Helaman 12:3 “And thus we see that except the Lord doth chasten his people with many afflictions, yea, except he doth visit them with death and with terror, and with famine and with all manner of pestilence, they will not remember him.”

From that list poverty appears to be one of the more mild afflictions the Lord uses for his purposes.

“The Book of Mormon explicitly states that these individuals are partially coerced”

Yes, and it approves of the results of their coercion. If we really disapproved of poverty bringing people to God, we would simultaneously try to eradicate poverty and also avoid preaching to the poor. Alma preached to the poor.

“and that they have lost the opportunity to choose a more blessed state.”

There’s no indication of this in the scriptures. Frank and others have sufficiently rebutted it, but I’ll repeat what they said. What Alma actually seems to say is that if these people hadn’t been poor, they wouldn’t have been humbled and repented. Far from their poverty denying them blessings, it made what blessings they were able to get possible. Notice how many of the rich among the Zoramites listened to the word and thus entered the “more blessed state”? Zip.
Also, your view makes salvation a one time event. The poor Zoramites accepted the gospel but in a less blessed way, and that’s that. I think its more consistent with the scriptures to see salvation as a series of choices and commitments, so the poor Zoramites were perfectly able to enter a more blessed state with time: either because they became wealthier later in life, or achieved positions of prominence in the church, or because the church didn’t belittle them for their poverty, they reached a state where humility would have become more difficult for them. Salvation is a progressive act. It is true that ultimately the completely free, Abrahamic-trial sort of choice is superior, but most of us aren’t ready for that yet. In Alma 32, if the poor had been rich they would not have repented at all.

“There are certainly trials in life that are as coercive as Alma defines poverty to be, but the vast majority are not. Extreme poverty is a substantially greater challenge, for a broad set of reasons, than most kinds of sickness, injury, disappointment, and unhappiness.”

You’re making a sort of idol of poverty. Trials are trials, whether they make other kinds of trials or not. I see no reason to assume that poverty makes people turn to God more than other kinds of trials. And even if you had a point here, you would still be saying that all trials are Satanic to the extent they lead us to God, only less so than poverty.

“Trials are Satanic just to the extent that they are coercive enough to erode the autonomy and agency that allow the full blessings of a moral choice. Alma tells us that poverty does this.”

No, he doesn’t. He says that poverty changes the preconditions and assumptions under which our agency operates. Alma 32 shows riches as being just as coercive as poverty, except away from God instead of toward him.

“Alma tells us that poverty does this; no canonical source that I am aware of says the same for any other kind of trial”

Really? The scriptures are full of trials that turned people towards God. Leprosy, wandering in the wilderness, invasion, famine due to drought, being struck blind, losing the gift to translate, being excommunicated, etc.

“Thanks to everyone who has participated in these comments for a fruitful discussion! It’s helpful to know how others will respond to this argument, as well as to see the points that will seem vulnerable or that may require further consideration. By taking this idea seriously, you’ve all been most helpful in encouraging its development! ”

My two cents: You’re never going to get anywhere telling people we should get rid of poverty because it gets people closer to God. You’re much better off accepting that poverty is one kind of trial among many and using that to your advantage. You could point out to people that death, disease, and other calamities bring us closer to God, yet we still struggle to reduce them and mitigate their effects, because they are evil in se; and there’s no reason not to do the same with poverty.

You’re going over the line, as well, in your redrafting of my argument. Where I emphasize partial coercion, partial freedom, and differential free agency, you construct a point of view that sees “no moral value” and “no choice at all.” Clearly, the idea you’re responding to doesn’t really represent the perspective I’m thinking about.

With respect to the various kinds of trials that you discuss, I think you’re falling into an equivalence trap. There are certainly trials in life that are as coercive as Alma defines poverty to be, but the vast majority are not. Extreme poverty is a substantially greater challenge, for a broad set of reasons, than most kinds of sickness, injury, disappointment, and unhappiness. With respect to death, poverty means that death comes earlier and more often. Trials are Satanic just to the extent that they are coercive enough to erode the autonomy and agency that allow the full blessings of a moral choice. Alma tells us that poverty does this; no canonical source that I am aware of says the same for any other kind of trial.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in these comments for a fruitful discussion! It’s helpful to know how others will respond to this argument, as well as to see the points that will seem vulnerable or that may require further consideration. By taking this idea seriously, you’ve all been most helpful in encouraging its development!

Nice summary of 3274 comments of disagreement, Adam!

I think you are making two fundamental mistakes:
First you appear to believe that the ultimate desirability of the entirely free choice for God means that only partially free choices for God have no moral value, that the person who so chooses is no better off than they were before. This appears to contradict the scriptures, the need to come to a fallen world as part of the plan of salvation, and much of the program of the church. Because you see partially free choices as without moral value, any kind of experience that affects us would appear to be “coercive” and therefore Satanic in your scheme.
Second, you appear to believe that, assuming partially free choices have no moral value, they also have no value in preparing us for the ultimately free choice. This appears to contradict God’s little-by-little, those whom I love I chasten approach.

You are also making some mistakes just in relation to poverty, I think. When Alma says the poor were compelled to be humble, you are interpreting that to mean that they had no choice at all. Then you are reading it more largely as if the poor always and everywhere had no choice but to be humble. As Bookslinger points out, this is not so. I think poverty makes one more likely to be humble, but there is still an element of will involved. Same with the decision to repent one makes once one has become humble. The truth is that all sorts of things in this world have the kind of coercive effect you talk about–sickness, injury, death, disappointments of various kinds, unhappiness–they all *force* us to reevaluate who we are and where we’re going, and sometimes lead us to God. You could put any of these into your original post and it would read exactly the same and be wrong in exactly the same way. Its just that if your post was titled ‘Trials are Satanic because they sometimes lead us to repent when we wouldn’t have otherwise,’ you and everyone would have realized we were off on a wrong track.

But at best this is all meaningless with respect to the main argument; what you’ve done is specify a group of people who are uncompellable. That’s fine; we can therefore set them aside and disregard them — my argument still stands for the rest.

“But verse 15 says that the more blessed are those who aren’t poor, doesn’t it?”

This is close to what it says but not correct. 15 says that blessed are they who are _not compelled_ to be humble because of their poverty. And 25 states that those who are poor but would humble themselves anyway are _not compelled_ to be humble. They are humble anyway. Hence, 15′s “more blessed” applies to them because they “humble themselves”.

15 more blessed are those who
25 some of you (the poor)

therefore, some of you are more blessed

Here is the text in v.25

“For I do not mean that ye all of you have been compelled to humble yourselves; for I verily believe that there are some among you who would humble themselves, let them be in whatsoever circumstances they might.�

Alma clearly states that they have not been “compelled to be humble” but would be humble regardless. Thus they have not, by Alma’s words, been compelled to be humble.

In v.15 Alma describes the dividing line between blessed and more blessed as those who repent after being compelled to be humble vs. those who repent no matter what. Clearly this describes the exact same people as in 25, who would humble themselves in any circumstance, which are the MBP (the more blessed poor).