Converts to Limnor's Book of Mormon Origins?

[Limnor]

Exactly. So would I.

Ah! Now let's change it up and place the word 'not' between 'is' and 'a'. Are you still on board?

Regards,
MG

No, I’d hesitate to call Alma 32 a “giant leap” from the 19th century environment.

I’d go so far as to call it a codification of the revival culture Joseph knew.

As mentioned above (with citations) the whole “experiment on the word” idea fits right in with Wesley’s “experimental religion” and Campbell’s teaching that faith is verified through obedience and result.

What makes Alma 32 stand out isn’t that it breaks from that world—it’s that it captures it “scripturally,” albeit through pseudepigraphical means. And even that isn’t “new,” as Rigdon and his contemporaries had already done so with the “3rd Epistle of Peter.”

[Limnor]

MG, you’ve really challenged me to think more deeply about the relationship between the 19th-century “faith experiments” and their similarities to Alma’s mechanics. I appreciate that.

There are some differences, which I’ll point out below.

The frameworks of Wesley and Campbell both placed responsibility on the hearer, but why they do so—and what that implies about truth—are not the same. Both taught that faith could and should be tested by experience, which sounds very much like Alma 32.

Alma, however, adjusted this model by removing the space for genuine testing. It certainly sounds empirical on its face, but it closes the loop before any real experiment can occur. His model functions more as rhetorical strategy than open inquiry—and it ultimately enforces certainty.

Alma’s reasoning isn’t a formal logical fallacy, but it is epistemically closed. His “experiment” can’t actually test the truth of the word, only the believer’s response to it. By making “growth” the only valid evidence and blaming every failure on unbelief, he builds a system where the word can never be questioned—only the hearer.

Wesley and Campbell invited experience too, but they left room for reflection and correction: if the fruit wasn’t good, perhaps the understanding or practice was wrong. That space for self-correction made their approach genuinely open to testing faith.

Alma’s framework, by contrast, doesn’t defend the truth—it insulates it. And if the gospel is true, it shouldn’t need the rhetoric of an unfalsifiable experiment to prove it; it should stand on its own reality.

[Gadianton]

I’d just add that Mormonism’s “experiment upon the word”was not that unique to the time-period. That method fits nicely into the 19th-century Protestant atmosphere of experiential testing: Methodist conversion language, revivalist “try it and see” preaching, and similar appeals to the heart - 19th-century empiricism dressed up in religion.

Enjoying these points, Limnor.

[MG 2.0]

Alma, however, adjusted this model by removing the space for genuine testing. It certainly sounds empirical on its face, but it closes the loop before any real experiment can occur.

Alma's "seed" doesn't prove "the word" in a vacuum. It grows in relationship to the hearer's faith. That faith is manifest through a covenantal relationship with Jesus Christ. I don't see where that "closes the loop". If the seed doesn't grow, the invitation isn't to reject the word, but to nourish the ground and cultivate the conditions for the growth of the seed. Aren't you blaming failure on the hearer's lack of faith? Isn't that oversimplifying Alma's intent? Isn't Alma essentially offering a covenantal invitation involving nourishing, patience, and reflection...not instant confirmation? Or instant failure?

It seems to be a process.

On the other hand didn't Campbell rely more on the principal of cause and effect? That the "experiment" is external/doctrinal...believe, obey, receive? By the way, this seems to be a reductionist formula often offered by critics in another form: pay, pray, and obey. As though faith is the product of simple cause and effect without 'relationship' and nourishing the ground as previously mentioned. Alma's experiment is internal and is recognized by the hearer as "a good seed". It's the self in relation to 'the word'.

The seed is always good. If it fails, the fault lies in the soil (the hearer). This creates a recursive loop...failure prompts deeper introspection, not doctrinal revision. Alma's formula leads to spiritual discernment...that swelling and enlarging of the soul...which he refers to. Again, it's an internal 'light' that responds to the word of God. If there is a breakdown, it is then back to nourishing the soil. Some would say that this is where one gives up. That happens ALL TO OFTEN unfortunately.

So while Alma 32 shares the revivalist DNA of its 19th-century context, it mutates the form, from empirical testing to covenantal cultivation, from doctrinal verification to spiritual formation.

That’s not just borrowing...it’s reframing.

Alma 32, to me, is just another example of Joseph Smith's writings going the extra mile, and then some, in adding to the fertile soil that was part of his environment there in the burned over district that he and his family were planted in. Believers would say that this fertile ground of the Great Awakening provided the opportunity for God to open the windows of heaven and reveal additional light and knowledge which had been taken/hidden from the world until the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I note that MG’s post tally is rapidly approaching 7,200. He’s prolific. Despite starting a thread to specifically berate the board members for spending too much time posting, and telling them to get off their keyboards and do things in real life.

Congratulations MG. You spend more time posting on here than anyone else. Bravo <clap>

[Limnor]

Aren't you blaming failure on the hearer's lack of faith? Isn't that oversimplifying Alma's intent?

-snip-

Some would say that this is where one gives up. That happens ALL TO OFTEN unfortunately.

-snip-

Alma 32, to me, is just another example of Joseph Smith's writings

I agree with the last line here, but I’d frame those as “Oliver’s writings” within my codex. I see Alma 32 is further evidence against ancient authorship.

Yours is an interesting take, and you’ve clearly put some thought into it. I’ll visit your points about Alma blaming the respondent and “giving up” in the main body of my response.

Your post indicates you are reading it covenantally, as a process of cultivation and relationship, but my point is about how truth is verified.

If the process is purely covenantal and relational, how does physical or emotional reaction fit without it becoming circular? Alma seems to treat the feeling itself as verification that the word is true, and the model assumes that good feelings are evidence of divine truth.

I’d advise caution using that methodology, as emotion can confirm many mutually exclusive beliefs.

I am, however, curious how you personally interpret verse 28, specifically. That’s the part that implies that an emotional feeling is evidence that the seed is good.

If truth depends on the respondent’s emotion, the same feeling that affirms Christ’s atonement could just as easily validate later doctrines. At that point, the experiment stops testing truth and simply reinforces the system.

Which is how you end up with things like polygamy and marrying other men’s wives when they are away.

So, the issue with Alma 32 is that it blurs the line between validating existing spiritual belief and epistemology, while simultaneously presenting truth claims as experimental, scientific—a way to know the word is true. The problem is that it can’t actually test the word; it can only confirm it.

In other words, if the seed is always good and failure is always the fault of the soil, then the experiment becomes self-sealed. The default is always “it’s true, which means there is something wrong with the respondent.”

That’s not me blaming the hearer’s lack of faith, it is Alma—or if I’m right, Oliver—who does that.

[Gadianton]

In other words, if the seed is always good and failure is always the fault of the soil, then the experiment becomes self-sealed. The default is always “it’s true, which means there is something wrong with the respondent.”

Correct. If anyone ever says the spirit confirmed the seed is bad, the apologists will say they cast it out because of a lack of faith.

The bottom line is that while for any scientific experiment, there are no controls that will guarantee 100% accuracy, in Alma's experiment, there are no controls to guarantee any accuracy at all.

[MG 2.0]

I am, however, curious how you personally interpret verse 28, specifically. That’s the part that implies that an emotional feeling is evidence that the seed is good.

My experience as well as others would define the seed as a swelling within the soul, enlargement of understanding, and a feeling of deliciousness to the soul.

It's not just a purely emotional response/feeling (that's actually a pet peeve of mine). It involves each of the following working together in tandem:

Kinesthetic (swelling within the soul)
Cognitive (enlargement of understanding)
Affective/Emotional (feeling of deliciousness to the soul/mind/heart)

Together, they suggest a holistic learning experience, one that engages body, mind, and heart. I would expect that God, being the master teacher, would confirm/teach His word using multiple modalities rather than just one. Would you agree?

Again, I think that Alma is taking this idea/concept of faith an expanding on it to a much greater extent than the preachers of his day. The question could be asked, how did he, Joseph Smith, 'have it all together' at such a young age to supersede/expand what was already around him in his environment/milieu.

He did this a lot.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

In other words, if the seed is always good and failure is always the fault of the soil, then the experiment becomes self-sealed. The default is always “it’s true, which means there is something wrong with the respondent.”

Correct. If anyone ever says the spirit confirmed the seed is bad, the apologists will say they cast it out because of a lack of faith.

The bottom line is that while for any scientific experiment, there are no controls that will guarantee 100% accuracy, in Alma's experiment, there are no controls to guarantee any accuracy at all.

As I've already mentioned in some detail Alma isn’t offering a scientific experiment in the modern sense, he’s offering a covenantal invitation. It's relational. That's the point.

The “experiment” isn’t about falsifying the word, it’s about cultivating the soul. And nourishing the soil. Not everyone is willing to do that. It's time consuming and digging in the dirt is not always fun/easy.

Alma’s model isn’t just about feeling as Limnor seems to be saying, it’s about nourishing, waiting, and discerning. The process includes setbacks, introspection, and the possibility of growth over time.

It’s not a binary test, it’s a spiritual formation. Progression. The whole point in living. Stagnation does not breed happiness. Does it?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Together, they suggest a holistic learning experience, one that engages body, mind, and heart. I would expect that God, being the master teacher, would confirm/teach His word using multiple modalities rather than just one. Would you agree?

Again, that concept isn’t unique to the Book of Mormon. Similar approaches to discerning truth were common in early American revivalism:

Source: According to Jonathan Edwards in A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, “gracious affections do arise from the mind’s being enlightened, richly and spiritually to understand or apprehend divine things.” (Edwards, 1746)

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/affections.html

The method itself doesn’t resolve the underlying epistemological problem presented by Alma.

Again, I think that Alma is taking this idea/concept of faith an expanding on it to a much greater extent than the preachers of his day. The question could be asked, how did he, Joseph Smith, 'have it all together' at such a young age to supersede/expand what was already around him in his environment/milieu.

I think you are forgetting, or misunderstanding, my thesis that Joseph did not act alone.