiment on one holy
book, even if the results are positive, one has no way of knowing if the same
results would not be obtained from the Bhagavad Gita or the Mabinogion, for
example. In order to figure out if the experience that follows from Alma 32 and
the Book of Mormon is unique to the Book of Mormon, the seeker would have to apply the same test to
every other book that makes similar supernatural claims[iv].
If one runs the Alma 32 experiment, obtains a positive result, and fails to
apply the test to similar texts, the action reveals that the seeker is in fact
biased toward wanting the Book of Mormon to be true, but not other equivalent
holy books.
A second significant issue is the implied definition of
knowledge that is derived from this process, and widely accepted throughout the
church (if every fasting testimony meeting is any indication). The definition
of knowledge in the LDS faith (at minimum informally) is to believe without
doubt (Ether 3:19-28, Mormon 9:21). While it may be true that whenever we have
true knowledge, belief without doubt follows, belief without doubt on its own
is not enough to constitute knowledge. I could, based on faulty information,
believe without doubt that there has been an assassination or an earthquake or
any number of things. After my friend robs a liquor store, he might cry to me
that he’s been set-up, and I could quite easily believe him without doubt.
While belief without doubt might be a
necessary condition for knowledge, it is not a sufficient condition.
There are a couple of important conditions that must be met
in order for the experiment to succeed. Because there is this list of
qualifiers, if for some reason the seeker fails to obtain a confirmation of the
truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, the believer can always fall back on the
assurance that the seeker failed to meet one of the following conditions.
First, the chapter strongly implies that humility (whether
voluntary or not) is a necessary prerequisite for faith (v. 1-16, 25). This is
confirmed in Moroni 7:43.[v]
Then, Alma 32: 27 adds “…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.” In order for the experiment to
work, and to determine if a principle is true, you have to want it to be true.
Alma 32: 28 (a similar sentiment is expressed in Mormon 9:21): “…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…” (my italics). In
order for the experiment to work, one must not cast out the seed by unbelief.
What is the object of the experiment? To determine if a principle is true. So one of the conditions for determining if a
principle is true is *don’t not believe it?*
This is worth restating. To discover whether a Book of
Mormon principle is true, don’t not
believe it!
“Doubt your doubts” anyone?[vi]
Finally, you have to act as though you believe it to be true
(Alma 32: 28-34). Act as though you believe it to be true.
Recall Elder
Packer’s counsel[vii]
to the missionary who lacks a testimony: “Oh, if I could teach you this one
principle: a testimony is to be found in the bearing of it!”
Joseph B. Wirthlin says something very similar[viii]:
"We should be patient in developing and strengthening our testimonies…we
should pray for a testimony, study the scriptures, follow the counsel of our
prophet and other Church leaders, and live the principles of the gospel…”
What happens
when somebody acts as though they believe something, even if, like Packer’s
missionary, they do not?
Cognitive
Dissonance Theory[ix]
suggests that when our attitudes and our behaviors come into conflict, we feel
a sense of unease, and feel compelled to change either our attitude or
our behavior. And it turns out that it is actually easier to change attitudes
than it is to change our behaviors[x].
This means that if we act as though we believe something, if we had been
experiencing doubt, our natural psychological tendencies will lead us to
believe.
If the experiment is a success, a tree will grow, the seeker
will feel “swelling motions.” If that happens, now you longer have faith, now
you know.
“Swelling motions” are a means of distinguishing knowledge
from mere beliefs (v. 28). Um…it’s difficult to know what to say to this. A
significant portion of Alma 32 was dedicated to establishing the necessity of
humility as a prerequisite to faith, yet verse 28 tells the seeker that they
have an internal truth detector that, although indistinguishable from ordinary
non supernatural emotions, is more accurate than relying on evidence, and is
more accurate than the internal truth detectors of the sincere believers in
other faiths. Such can hardly be described as humility.
Once obtained, the knowledge of Book or Mormon principles is
fragile, it can be easily damaged (Alma 32: 38-39):
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. 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.
So, even if you once knew
that something is true
1.
if you stop “knowing” it, the problem lies not in the
truth value of the principle, but in your barren heart.
2.
if you stop “knowing” it is because you did not try
hard enough to believe. NOT BELIEVING IS A SIGN OF MORAL WEAKNESS! When the
true believer assumes that your disbelief is a moral defect, he has scriptural
support for his opinion of you,
In sum:
-
we will follow the advice of Alma 32 only if we have
already decided we want to be believers
-
we have to be sufficiently humble
-
then we have to want it be true
-
then we have to not not believe
-
then we have to act as though we believe the
proposition until our natural psychological defenses tell us that we do believe
it
-
a subjective emotion (swelling motion) is supposed to
be a reliable indicator of truth
-
if we set the bar low enough (that knowledge means
simply having no doubt) we will believe that we know the truth of the
principles
-
and finally, if we don’t believe it, the Book of Mormon
bullies us into believing because if we don’t, it’s a sign that there is
something amiss with the non-believer, not that the principle is false
And that, my friends, is Alma’s contribution to the theory
of knowledge.
[i] Ensign, November 1986: “…the Book of Mormon is the
keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so
does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of
Mormon…if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does
our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church.”
[ii] Even though this story is set in the decades before
the birth of Jesus, the characters of the Book of Mormon knew of his coming and
even new his name.
[iii] Keep in mind that this sermon is set in the 1st
Century BC. The characters are descendants of immigrants who left Israel in
about 600BC. The religion, language, customs, technology, rituals, etc, would
be derived from that of their forefathers as it was when they left Israel. This
ought to compel the reader of the BoM to ask—did the concept of an “experiment”
even exist in Israel in 600 BC?
[iv] The same can be said of Moroni’s Promise (Moroni 10:
3-5)
[v] Curiously, this principle did not apply to Alma
himself as, much like St Paul, he was converted by an angelic intervention
(Mosiah 27).
[vi]Deiter F. Uchtdorf. Come, Join with Us. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng
[vii] Boyd K. Packer. The Candle of the Lord. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/01/the-candle-of-the-lord?lang=eng
[viii] Joseph B. Wirthlin. Patience, a Key to
Happiness", Ensign, May 1987, 30
[x] Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959).
Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 38, 203-210.
Well thought through -- thanks for sharing
ReplyDeleteexcellent
ReplyDelete