Cover image via Gospel Media Library.

One of the masterpieces within the Book of Mormon is surely the one-chapter gem of Alma, chapter 7.  Alma tells us that verses 11-13 about the mission of Christ is the “one thing which is of more importance than they all.”  Those well-known verses present the astounding and comforting concept that a merciful God will succor (or run) to us to “take upon Him [our] infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy.”  These verses have provided incredible comfort to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Latter-day Saints.  I remember being taught a very different view when I was 10 or 11 and a member of a different church.  I was taught that Christ was tempted …but resisted.  He suffered …but overcame.  Those temptations allowed him to obtain the moral standing and authority to condemn us for failing to resist our own temptations.  I remember the teacher of that church basing her interpretation on Hebrews 4:15: “[Jesus] was tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”  It seemed as if I were being taught that Jesus was saying: “I resisted that same temptation, and I didn’t sin.  It was easy!  Why couldn’t you have resisted, too?  Why did you have to sin?”[1]

Imagine my joy when I found the true Church and learned the corrective knowledge of the Restoration.  I learned that the true purpose of Christ’s condescension (1 Nephi 11:16, 26) and his mission was not to condemn us at all.  It was to empathically understand us, reassuringly comfort us, and completely succor us “with healing in his wings” (Malachi 4:2; 2 Nephi 25:13).  It was as if Christ’s true purpose was suddenly clarified for me.  He was really saying something like, “I faced that same temptation; it was terrible!  Here, let me wipe away your tears and put my arm around you to comfort and console you.  Don’t despair; together, we will get through this.  Lean on me – I know what it’s like.  I’ll help you.  I’ll lift you.  I’ll carry you.”  The discovery of that difference was life changing and Alma 7 has remained one of my favorite sermons ever since.[2]

Those three verses are astonishing in their traditional chapter-and-verse format.  However, they leap off the page when examined as a chiasm.  This chiasm is presented in full in my longer article in the Interpreter journal, which I encourage you to read.[3]  Simplified, Jesus will:

A1  [Suffer] pains and afflictions and temptations

B1  Take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people

C1  Take upon him death

D1  Take upon him their infirmities

E1  Filled with mercy

F1  According to the flesh

F2  That he may know according to the flesh

E2  To succor his people

D2  According to their infirmities

C2  The Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless [he] suffereth according to the flesh

B2  Take upon him the sins of his people

A2  Transgressions

A great surprise, here, is that the turning point of this chiasm is not his “mercy in succoring [running to] us.”  Instead, the apex, climax, doctrinal center, and turning point is the “in the flesh” detail (the F steps).  How can that be?

That’s not the only surprise.  A second puzzle is that Alma ends that beautiful teaching with his brief testimony.  That lends an air of closure.  Then, the topic appears to change completely to a discussion of repentance and baptism.  Again, why?  Why would Alma talk about us in the middle of a sermon about the mission of Jesus?  Let’s take a closer look at both of these surprises.

Alma 6 describes how Alma enjoyed hard-earned success in re-converting the wavering people in Zarahemla and re-establishing the church there.  Fueled by that success, Alma traveled to Gideon to preach there.  It is there that he explains Christ’s mission – especially in verses 11-13.

The Multidimensional Messages of Verses 11-13

Because of the comfort and succor these verses offer, the emphasis in lessons, commentaries, and sermons is almost universally placed on the Savior’s empathic understanding and complete healing.  So, it came as a surprise to me, when I took a first deep look, that the apex or climax at the center of the chiasm was not succoring (running to) his people to heal them.  The central point was knowing “according to the flesh.” That idea is even stated two times (a twin apex), most likely for emphasis.  Why would the central point of the chiasms be Christ’s own knowing, “according to the flesh.”  What is Alma saying to us?  What does he want us to learn from this?

Note that the second step in C2 tells us that “the Spirit” already knows about the infirmities.  Why, then, does Christ have to have flesh to “know…how to succor” (F2)?  The word, “nevertheless” in C2 is telling.  Although Christ’s Spirit already “knoweth all things” cognitively, “nevertheless” that spirit knowledge was not enough; he needed flesh in order to take upon him death and to experience human suffering, and that could only come from experience “according to the flesh.”

The same is true for us.  One of the primary reasons for our travel through the “land of darkness and the shadow of death” (Job 12:20-21) is so that we can directly experience the challenges of mortality and learn to choose good over evil.  We are told that is the very purpose of life:  “True happiness comes from the personal, spiritual growth that rises out of the fires of mortal experience.  …Trials, then, are a fundamental part of the plan of life.”[4]

I am suggesting that there is a distinction between the learning of the “spirit” – what we will call, “cognitive knowledge” and the learning of the “flesh” – what we will call “experiential knowledge.”  To be sure, we are encouraged to gain cognitive knowledge during our mortal journey, as 2 Nephi 9:29; D&C 88:118, and D&C 130:18-19 tell us.  President Russell M. Nelson taught that, “Your mind is precious!  It is sacred.  Therefore, the education of one’s mind is also sacred.  Indeed, education is a religious responsibility.”[5]  Powerful words!

Cognitive knowledge has historically been, and still is, an extremely rare privilege in the world and few have the opportunity to receive it in any depth.  However, even more important is to gain experiential knowledge.  Far from this second kind of learning being a rare privilege, trials are poured out in often frustrating abundance upon every human mortal without exception.

An analogy may highlight this distinction.  Let’s suppose that a world-renowned male gynecologist and obstetrician had delivered thousands of babies under all conditions.  He had faced dozens of fetal emergencies.  He had trained interns and published many scholarly articles and books.  This man knew more about birth than any woman ever knew.  Still his vast understanding would be restricted to intellectual, academic, and fact-based knowledge.  There is one thing he would not know.  He would lack experiential knowledge.  He would never know what it is actually like to feel deep labor pains, to struggle against the irresistible urge to push, and to feel numbing exhaustion swept away in the joy of holding a life that came out of his very body.  That is a taste of the difference between cognitive versus experiential knowledge.

A second analogy comes from the ongoing tension that currently exists in the helping field of alcohol and drug counseling.  Some helpers treat addicts based on a background of classwork, book reading, and on-the-job training – i.e., cognitive knowledge.  Such counselors are often looked down on with disparaging and discounting distrust by those who approach addiction treatment out of their own personal struggles with alcohol and/or drugs and their own hard-won recovery – experiential knowledge.  One side claims: “You cannot know depth from a book,” while the other retorts: “You cannot know breadth based only on your own highly unique recovery.”

One might ask, then, “Which type of knowledge is best?”  That is not a helpful question.  They are two entirely different ways of knowing and both kinds of knowledge are required.  Whatever cognitive knowledge we had in our pre-existent state was blocked by the veil and must be regained – at least the part that is relevant for each person’s highly individualized mortal journey.  But much more important is the experiential know­ledge that we did not possess in the premortal state.  It must be learned in this mortal existence.  It is only here that we can learn to master our appetites and control our bodily desires.  We cannot have learned this in the Spirit World for the simple reason that we did not have physical bodies.  Thus, Alma teaches that “this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors” (Alma 34:32).

Now, consider Jesus Christ.  If it was necessary for us to gain experiential knowledge, what about our Savior?  Let me be clear, there is no question that Christ – a full member of the Godhead, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Creator of all things that were created – was already fully omniscient and all-knowing.  To believe less is to deny the full divinity of God the Son.  “Believe in God,” Mosiah tells us.  “Believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man does not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend” (Mosiah 4:9).  Nephi exclaims, “O how great the holiness of our God!  For he knoweth all things and there is not anything save he knows it” (2 Nephi 9:20).  But is that cognitive comprehension, or experiential comprehension?

These scriptures are talking about cognitive knowledge and not experiential knowledge.  The Son of God had not yet navigated through any kind of mortal journey.  We might say, he had not yet experienced a mortal experience.  D&C 93:13-14 teaches that Jesus “…received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.”  Basing his conclusion on several scriptures, including D&C 93:11-14, one teacher expressed it this way:

Of course, Jesus was a God and a member of the Godhead before He was born into mortality, but perhaps we can say that He had not yet fully developed all the attributes of Godhood…. Apparently, Jesus’s completion of the Atonement gave him needed experience…. Thus, our Savior gained perfect empathy.[6]

Jesus Christ needed the experiential knowledge that comes only in, through, and from a truly mortal experience in the flesh.  Christ taught this lesson to Joseph Smith: “…know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.  The Son of Man hath descended below them all.  Art thou greater than he?” (D&C 122:7–8).  So, our own mortal experience must, at least in some small degree, mirror Christ’s own descent below all.  His temptations and suffering, like his baptism, were undertaken, “to fulfill all righteousness”[7] and required a mortal experience “according to the flesh.”  This point was powerfully made by Neal Maxwell when he observed:

Later, in Gethsemane, the suffering Jesus began to be “sore amazed” (Mark 14:33), or, in the Greek, “awestruck” and “astonished.”  Imagine, Jehovah, the Creator of this and other worlds, “astonished”!  Jesus knew cognitively what He must do, but not experientially.  He had never personally known the exquisite and exacting process of an atonement before.  Thus, when the agony came in its fulness, it was so much, much worse than even He with his unique intellect had ever imagined! [8]

Referring to Christ’s experiential learning, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland wrote that “Christ walked the path every mortal is called to walk so that he would know how to succor and strengthen us in our most difficult times.”[9]  Tad R. Callister expressed it this way:  “No mortal can cry out, “He does not understand my plight, for my trials are unique.  There is nothing outside the scope of the Savior’s experience.”[10]  President Nelson, taught:

In the Garden of Gethsemane, our Savior took upon Himself every pain, every sin, and all of the anguish and suffering ever experienced by you and me and by everyone who has ever lived or will ever live.[11]

Similarly, the apostle Paul stated that “[Jesus] was in all points tempted like as we are” (Hebrews 4:15).

The question is:  how inclusive is “every” and how many is “all points”?  Over the course of the history of this world, humans have faced millions, possibly billions, of unique temptations, afflictions, adversities, and idiosyncratic experiences on just our own Earth.  Did Christ vicariously experience all of them?  That is, of course, unimaginable to mortal understanding.  This concept may be among the unknowables of the Atonement.  Like Nicodemus who came to Jesus at night and was told he had to be born again, we may be left to marvel as he did, “How can these things be?” (John 3:7-9).  The correct answer to the question, “How was this accomplished?” is that we simply do not know.  In Nephi’s great vision, he is asked, “Knowest thou the condescension of God?”  (In other words, “Do you understand why God the Son had to become mortal, according to the flesh?”)  We are left to admit, as did Nephi, “I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things” (1 Nephi 11:17).

On the other hand, the question still bears consideration.  Could the “every” and “all points” actually be every and all major categories of mortal experience?  It is at least possible that categories of experience provided him with the comprehensive experiential knowledge through some kind of divine transfer of learning.  In other words, the knowledge of a category of experiences could subsume all similar sub-experiences that fell within that category.

As a few simple examples, Jesus was never tempted to disobey modern laws of the land such as speed limits on the freeway or red lights in the deserted and silent streets of midnight.  Such conditions did not exist in the meridian of time.  However, he was encouraged to disobey other laws of Rome.  One of those laws compelled Jews to carry a Roman’s soldier’s pack, which included heavy armor, for one mile.  How did Jesus respond to the temptation to violate that law?  He shocked everyone (as he often did) by teaching: “go with him twain.”[12]  His response addressed the category of not disobeying laws.  As a second example, Jesus was never tempted to avoid U.S. Federal taxes by exaggerating a withholding on an IRS tax return.  However, he was tempted by the Jewish chief priests and scribes to avoid Roman taxes.  When asked, “Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?” he replied with the principle – the category – “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s” (Luke 20:23-25).

This explanation of there being categories of experience, which transferred to give Christ full experiential knowledge, may remind us of the three categories of temptations that Jesus faced in the desert.  The specific wording in Alma 7:11 also bears out this idea of categories.  This verse does not say that Christ experienced every specific temptation; rather it says that he experienced “…temptations of every kind.  That phrase, every kind, occurs in the Book of Mormon 40 times.  Table One contains five samples from the Book of Mormon.  All of them suggest broad categories rather than all and every specific instance within a category.

Let’s return to the analogy of the obstetrician.  As a mortal man, Jesus Christ did not carry and give birth to a child any more than any other man has – or could.  However, he experienced the same categories of that experience, from which he could have obtained and transferred experiential knowledge.  His physical pain in Gethsemane and on the cross was more intense than any mother’s labor pains have ever been or could ever be.  His agony was so severe that it caused him to literally “tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore” (D&C 19:18).  He cognitively understood childbirth long before his own birth; he experientially understood childbirth when he experienced that category and degree of pain “according to the flesh.”

Similarly, Jesus Christ never had his hip surgically replaced.  He never went blind.  He never experienced a broken bone.[13]  He never suffered the cognitive decline and the loss of dignity of old age.  Nor did he ever lose a loved one to a drunk driver or drug dealer.  So, can he really understand our unique mortal experiences?  Yes, he can – either: 1) because of some divine ability of which we are unaware or 2) because he experienced every category of experience – according to the flesh.  Exactly why that experiential learning was absolutely necessary and how it was accomplished is a matter of conjecture; that it was absolutely necessary is a matter of scripture.  Elder Holland points out this same distinction:

Most Christians believe that, based upon repentance, the atonement of Christ will redeem humankind from the final consequences of sin and death.  But only those who receive the restored gospel, including the Book of Mormon, know how thoroughly the Atonement heals and helps with so many more categories of disappointment and heartache here and now, in time as well as in eternity….[14]

So far, we have talked about how Jesus Christ gained a complete knowledge of all human experience.  We have discussed this in an either/or manner: did he experience every individual trial, temptation, adversity, affliction, and sin, or did he experience categories that subsumed more specific instances?

There is a third possibility.  He could have done both.  He might have lived 33 years of mortal life that allowed him to gain experiential knowledge by category (through experiencing the stages of infancy, childhood, and adulthood; his three temptations in the desert; the constant rejection by the religious leaders; and so on).  Then, he could have vicariously taken upon himself every conceivable and individual human sin through some unknowable divine process in Gethsemane and on the Cross.

This brings up one related point.  Many statements made in books and lessons only emphasize Christ’s experiential learning as taking place during the brief 24 hours of the Atonement – as if the rest of this life only involved his teachings.  To me, it is a mistake to limit his experiential learning to just that relatively brief time period and discount the significance of the rest of Christ’s life.  Truly, a significant portion of his coming to “know according to the flesh” took place prior to the events of the actual Atonement – in other words, during the entirety of his life.  Bishop Richard C. Edgley put it this way:

His condescension was manifest by who He was and the way He lived.  His condescension can be seen in almost every recorded act of His 33 years of mortality…. His condescension was evidenced in His everyday living.”[15]

This fact is also implied by Alma’s exact wording in verse 11.  He states that Jesus “shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations.”  There was no going forth during and after Gethsemane.  He was met at the edge of the Garden by armed soldiers who arrested him, flogged him, and nailed him to a cross.  Long before all of that were, for example, his temptations in the desert, which took place at the beginning of his formal ministry, some three years before the event-filled hours of the Atonement.  Isaiah’s well-known prophecy of Christ’s mission also refers to life prior to Gethsemane:  “For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground…. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:2-3).  Nephi adds, “And I beheld that he went forth ministering unto the people…and I beheld that they cast him out from among them” (1 Nephi 11:28).  That is the whole idea behind the doctrine that Jehovah condescended to experience a full, mortal life “according to the flesh.”  His entire life consisted of mortal categories of experiences. This is not to lessen the magnificence and centrality of the Atonement.  That is the most important aspect of Christ’s life, and we must worship that every time we take the Sacrament.  But, his full 33 years of mortal life were also a major part of his experiential learning.

So, it turns out that there is nothing surprising at all that “the flesh” is dominant in the chiasm of 7:11-13.  It is fitting, complete, and perfect that the twinned apex in step F emphasizes that his ability to succor, lift, and heal was accomplished only through and “according to the flesh.”

The Covenantal Relationship in Verses 14-15

What about the second surprise – that Alma’s message of Christ’s mission seems to abruptly end with his nine-word testimony in verse 13?  Why does he then start talking about what appears to be an entirely new topic.  Suddenly, we are hearing about our own repentance and baptism.  Why?

Compounding this sense that we are on to other things is that almost all of the many talks, lessons, books that discuss verses 11 to 13 present them as a powerful gem that is isolated and self-contained.  But they are not.  That is not Alma’s intent.  Rather, there is a relationship with verses 14 and 15 that needs to be examined.

These next two verses present yet another powerful gem.  They form a second chiasm, which is similar in size and has a similar twin-apex structure. It is presented in full in my Interpreter article, and summarized here:[16]

A1  Ye must repent, and be born again

B1  Come and be baptized unto repentance

C1  Be washed from your sins

D1  Have faith on the Lamb of God, who taketh away sins

D2  Who is mighty to save and to cleanse from all unrighteousness

C2  Lay aside every sin

B2  Come and show that ye are willing to repent

A2  Enter into a covenant and witness it by going into the waters of baptism

This second chiasm is a call to action.  It is the choice that President Nelson has clarified:  “We can choose to be of Israel, or not.  We can choose to let God prevail in our lives, or not.  We can choose to let God be the most powerful influence in our lives, or not.”[17]

But what are we to make from the exact positioning of Chiasm #2?  Why is it here?  Why does it directly and immediately follow Chiasm #1?  These chiasms are not a chapter apart – or even a dozen verses apart; they stand together.  I wondered, “Just what is the relationship between these two chiasms and their apparently different messages?”  Yet, again, almost none of the plethora of lessons, talks, and commentaries about Chiasm #1 make any reference to Chiasm #2.

Looking more closely, it becomes clear that these two chiasms stand as twin sentinels or gateways to eternal life.  Chiasm #1 emphasizes Christ’s great Atonement:  his healing and succoring through his experiential knowledge gained in the flesh.  It is one side of a holy and binding covenant.  It is what Christ offers to us:  his succoring healing of understanding and comfort.

Chiasm #2, on the other hand, represents the other side of a two-part contract.  It describes what we then offer back to Christ:  a broken and willing heart as demonstrated through the ordinance of baptism.  That word, “willing,” is easy to gloss over, but its importance cannot be overstressed.  Elder Neal A. Maxwell has taught us that “the submission of one’s will is really the only uniquely personal thing we have to place on God’s altar. …And when we submit to His will, then we’ve really given Him the one thing He asks of us.”[18]

Although the word willing is used only one time in this second chiasm, the concept of willingness is implicit in every level of the chiasm.  This is reminiscent of Mosiah’s profound words that we must, like a child, be “willing to submit to all things which the Lords seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father” (Mosiah 3:19).  In effect, Alma is telling us that we must be:

  • willing to “repent and be born again” – the A steps
  • willing to “come and be baptized” – the B steps
  • willing to “be washed from your [past] sins” and “lay aside [future] sins” – the C steps
  • willing to “have faith on the Lamb of God” – the D steps

Verse 15 includes three terms – willing, covenant, and baptism – all in a single verse.  That, then, marries two chiastic sentinels into one grand covenantal relationship:

  • Chiasm #1: He will run to succor us with mercy
  • Chiasm #2: We must run to him with repentant and willing

These two chiasms are independent units, but ones that are intimately related:

  • Chiasm #1 – what he does for us.
  • Chiasm #2 – what we do in return.

That this two-way commitment is, in fact, a covenantal relationship is proven by the very words of Alma, himself.  In verse 15, he calls it exactly that, asking us to “enter into a covenant with him (step A2).”  Why would Alma use the word, “covenant” unless the two sides of the two-way agreement constituted a covenantal relationship, and the terms of that covenant were articulated somewhere?  And they are.  They are just harder to see in chapter-and-verse format than they are in parallelistic format because they are “interrupted,” if I may use that word, by Alma’s brief, nine-word testimony that is tagged on to the end of verse 13.  It certainly sounds like his testimony is a conclusion.  So we tend to stop reading or at least think that his message is finished.  But, no, it is at the end of verse 15 that the message concludes.

Then, in verse 16, the next verse, Alma has an opportunity to provide a commentary, if you will, on this covenantal relationship.  He begins by saying, “And whosoever doeth this….”  Doeth what?  Be baptized?  Well, of course.  But surely that is only part of it.  It is only the second of the four “willingnesses” requested of us.  Is he not really saying, “And whosoever doeth this…” meaning, entereth into this covenant?  The covenant includes Christ’s side, which consists of his majestic gift so beautifully described in Chiasm #1.  The four “willingnesses” – especially baptism – are our side of the two-way covenant.

But this is not all.  Alma then issues a parallel statement addressed to the ones who enter into this covenant.  They:

…will remember that I say unto him (present tense),

…yea, he will remember that I have said unto him (past tense)….

The repeat of the phrase, “will remember” followed by the present tense “say” and the past tense “said,” tells us that this offer is not new; it is a renewal of a truth that has always existed.  If we enter into this covenant and “keep the commandments of God from thenceforth,” we will be granted nothing less than eternal life.  The word, “remember” (significantly repeated twice) also brings to mind the sacrament ordinances.  In the prayers for both the bread and the water, participants renew their covenant to “do it in remembrance” of the body and blood of the Son and that they will “always remember him” (repeated twice in each blessing – Moroni 4:3, 5:2; D&C 20:77, 79).  The essence is that we are willing.  This similarity in wording of “remember” and “willing” is further evidence that we are looking at a covenantal relationship in the association of these twin sentinels of eternal life.


Elder Michael John U. Teh, a General Authority Seventy, shared in a 2021 General Conference address, “As I studied and pondered, I came to the stark realization that what I know about the Savior greatly outweighed how much I really know Him. …Understanding that the Atonement applies to us personally and individually will help us know Him.”[19]  Recognizing the importance of Christ’s experiences “according to the flesh” and seeing the totality of all five verses as one comprehensive covenantal relationship (Alma 7:11-15) helps us do just that.


[1]  I was only a child at the time.  My memory may be wrong and/or the teacher may have poorly represented the doctrine of her particular church.  I am not suggesting that all other churches teach of a punitive Christ.  But the point is that I internalized that somewhat Calvinistic perspective of a condemning Jesus.

[2]  This same lesson is briefly taught in other scriptures.  It is Satan who is the “accuser” (Rev 12:10), not Jesus Christ.  By contrast, the role of Christ is to be your “advocate with the father, who is pleading your cause before him” (D&C 45:3).

[3]  Godfrey J. Ellis, “Experiential Knowledge and the Covenantal Relationship in Alma 7,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, 51 (2002): 29-80.  The chiasm can also be found in “What Did Alma Reveal about the Savior’s Mission?” Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #323,

[4]  R. Val Johnson, “The Purpose of Life,” Ensign, April 1993,

[5]  Russell M. Nelson, “Education: A Religious Responsibility,” BYUI Devotional, Jan. 26, 2010.

[6]  John Claybaugh, “Come, Follow Me – Study and Teaching Helps, Lesson 22, June 1-7, Alma 5-7,” The Interpreter Foundation (2020),

[7]  Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary (Salt Lake, UT: Deseret Book, 1979), 417.

[8]  Neal A. Maxwell, “Willing to Submit,” General Conference, April 1985,

[9]  Holland, Christ and the New Covenant, 223-224.

[10]  Callister, The Infinite Atonement, 209.

[11]  Russell M. Nelson, “The Correct Name of the Church,” General Conference, October 2018,

[12]  According to the JST, Jesus actually said, “go with him a mile.”

[13]  This was specifically proscribed by prophesy (see John 19:32 and 36).

[14]  Holland, Christ and the New Covenant, 113 and 223.

[15]  Richard C. Edgley, “The Condescension of God,” General Conference, October 2001,

[16]  Godfrey J. Ellis, “Experiential Knowledge and the Covenantal Relationship in Alma 7,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, 51 (2002): 29-80. This chiasm was also identified by Donald W. Parry; see Parry, Parallelisms, 241-242

[17]  Russell M. Nelson, “Let God Prevail,” General Conference, October 2020,

[18]  Neal A. Maxwell, “Sharing Insights from My Life,” Brigham Young University, 1998-99 Speeches (1999), 4.

[19]  Michael John U. Teh, “Our Personal Savior,” General Conference, April 2021, emphasis added;