Alma's Theology

[Sleeping in EQ]

In Alma 7:12-13 you have:

12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.

So...

The Son becomes mortal so he may know how to succor his people, but the Spirit knows all things.

and then a little backpedaling beginning with "nevertheless?"

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

In Alma 7:12-13 you have:

12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

13 Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.

So...

The Son becomes mortal so he may know how to succor his people, but the Spirit knows all things.

and then a little backpedaling beginning with "nevertheless?"

I'm confused... what are you getting at?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

and then a little backpedaling beginning with "nevertheless?"

I agree that alma backpedals. but I think I read the backpedaling as much stronger than you do. I read it as almost a complete backpedal. I think Alma seriously backs of the implications of verse 12 in terms of the omniscience of God. I think that is why in verse 13 Alma emphasizes and only mentions in repetition the "blot out transgression part of the atonement" rather than the "learning to succor component" and why he brings up at least to some degree the omniscience of God.

On the other hand, if Alma's view of God is modal (don't impute a lot of theological precision to my use of the word) then Alma might not be backpedaling at all.

[Indy Coug]

How would Christ know all things if He had never had a physical body prior to coming to earth?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

How would Christ know all things if He had never had a physical body prior to coming to earth?

Whether that is a prereq for knowing all things for Christ in particular or everyone in general I have no idea but it doesn't seem like that it is part of Alma's theology since Alma asserts that the "Spirit knoweth all things." Thus Alma doesn't seem to think that a physical body is a necessary condition for omniscience.

Now if you want to argue that the phrase "knoweth all things" is limited in some sense and that we should not impute theological precision then I am fine with that. I don't think the Book of Mormon is theologically precise. Maybe "all things" just refers to how, why, and when events or things happen and not a knowledge of "how to succor people" which such knowledge of succoring may require a physical body to learn. I view this as a possible reading; its what I mean by the "modal" stuff. I would have to look over the sermon more careful to see if I think such as reading can be dismissed.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

How would Christ know all things if He had never had a physical body prior to coming to earth?

You're right. Craig Blomberg explained this in How Wide the Divide? In spite of Jesus' omnipotence there was experiential knowledge he still had to acquire through the incarnation. Alma's not backpedaling.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

You're right. Craig Blomberg explained this in How Wide the Divide? In spite of Jesus' omnipotence there was experiential knowledge he still had to acquire through the incarnation.

Chino, I am going to have to part ways a little bit. Indy may be right, but its not obvious that he is right. It depends what Alma means by the phrase "Knoweth All Things." Make a case from Alma that he didn't include experiential knowledge in "knoweth all things." If you can show that from Alma, then Indy is right. It matters not what Bloomberg says (unless, of course, Bloomberg was doing exegesis on Alma 7 and finds evidence that Alma doesn't include experiential knowledge in the phrase "Knoweth All Things" -- Remember, SIEQ's original post is about Alma's theology or what we can figure out about Alma's theology not necessarily what is the correct or true theological position), it matters what Alma meant (which may or may not be recoverable).

[Tex]

Is it also possible Alma was simply speaking metaphorically? Could he have been using an expression to help those he was teaching identify with God, his passions, motivations, etc., and not really teaching about the nature of God himself?

More interestingly: was Christ's ability to succor his people more effective after his death and resurrection than before?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

More interestingly: was Christ's ability to succor his people more effective after his death and resurrection than before?

What would make this question even more interesting is if it turned out perfected beings are not constrained by our understanding of space and time.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Chino, I am going to have to part ways a little bit. Indy may be right, but its not obvious that he is right. It depends what Alma means by the phrase "Knoweth All Things." Make a case from Alma that he didn't include experiential knowledge in "knoweth all things." If you can show that from Alma, then Indy is right. It matters not what Bloomberg says (unless, of course, Bloomberg was doing exegesis on Alma 7 and finds evidence that Alma doesn't include experiential knowledge in the phrase "Knoweth All Things" -- Remember, SIEQ's original post is about Alma's theology or what we can figure out about Alma's theology not necessarily what is the correct or true theological position), it matters what Alma meant (which may or may not be recoverable).

Canonical criticism is a legitimate form of exegesis. It's not inappropriate to interpret this in light of other passages like Heb 2:17-18. I get what you're saying though.