alice off wonderland- A Lesson on How to Analyze Scripture

I absolutely love this leaflet. My parents got it while they were in Passau, Germany, and on top of it just being beautiful, what can we gather from this advert to go and see a stage production of "alice off wonderland?"

Well, to be cynical, it's pretty because they want you to be intrigued, and go see it so they can get money. But even this answer gives us more information than you might think judging from face value. Even though you are answering cynically and as a joke, for no other purpose than not to answer, you give us more to analyze. It intrigues you.

Why, yes, it is very pretty, and a very intriguing photo, but why? What captivates us? Here a nonanswer begins to become more useless and petty. The woman, Alice, one assumes, has her back turned to the camera, not a usual choice for the subject of a photograph, especially an advertisement, and especially an advert for something on the screen or stage. Not to show her face, but to look away and down? This is clearly the mark of good artistic directing. You see, her downward glance and her facing away from the camera give us an idea that she is thinking. Perhaps not what she is thinking, for with what we have determined so far, she could be thinking intently, daydreaming, or even just admiring the beauty of the forest floor, the latter of which is often thinking through an absence of thought. Maybe she's just shy.

Her hands are behind her back, and the source of the light is behind the camera. Her hair hangs over her face, blocking us further from getting any clue of how she looks. Here, a nonanswer is able to be applied. "Perhaps she is ugly, and the artistic director did not want us to see her." While rude, it does give us another clue. The artistic director did not want us to see her face. If she was meant to exhibit the appearance of daydreaming, perhaps she would have been better posed looking into the sky, for we also notice she is in a clearing, or otherwise where would the light be?

Just as we can look into this picture, and find what we can see (I have so much more I could say about this picture), the same rules apply to the scriptures. Take it at face value, and make an observation. Even a cynical observation allows you to learn things.

Alma 56:52 And it came to pass that the Lamanites took courage, and began to pursue them; and thus were the Lamanites pursuing them with great vigor when Helaman came upon their rear with his two thousand, and began to slay them exceedingly, insomuch that the whole army of the Lamanites halted and turned upon Helaman.

In the context of the chapter, Helaman has sent an epistle to Captain Moroni, and it is a direct reading of it. However, the cynic in me gives me this nonanswer when prompted to find what I can from it: "Well it was written by someone else obviously." The nonanswer in this case is what I am looking for. A less cynical answer would be "Helaman is a good strategist," but that's about all you can get from a straight answer in this case. However, the nonanswer gives us information.

The nonanswer is more useful here.

Once we realize that it's been written by someone else, remember once again the context. It is the whole of a letter to Captain Moroni, written completely in first person. So it wasn't written by somebody else. It was rewritten. Abridged. Here, in this little verse summed up only as a nonanswer, we have direct proof of Moroni and Mormon having edited and abridged the Book of Mormon.

So, my point in this, consider more than just the good answers. Always keep in mind the nonanswers. Each deduction here was started by using a nonanswer. So use both, and you might just arrive at different conclusions differently.