I'm Teaching GD Class Next Sunday

[_Franktalk]

consiglieri,

What you have written is fine. It is a very logical approach to what is written. It is more of a literary style and logic discussion than a discussion of scripture. The person who hears you may believe that Alma has sway over the younger and that alone gives Alma a position of authority. It seems you let your audience decide if Alma is speaking the truth or not. Although your words are fine I find them dry and scholarly. The emotion comes into the chapters but you seem to sidestep them.

Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron, among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.

And now, my son, I would to God that ye had not been guilty of so great a crime.

And now, my son, I desire that ye should let these things trouble you no more, and only let your sins trouble you, with that trouble which shall bring you down unto repentance.

Just what was the desire of Alma? To save his son, to save the Zoramites, both? Was Alma just expressing an argument or did he have some reason to believe what he was saying was true? Why would the son not believe? What was different between them? If you wish to talk about what the son was doing then we need to know why he was doing them. These issues are very hard to address in a short class. I list them as open ended questions in my talks.

The bottom line is I like what you have so far. Most people are pretty boring so anything that is not cut and paste is always appreciated.

[_consiglieri]

No worries. I tend to present more animatedly than I write.

Here is the next part of the paper:

__________

A. THE ATONEMENT OF Christ
Corianton seeks to justify his disbelief in the coming of Christ by saying it is not possible his coming could be known in advance. Alma responds with a logical argument by saying that souls are as precious now as at Christ’s coming or afterward, and that God is powerful enough to reveal his coming in advance as after the fact. (39:17-19) These arguments assume Christ’s coming as established, which is actually the point in controversy, but Alma does not leave it there. Rather, he will come back to the point in Alma 42, where he will argue that Christ’s coming and atonement are essential to allow God to be both just and merciful. This paper will pick up that thread of the argument there.
B. THE RESURRECTION
Most LDS equate the term “resurrection” with a physical resurrection. Corianton, however, uses the same term to refer to the raising of one’s spirit at the time of death. A modern LDS speaking with Corianton would have to be very careful in using the term resurrection to make it clear that the physical resurrection is what is meant. And that is precisely what we see Alma doing in 40:2—“Behold, I say unto you, that there is no resurrection—(here is the qualifying definition) or, I would say, in other words, that this mortal does not put on immortality, this corruption does not put on incorruption—until after the coming of Christ.”
Alma takes a detour in the middle of his sentence in order to make it absolutely clear that when he is using the term “resurrection,” he means the physical resurrection of the body from the grave, not the spirit at the time of death.
Later, Alma concedes the point to Corianton that the raising of the Spirit at the point of death may legitimately be called a “resurrection.” “Yea, I admit it may be termed a resurrection, the raising of the spirit or the soul.” (40:15)
But this concession weakens Alma’s argument a bit, because having conceded the raising of the spirit may be termed a resurrection while insisting on a physical resurrection thereafter places Alma in the position of arguing for more than one resurrection. One can imagine Corianton challenging him in this regard, and Alma falling back on the position that these things are a mystery that only God knows, saying “there are many mysteries which are kept, that no on knoweth them save God himself.”

Indeed, Alma waffles a great deal over the times of the resurrection, and how many there are, saying that the time of the resurrection “no one knows; but God knoweth the time which is appointed,” (40:4) and, “Now, whether there shall be one time, or a second time, or a third time, that men shall come forth from the dead, it mattereth not; for God knoweth all these things.” (40:5) Alma can’t seem to stop excusing his ignorance of this point—“Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.” (40:8)
This continual waffling by Alma suggests he is in trouble with his argument and he knows it, but he ascribes it as a mystery of God that only God knows. Interspersed with the waffling, however, is Alma’s declaration that he knows one of the mysteries of God that bears on the issue, even though it takes a lot of waffling for him to come to the point.
He first says he will show one thing which he has inquired diligently of God to know concerning the resurrection (3), that he had inquired what becomes of the souls of men between the time of death and the (physical) resurrection (7), that it is what becomes of the souls of men between the time of death and the resurrection that he has inquired diligently of God to know, and he does know it (9).
It is not until verse 11 that Alma finally gets around to saying what it is that he knows, and it is that the “spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.”
This mystery which Alma unfolds is almost a concession to what Corianton believes, for we will see that Corianton’s belief is that at the point of death, the spirits of all men (whether good or evil) are raised from the dead and taken home to God. (Corianton will embody this belief in his idea of “restoration” which will be addressed in the next chapter. But it is important to note here Corianton believes “restoration” connotes the restoring of the spirits of men to the presence of God to be eternally happy. More detail on why he believes this will be given later.)
This is a remarkable discourse. Alma first concedes the point of aptly naming as “resurrection” the raising of the spirit from the dead, and now concedes that the spirits of all men, whether good or evil, are then taken home to God. But this is as far as his concessions go. There is a stark difference in Alma’s teaching at this point, for once these spirits are brought before God, it is not to enjoy eternal happiness, but to be judged on whether they are righteous or wicked and rewarded accordingly, the “righteous” being “received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise,” (40:12) and the “spirits of the wicked” being “cast into outer darkness.” (40:13) And here they stay until the time of their (physical) resurrection. (40:14)
Alma next quotes the words of Abinadi, saying “it hath been spoken, that there is a first resurrection, a resurrection of all those who have been, or who are, or who shall be, down to the resurrection of Christ from the dead.” (Cross reference with Mosiah 15:21—“And there cometh a resurrection, even a first resurrection; yea, even a resurrection of those that have been, and who are, and who shall be, even until the resurrection of Christ (for so shall he be called).”)
From Alma’s next verse, it is clear Corianton believes that this first resurrection means the resurrection of the souls from the dead, because Alma says that he cannot “suppose that this is what it meaneth.” (40:17) Alma says in full that Corianton cannot suppose that this means the resurrection “of the souls and their consignation to happiness or misery.” But the text makes clear that though he does believe it means the resurrection of the soul, he does NOT believe it means their consignation to happiness or misery. This last is a rhetorical flourish by Alma to reinforce his own belief.
Alma says this resurrection means “the reuniting of the soul with the body, of those from the days of Adam down to the resurrection of Christ,” (40:18) once again being careful to specify he means the physical resurrection.
But what would it mean to Corianton to belief the resurrection of all men down to the resurrection of Christ, and why is this point so important for Alma to controvert? It has to do with the fact the prophecy of Abinadi quoted by Alma focuses on the fact that this resurrection will come to all men, “of those that have been, and who are, and who shall be.” That covers pretty much everybody.
When this prophecy of the universality of the resurrection is coupled with Corianton’s definition of “resurrection” as the soul being raised from the dead and “restored” to the presence of God, it is clear Corianton believes in a universal salvation that comes to all men, and uses this passage from Abinadi to support his view. Once we understand this part of Corianton’s theology, the pieces are beginning to fall into place as to how it is he thinks he can sin with impunity and not be punished for it in the eternal world; a theme Alma will address more specifically later when he admonishes Corinaton, “Do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin.” (41:9)
And here we should note that the beginning of the discourse dealing with Corianton’s sins and Alma admonishing him is not a separate part of the sermon, but is in fact integrally related to the primary theme.
Alma continues his uncharacteristic waffling, now over the issue of the timing of the resurrection, and whether those who die before Christ come forth before those who die after.
“Now, whether the souls and the bodies of those of whom has been spoken shall all be reunited at once, the wicked as well as the righteous, I do not say (it is another of those mysteries of God)” but Alma will commit to the proposition that “they all come forth; or in othe words, their resurrection cometh to pass before the resurrection of those who die after the resurrection of Christ.” (40:19)
Again, Alma is not done waffling, and wants to make clear what he is willing to say and what he is not, “Now, my son, I do not say that their resurrection cometh at the resurrection of Christ; but behold, I give it as my opinion, that the souls and the bodies are reunited, of the righteous, at the resurrection of Christ, and his ascension into heaven.” (40:20)
Alma isn’t done yet: “”But whether it be at his resurrection or after, I do not say; but this much I say, that there is a space between death and the resurrection of the body, and a state of the soul in happiness or in misery until the time which is appointed of God that the dead shall come forth, and be reunited, both soul and body, and be brought to stand before God and be judged according to their works.” (40:21)
Okay, we get what Alma is saying, but why does he go to such lengths to distinguish what he is not saying; what he is willing to commit to the truth of as opposed to what is merely his opinion?
Is he responding to a question from Corianton along these lines—“If Christ’s resurrection is the activating force in physically resurrecting those who have died, on what basis will those who die after Christ’s resurrection be resurrected?”
Also, his response to Corianton has forced Alma into discussing multiple resurrections for one man (the spirit and later the body), and now Alma has to support multiple resurrections of all men? Corianton could well argue, “Isn’t it simpler to have one resurrection of the spirit for all men that happens at the time of death instead than the seemingly needless complications necessitated by a belief in the physical resurrection?”
We can picture Corianton pushing Alma pretty hard on all these needless complications and asking for specifics from Alma. If Alma’s belief in a physical resurrection results in such complications, Alma should be able to answer the complications raised by his belief, which in this case seem to be a matter of timing and number of resurrections. Alma is at a loss, hems and haws incessantly over the issue, and ascribes his lack of knowledge to the mysteries of God. Finally, Alma seems to get his sea legs and focuses on the one thing that he does know, and hammers it home. He goes from what is not known to what is known, and what he says he knows is that there is a “space” between death and the physical resurrection.
Alma’s teaching involves another complication at this point, which is the duplication of all people being brought before God to be judged and rewarded; first he has the spirits of all men being raised at the time of death to be judged as to whether they were righteous or wicked and rewarded accordingly, but now he has the same thing happening at the time of their physical resurrection. Alma says the souls of men remain in happiness or in misery until the time “that the dead shall come forth, and be reunited, both soul and body, and be brought to stand before God, and be judged according to their works. (40:21b). Didn’t we just go through this? Why the duplication? Why such complications? Corianton’s view is much simpler and if he knew the theory of Occam’s Razor, that the simplest solution to a problem is usually correct, he was doubtless pushing it pretty hard on his father by this point.
Although Abinadi’s mention of a “first resurrection” would seem to necessarily imply a subsequent resurrection or resurrections, and this fact would bolster Alma’s position, it is an argument he never makes.
Alma’s insistence on the physical resurrection, a space between death and the physical resurrection, and an initial judgment at the time of death when the souls of all men are brought before God to be judged, has led to his rather complicated and repetitious theology. There are problems with Alma’s view, which he has indicated by ceding some of the argument to Corianton on the definition of “resurrection,” that the spirits of all men are, in fact, brought before God at the time of their death, and waffling on issues in a manner not only completely unlike Alma in any other discourse, but unlike any other Book of Mormon character.
But as Alma swings into his discussion of “restoration,” his waffling vanishes and he seems to get a second wind, assuming the upper hand in the conversation.
Although Alma does not address Corianton’s view of “restoration” until chapter 41, he segues into the discussion by using the word “restoration” repeatedly at the end of chapter 40 to refer to the physical resurrection:
Yea, this bringeth about the restoration of those things of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets.
The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame.
And now, my son, this is the restoration of which has been spoken by the mouths of the prophets. (40:22-25)
Alma’s use of repetition in this manner not only accentuates his teaching of the physical resurrection, but that this is what constitutes the “restoration” spoken of by the mouths of the prophets.

[_Franktalk]

Excellent