What Does Alma 29:5 Mean?

[inquiringmind]

I was just reading Alma 29:5, and I'm trying to figure out what it's supposed to mean.

Does it mean anything,is it just doublespeak, or is there some Hebraism here that I just don't understand?

Here's the passage.

Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of conscience..

Taken literally, Judas must be satisfied (wherever he is), because he's getting exactly what he desires.

He desires remorse, and he's getting remorse, right?

But if he's satisfied with remorse, how can it really be "remorse"?

And if he's not satisfied with what he's getting, how can it really be what he "desires"?

Worse than that, what happens to justice if everyone, good and evil, gets what they "desire"?

Is Alma using Orwellian doublespeak here, or is there some way to make sense of what he's saying?

Do Judas, Cain, Caiaphas, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot , and Mao ultimately get what they desire (without changing, without repenting, and without learning to obey any laws)?

Wouldn't justice be mocked if that were true?

Edited January 25, 2012 by inquiringmind

[mfbukowski]

It is saying that if you don't know right from wrong, you are blameless, but we are free to choose good or evil and its consequences.

Don't get too hung up on the words- just read it for its sense

You get what you deserve- if you desire good, you get good, if you desire evil you get evil-

I think you are reading too much into it.

[Freedom]

The previous verse states the following: he granteth unto men according to their desires, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction.

[inquiringmind]

It is saying that if you don't know right from wrong, you are blameless, but we are free to choose good or evil and its consequences.

Don't get too hung up on the words- just read it for its sense

You get what you deserve- if you desire good, you get good, if you desire evil you get evil-

I think you are reading too much into it.

That's the only thing that makes sense.

Thank you (and I do get hung up on words sometimes.)

[Rob Osborn]

One who chooses to do evil is thus acting according to his "desire". It's not saying that they are desiring to be satisfied with a remorse of conscience, it's only saying they are desiring to be good or evil and the consequences of each are given- joy, or a remorse of conscience. For example- a drug addict may know that going out with friends and getting high may have guilty repurcussions with his conscience later on but he will still do it for that immediate gratifying rush and its effect on the senses. Even with other subtle things like eating- I know if I eat too much late at night I am going to get severe heartburn later causing me to lose sleep and have anguish perhaps even a guilty conscience for knowingly making that choice. So why do I do it anyway? It certainly isn't because I am seeking anguish or a guilty conscience, its because there is some immediate satisfaction involved.

[mfbukowski]

There's an early Christian document called the Didache- it talks extensively about the "way of life" as opposed to the "way of death".

I have often thought these verses kind of mirror those.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

[inquiringmind]

One who chooses to do evil is thus acting according to his "desire". It's not saying that they are desiring to be satisfied with a remorse of conscience, it's only saying they are desiring to be good or evil and the consequences of each are given- joy, or a remorse of conscience. For example- a drug addict may know that going out with friends and getting high may have guilty repurcussions with his conscience later on but he will still do it for that immediate gratifying rush and its effect on the senses. Even with other subtle things like eating- I know if I eat too much late at night I am going to get severe heartburn later causing me to lose sleep and have anguish perhaps even a guilty conscience for knowingly making that choice. So why do I do it anyway? It certainly isn't because I am seeking anguish or a guilty conscience, its because there is some immediate satisfaction involved.

Thank you.

So instead of saying that the evil choose remorse of conscience because that's what they desire, it's saying that remorse of conscience is the consequence of the evil choosing to gratify their unlawful desires.

That makes sense.

Is Alma using some kind of recognized figure of speech here, and is there a name for it?

Edited January 25, 2012 by inquiringmind

[The Nehor]

One of the most horrific things I've come to realize is how many people are actually more comfortable being miserable. They could be happy but they won't. I'm not sure if it's self-loathing, guilt run wild, the desire to be some kind of tragic figure, or just plain insanity.

[Hamba Tuhan]

One of the most horrific things I've come to realize is how many people are actually more comfortable being miserable. They could be happy but they won't. I'm not sure if it's self-loathing, guilt run wild, the desire to be some kind of tragic figure, or just plain insanity.

When I was studying in America, I had a flatmate who left the Church. It made him visibly miserable. As just one example, the following spring break, I accompanied one of my mates from uni--recently reactivated--to the temple as his escort. My apostate flatmate caught a lift with us to St Louis because he'd arranged to meet his elder brother there. Repeatedly during the road trip, he moaned over the fact that we were going to the temple whilst he wasn't. He kept saying that the peace of temple was the thing he missed most about the Church. Finally, I couldn't take it any more, and I said something like, 'Why don't you just come back and be happy again?' To this day, I still don't really comprehend his response. He said he'd love to, but such a choice wouldn't be 'intellectually honest.' I decided that he somehow felt that life was more genuine if lived in abject misery.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[Storm Rider]

Some like that arm of flesh so much they can't let go even when faith brings infinite peace.

[The Nehor]

Some like that arm of flesh so much they can't let go even when faith brings infinite peace.

The weird thing is it doesn't just apply to spiritual things. There are people that stay in terrible relationships even remembering that they were happier lonely and single. There are the "busy" people who whine about how they never have any spare time and continue to fill their time with non-important trivial things to make sure it stays that way. There are the people who sacrifice so much for others when the others don't want the sacrifice because they want to be a martyr. There are people who don't seek happiness at all or put it off until things "calm down" or "get better".

[Hamba Tuhan]

Some like that arm of flesh so much they can't let go even when faith brings infinite peace.

Lyman E. Johnson after his apostasy: 'I would suffer my right hand to be cut off, if I could believe it again. Then I was full of joy and gladness. My dreams were pleasant. When I awoke in the morning my spirit was cheerful. I was happy by day and by night, full of peace and joy and thanksgiving. But now it is darkness, pain, sorrow, misery in the extreme. I have never since seen a happy moment.'

[rameumptom]

I believe persons will receive the kingdom they want. It is an issue of Being. Mormon 9 tells us that the wicked would rather be with the souls in hell than dwell in the presence of a righteous God. D&C 76 tells us that the telestial will embrace their kingdom as a kingdom of glory and salvation. And I would imagine that the devils will prefer outer darkness, simply because they would be more miserable in a kingdom of glory.

Hell as a punishment happens in the spirit world. Hell or Outer Darkness as a kingdom exists after the final judgment. Interestingly, Alma 11-12 also teaches this, as all will resurrect and come before the bar of God (or enter his presence). However, the wicked would prefer to have the rocks fall upon them, and hide them from God's presence and glory. They do not want heaven. The only place left for them is outer darkness.

[inquiringmind]

I believe persons will receive the kingdom they want.

That would mean that there's ultimately no regret, no remorse, and no self-condemnation.

Joseph Smith said "A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man." (History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6: 314.)

And Jesus said that that there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth in outer darkness.

If the mental torment Joseph spoke of is what the sufferers really want, it can't really be "as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone" (in fact, it couldn't really be mental torment), and if outer darkness is where the sop really want to be, why would there be "weeping and gnashing of teeth"?

Mormon 9 tells us that the wicked would rather be with the souls in hell than dwell in the presence of a righteous God.

People suffering from macular degeneration have to get a needle in the eye (sometimes every three months.)

If you'd rather go to the eye doctor and get that needle than go to the dentist for a root canal, does that mean you "desire" that needle in your eye?

I don't think so.

I would imagine that the devils will prefer outer darkness, simply because they would be more miserable in a kingdom of glory.

Less miserable is still "miserable," isn't it?

Also, what did Alma the younger "desire" when he was racked with "eternal torment"?

When he realized he could have forgiveness in the name of Christ, he desired that (and asked for it), but what did he desire before that (when he thought there was no forgiveness)?

He says:

Oh, thought I, that I could be banished and become extinct both soul and body, that I might not be brought to stand in the presence of my God, to be judged of my deeds. (Alma 36:15.)

What he desired was non-existence, not remorse of conscience, torment, or some less intense degree of misery.

If torment is torment, misery is misery, and outer darkness is a place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth," wouldn't the damned desire extinction as much as Alma did?

(And extinction isn't remorse of conscience, torment, or misery.)

So I still think that what Rob Osborn and Mfbukowski said makes the most sense here.

I don't think Alma 29:5 can be taken literally without robing other scriptures of all meaning.

(And I would like to know if there's some name for a figure of speech that takes the consequences of actions for the actions themselves.)

Thank you.

Edited January 25, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Hamba Tuhan]

If the mental torment Joseph spoke of is what the sufferers really want, it can't really be "as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone," and if outer darkness is where the sop really want to be, the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is all theatrics.

As priests quorum advisor, I've worked with a number of boys who seem to be in hell already. I've decided that the suffering stems from knowledge that a certain pathway will bring them happiness and yet they desire a different pathway more. They get precisely what they want (or want most), but they still regret the misery it brings. It's sort of like the 'sorrowing of the damned' that Mormon described--realising that they couldn't be happy in their wicked choices but lacking any real desire to repent and make the choices which lead to happiness.

[inquiringmind]

As priests quorum advisor, I've worked with a number of boys who seem to be in hell already. I've decided that the suffering stems from knowledge that a certain pathway will bring them happiness and yet they desire a different pathway more. They get precisely what they want (or want most), but they still regret the misery it brings. It's sort of like the 'sorrowing of the damned' that Mormon described--realizing that they couldn't be happy in their wicked choices but lacking any real desire to repent and make the choices which lead to happiness.

But from what you've said here, they don't get exactly what they want (or want most.)

What they want (or want most) is to have their cake and eat it too--to have their wicked choices bring them happiness.

That may be impossible, but it is what they want, or the knowledge that their path wont bring them that happiness wouldn't cause them any suffering.

When you turn things around to say that everyone finally gets exactly what they want (regardless of what path they choose, and regardless of whether they ever change paths), what you're really saying is that in the end these boys can have the happiness they desire without changing the path they've chosen.

They can have their cake and eat it too, because everyone gets what they desire in the end.

I think that's a gross misinterpretation.

Edited January 26, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Hamba Tuhan]

[A]nd if outer darkness is where the sop really want to be, why would there be "weeping and gnashing of teeth"?

This point just popped back into my mind. When it comes to sons of perdition, it is important to remember that, due to the temporary hell they've already experienced in spirit prison, they know precisely what they are getting themselves into by continuing in their rejection of Christ and His Atonement. To me, this is a sign of the Lord's mercy. It's as though he says to them, 'Look, THIS is what you're choosing over Me. Are you sure it's what you want.' And the amazing think is that they still make that choice. At any point before their ultimate casting off, they could choose the Saviour instead and be redeemed from the hell they're in, and yet they hate Him and His paths so much that they'd rather continue weeping and gnashing their teeth for all eternity. I think it sounds perfectly hellish to desire happiness but simultaneously to so despise the means provided for obtaining it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

But from what you've said here, they don't get exactly what they want most.

True, so it may be more accurate to say that they get what they want most from the options which are actually available.

[inquiringmind]

True, so it may be more accurate to say that they get what they want most from the options which are actually available.

Which would make Alma 29:5 some kind of figure of speech, and brings us back to what Mfbukowski and Rob Osborn said.

It is saying that if you don't know right from wrong, you are blameless, but we are free to choose good or evil and its consequences.

Don't get too hung up on the words- just read it for its sense

You get what you deserve- if you desire good, you get good, if you desire evil you get evil-

I think you are reading too much into it.

And

One who chooses to do evil is thus acting according to his "desire". It's not saying that they are desiring to be satisfied with a remorse of conscience, it's only saying they are desiring to be good or evil and the consequences of each are given- joy, or a remorse of conscience. For example- a drug addict may know that going out with friends and getting high may have guilty repercussions with his conscience later on but he will still do it for that immediate gratifying rush and its effect on the senses. Even with other subtle things like eating- I know if I eat too much late at night I am going to get severe heartburn later causing me to lose sleep and have anguish perhaps even a guilty conscience for knowingly making that choice. So why do I do it anyway? It certainly isn't because I am seeking anguish or a guilty conscience, its because there is some immediate satisfaction involved.

I think those two comments answered the questions asked in the OP, and the subsequent comments have tended only to confuse the issues.

I think it sounds perfectly hellish to desire happiness but simultaneously to so despise the means provided for obtaining it.

Than you'd agree that they desire happiness, and they don't finally get what they desire without changing their path--they can't have their cake and eat it too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So instead of saying that the evil choose remorse of conscience because that's what they desire, it's saying that remorse of conscience is the consequence of the evil choosing to gratify their unlawful desires.

That makes sense.

Is Alma using some kind of recognized figure of speech here, and is there a name for it?

Since nobody tried answering this, I thought I'd try to find the answer myself.

Could Alma be using what's commonly called a metonymy?

metonymy

a noun is substituted for a noun in such a way that we substitute the cause of the thing of which we are speaking for the thing itself; this might be done in several ways: substituting the inventor for his invention, the container for the thing contained or vice versa, an author for his work, the sign for the thing signified, the cause for the effect or vice versa

http://faculty.nipis...ms/figofspe.htm

Edited January 26, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Cold Steel]

Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of conscience..

I don't think this is double speak at all. In fact, it's profound and in keeping with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Many people see in religion what they want to see. Many people in the world convert to Islam and some people convert to Christ. I'm reading a story now about a fanatic Muslim who killed to Sikhs, a man and his son. He dragged another person, an innocent Bangladeshi Hindu, into a mosque and beat him to death while fundamentalist worshipers proceeded to chant, "Kill the kafir!" He later changed his life and wrote: "My father hated Christians. He taught me that they are infidels who contradict themselves by saying that Jesus Christ is God while their distorted book has verses that prove he is only a prophet. It was all part of the rhetoric we got used to hearing from booming mosque loudspeakers and from the playing of radio and audiocassettes in the streets." He added that this sort of hatred was constantly preached to people in Egypt. We also know it's taught in "Palestine."

One may debate whether murder in this case is forgiven or not, but it's clear that people are taught hate. Not just in the Middle East, but in the American South and in World War II Germany. Children in Mexican polygamous groups are taught "evil" (which is defined in this case as that which is contrary to the will of God). Some will be held responsible while some will not, depending on whether they were able to recognize good from evil.

.

[inquiringmind]

I don't think this is double speak at all. In fact, it's profound and in keeping with the Gospel of Jesus Christ

.

So the haters (like the Muslim fanatic you mentioned) don't kill because they hate, they kill because they desire remorse of conscience?

And they and their victims finally get what they want, so everyone's happy?

But if everyone's happy, how can there be any remorse of conscience?

Taken literally, this is the clearest example of doublespeak I've ever seen, but if some kind of figure of speech is being used (i.e. one that identifies the consequences with the actions that lead to the consequences), it makes perfect sense.

Example: It might be profound to say that Hitler ultimately chose his own fate by the horrible things he did, but that would be using some kind of figure of speech.

It would make no sense (and would be factually inaccurate) to say that he did all that he did because he desired Germany's defeat, the creation of the State of Israel, his own death, and the hatred of future generations. .

Hitler did not make himself a dictator, kill Jews, and destroy his own country because he wanted "remorse of conscience," and it's neither profound nor in keeping with the Gospel of Jesus Christ to say that he'll get what he really wanted in the end.

He did all that he did because he wanted to exult himself above his fellow men, he hated Jews, and he didn't want to leave much of anything for the enemy.

Does he end up with remorse of conscience?

Yes!

But it's not what he desired (and it's not why he did what he did.)

P.S. Does anyone know if the figure of speech I'm talking about above is a metonymy, a synecdoche, or something else?

Edited January 27, 2012 by inquiringmind