ldsphilosopher

Today, we would simply like to post a video published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving!

Nathan Richardson

We probably won’t be involved in striking someone dumb, but there are several lessons we can learn from Alma’s interaction with Korihor.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this series, the story of Korihor, as told in Alma 30, used to leave me feeling … unsatisfied. I wouldn’t say I had major doubts. Rather, it raised some obvious questions, and in my early understanding, it seemed like those questions were left unanswered. After having read and studied it more, I can see that not only are the questions answered by a closer reading of the chapter; there are also some powerful lessons to be drawn and applied from the story.

Questions and Answers

Why was Korihor arrested just for preaching his sincere beliefs? Isn’t that a little harsh, even provincial?

Korihor was not arrested for preaching his beliefs. He was arrested for civil crimes. That seems to be the reason Mormon explains civil crimes in this chapter—to make clear why Korihor was arrested. There were civil laws against adultery, religious persecution, and lying, all of which Korihor was actively involved in (see part 4).

Why didn’t Alma address each of Korihor’s assertions point-by-point? It kind of implies that there are no good answers.

There are two answers to this. First, Alma did address all of Korihor’s assertions indirectly—by countering the premise they rested on. All of Korihor’s conclusions relied on the assumption of empiricism (see part 1), which Alma showed could not be used to disprove Alma’s beliefs (see part 2). Having removed the foundation, all the rest of Korihor’s conclusions were addressed, without having to be explained one-by-one. (For all we know, Alma did proceed to explain how each conclusion was now dubious, but Mormon’s abridgement only included the first, vital part of the explanation.)

Second, Alma might not have addressed all of Korihor’s assertions because he knew that Korihor already knew the answers. Explaining something that you both already understand is a waste of time.

Sure, Korihor’s conclusions weren’t accurate, but I can see how a sincere person could reasonably come to those conclusions. Why was Korihor struck dumb just for having faulty, but logical, conclusions?

Korihor was not struck dumb for faulty reasoning; he was struck dumb for faulty motives (see part 3). A sincerely mistaken person does not incur divine wrath in the form of miraculous punishment. A conniving manipulator, who is especially accountable because of the knowledge he has been given, does.

How am I supposed to apply the story of Korihor in my own life? Heavenly Father isn’t going to strike dumb every anti-Mormon or atheist I talk to. Then how do I follow Alma’s example?

Correct, the Lord won’t perform the same miraculous consequence on each person we meet who happens to conclude He doesn’t exist, and for good reason—because many don’t have the same motives or accountability that Korihor did. I know several genuine Christians who have studied LDS beliefs and just aren’t persuaded to believe them, and I imagine there are many atheists out there who have arrived at their beliefs through a sincere search. Not every aspect of the Korihor account is directly applicable in our own lives, as is the case with most scripture stories (for example, Nephi cutting off Laban’s head). But there are certain principles in Alma’s approach that we can learn a lot from.

Lessons

The strongest lesson I have learned from Alma’s approach is this: consider motives as well as reasoning. That is, when confronted with a question or criticism about the Church, don’t just evaluate and respond to the reasoning behind the question; consider also the reason the question is being asked.¹ No question is created in a vacuum, especially when it comes to interreligious conversations. And until everyone involved is candid and forthright about their motives, little progress can be made and little of benefit can be accomplished.

I’m not saying everyone who disagrees with Church doctrines is dishonest or has malicious intentions. (In fact, the very fact that someone is of another faith naturally implies they disagree with some LDS doctrine, even if they don’t know anything about the Church, and that’s fine.) But if a person wants to persuade you to disagree with Church doctrines and he won’t admit that, the Spirit will not flow throughout your conversation. So if someone comes up to you out of the blue and asks a challenging or out-in-left-field question, it certainly helps to know why they’re asking.

If a person brings up a continual stream of criticisms while ignoring your answers, it’s likely that they intend to do more than just learn about your beliefs.

I’m also not saying that you can’t converse in any way until you know for sure all their motives. Frankly, we often don’t fully understand our own reasons for doing things, much less fully understand why others do things. You can go ahead and converse with people when they have questions for you. I’m just saying that if all of your attention is on giving reasonable, informed responses and you never stop to wonder why they brought it up, you might find yourself sinking into a fruitless, contentious debate if the other person’s motives aren’t right.

Anti-mormons do this all the time, beginning with an apparently sincere question, only to ignore your response and immediately bring up another issue.² If that happens, it’s a big sign that your conversational partner has ulterior motives—not to understand your beliefs, but to dissuade you from them. At that point, like Alma did, you suspend the discussion of information and you find out why the person wants to talk about your beliefs. If they deny any other motive than just to understand your beliefs, but their line of questioning doesn’t seem consistent with that, the conversation is likely headed toward contention and discord. Follow the example of Ammon, the high priest of Jershon, and end the conversation (v. 21). (Albeit not by binding and ejecting the person, since you don’t have the same legal position he apparently had .)

If, however, they frankly admit, “I think your church is wrong and I’m trying to convince you of that,” then you have another decision to make. It’s not necessarily wrong to try to persuade another person to change their mind about something. (In a religious context, it’s called “missionary work,” and it’s a central tenet of our faith.) We have no complaint when others want to persuade us that they have a better way. But that doesn’t mean we are obliged to entertain their desires if we don’t want to.

Some people feel prepared and comfortable fielding difficult questions about the Church. Other’s don’t, and there’s nothing wrong with that. If you fit the latter description, follow the example of Giddonah, the high priest of Gideon, and refer the person to another place where they can get more answers if they’re interested (v. 29). (Again, probably not using identical methods; no story is universally applicable in all respects.) One good place to refer people to is the FAIR website (fairlds.org), where they can browse to their hearts’ content and find reasonable responses to just about every criticism under the sun.

Either way, it is perfectly reasonable to insist that dialogue be civil and sincere. As Alma showed, when a person will not be candid about their true motives, he can’t expect others to entertain his desire to debate.

Notes

All scripture citations are from Alma chapter 30 unless otherwise indicated. Image credit: Conversion of Alma the Younger, Gospel Art Book, lds.org.

He knew that a conversation with people who would be so deceptive was likely to head nowhere. So when someone came up to him and asked, “Why do you suppose there are so many protesters?” he said, “I don’t know. You should go ask them,” then walked away.

Nathan Richardson

If Nephite law held that “there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done,” then why was Korihor arrested?

When reading the story of Korihor in Alma chapter 30, many wonder about the apparent incongruency between Mormon’s description of Nephite egalitarianism and the fact that Korihor was apparently arrested for preaching minority beliefs.

Distinction between Civil and Religious Crimes

A generation before Alma and Korihor, the last Nephite king, Mosiah II, made sweeping changes to the Nephite system of government. This not only involved a move from kings to judges, but also included a more limited scope for civil leaders. When the high priest brought grave sinners to the attention of the king, King Mosiah explained to him that they would now make a distinction between civil crimes and religious crimes.

And he [High Priest Alma] said unto the king: Behold, here are many whom we have brought before thee, who are accused of their brethren; yea, and they have been taken in divers iniquities. And they do not repent of their iniquities; therefore we have brought them before thee, that thou mayest judge them according to their crimes.
    But king Mosiah said unto Alma: Behold, I judge them not; therefore I deliver them into thy hands to be judged. (Mosiah 26:11–12)

While to members of the Church of Christ, any misdeed was just plain sin and should be avoided, King Mosiah made this distinction for legal purposes, probably to help unite an increasingly mixed nation. As Mormon explains, under this new system, “There was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds” (v. 11).

Why Was Korihor Arrested?

Knowing of this legal system, it can be confusing for many readers (myself included) the first time they read the story of Korihor. In the land of Jershon, after Korihor preached many doctrines that conflicted with prevailing Nephite beliefs, “they took him, and bound him, and … caused that he should be carried out of the land” (v. 20–21). Again, in the land of Gideon, “he was taken and bound and carried before the high priest, and also the chief judge over the land. … They caused that he should be bound; and they delivered him up into the hands of the officers, and sent him to the land of Zarahemla, that he might be brought before Alma, and the chief judge who was governor over all the land” (v. 20, 29).

Some antagonists toward the LDS church have highlighted this as a contradiction in the Book of Mormon, an example of intolerance, and evidence that there are no good, reasonable responses to Korihor’s teachings. One author cynically concludes, “Korihor makes the mistake of wandering into the lands of Jershon and Gideon, where the laws against free speech are apparently more strict. … So much for freedom of speech in ancient America”.¹ Another writer says, Continue There's more!

Nathan Richardson

Korihor was struck dumb and had to communicate in writing. If Alma had already addressed Korihor’s reasoning, why was this divine intervention used?

After refuting Korihor’s teachings thoroughly, Korihor was struck dumb by divine intervention. Since Alma had addressed the reasoning behind Korihor’s teachings and showed that they were not as air-tight as they might seem at first, one might expect that his work was done. So why the miraculous punishment?

The answer lies in Korihor’s Continue There's more!

Jeffrey Thayne

Ayn Rand argued that altruism is a moral evil, because it violates principles of reciprocity and leads to social decay.

The philosophy of Objectivism includes the idea that all actions and choices are ultimately motivated by self-interest; people do things for their own benefit, whether they realize it or not. One problem I have with this idea is that it rules out the possibility of any actions that are altruistic (selfless, or purely for another’s benefit).

I recently attended a conference where the presenter, C. Bradley Thompson, defended the philosophy of Objectivism. During a question and answer session, someone asked him, “What single philosophical idea do you believe has caused the most damage to human society?” He responded immediately and confidently, “Altruism.” He argues that human beings consistently forgo actions that are in their best individual and collective interests for the sake of an unobtainable ideal that usually does more harm than good. Mutual exchange, based upon mutual self-interest, does for more good in the world than encouraging free-loaders and laziness by giving valuable time and resources to those unwilling or unable to reciprocate.

Psychologists and biologists continually debate whether true, genuine altruism is even possible in a species that is the product of biological evolution. Is it possible for a genetic trait to be passed on through the generations if this trait did not, in some way, improve the individual’s ability to reproduce? Even if this is possible, it would make the “trait” of altruism a genetic accident, an aberration in the normal course of evolution.

Most psychological paradigms treat altruism as a kind of selfishness in disguise. As Nathan Richardson explains, “[From the traditional psychological perspective], the main purpose or intent behind each action then becomes maximizing personal gain. There are two ways to do this: Continue There's more!