Alma's Theology

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

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 am pretty sure that SIEQs initial posting presumed little interest in the kinds of things that canonical criticism would add (I could be wrong about this but I got the feeling that SIEQ was interested in original intent and not what the verses mean to the living community of faith in the present.) This doesn't mean it isn't interesting or useful but it doesn't suggest that one should be careful in applying it to SIEQ musings.

Canonical criticism is clearly not always appropriate and its not appropriate unconditionally. IF SIEQ responds with the position that he wasn't that interested in original intent (or that in addition to original intent he was interested in what Alma 7:12-13 means to the current Mormon community) then I concede that you are a correct and I am wrong and furthermore that canonical criticism is likely the best tool to proceed with.

Finally I actually agree that Hebrews (even given an interest in original intent) is not irrelevant particularly given the scholarly work in Mormon studies that asserts a relation (dependence) between Hebrews and Alma 13.