Now this was done because there were
so many people that they could not all be governed by one teacher; neither could
they all hear the word of God in one assembly; therefore they did assemble
themselves together in different bodies, being called churches; every church
having their priests and their teachers, and every priest preaching the word
according as it was delivered to him by the mouth of Alma. (Mosiah 25:20-21)
Commenting
on the ecclesiology of this passage, Brant Gardner noted the following:
What do we know about Alma’s church
from the text alone?
·
The church is
entered by baptism.
·
The church is
apparently associated with a small geographic area, allowing for a smaller
number of people to view themselves as an associated religious community.
·
Each church has
local priests and teachers
·
Alma retains a
line of control from Alma to each of the priests and teachers, and through them
to the congregation.
How do these details contrast with the
pre-Alma situation?
·
Nephite baptism
existed, but there is no indication that it is used as a marker of entrance
into a specific covenant that differed from the greater social covenant of
Israel. Jacob’s doctrinal discussions make it clear from the Nephites
considered themselves part of the covenant people. This identity would have
continued as a collective covenant up to Alma’s time, when his baptism makes an
individual covenant. King Benjamin’s individually assumed covenants occur in
the context and assumption of communal participation in the covenant. Only Alma’s
baptism denotes a separation in the community rather than a communal action.
·
Priests and
teachers had been appointed earlier, but were not associated with individual congregations.
The original priests and teachers would again have been communal, rather than
carrying out the congregation-specific functions Alma assigned them.
·
The locus of
religious authority resided in the king. Indeed, ancient kingship carried with
it the assumption of divine investiture of power, covering all of society. As
already remarked numerous times, religion was part and parcel of reality and
therefore not seen as something that could be deemed separate. Alma’s
establishment as an authority separate from the king not only diminishes the
king, but establishes the possibility of local “churches” by recognizing
that religious authority may be ultimately delegated away from the communal unity
embodied by the king.
What then was Alma’s church not?
At least in its inception, it was not a separate religious system among other religious
systems. While Alma’s reforms ultimately led to the possibility of seeing “church”
as synonymous with “sect,” in this earliest setting it is much better seen as
closer to the original Greek ekklesia or “gathering.” Alma’s church was
a congregation geographically separated from other similar congregations for
greater ease in instructing the congregation. When the Zarahemla population had
grown too large for indoctrination en masse, division into smaller
congregations would allow for more effective teaching, and therefore perhaps
better understanding, and (one would hope) better daily integration of the
correct principles. (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and
Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. [Salt Lake City: Greg
Kofford Books, 2007], 3:424-25)
