Alma 30

Regarding Book of Mormon anti-Christs, it’s been said: “they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and underdeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator” (B. H. Roberts, member of the first council of the seventy from about 1888, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Vol. 26, No. 3 , bottom of p. 85).

I couldn’t agree more. Korihor seems a naive caricature of atheists.

According to verse 7, punishing a man for his beliefs is against the commandments of God.

But in verse 20 those "wiser than the Nephites" capture him and in verse 21 they deport him, where he was bound again and then interrogated. Then in verse 49-50 Alma strikes him dumb for his beliefs. Then in verse 56 he is cast out again and turned into a beggar because of his beliefs.

Yay! Freedom of religion.

But, this contradicts the practices and example provided in verses 19-21 and verse 29 of this chapter.

frenzied: feeling or showing great or abnormal excitement or emotional disturbance (Merriam-Webster)

Such a mind could lead to irrational or unfounded beliefs, but it is not the only cause. In fact, calm, sane, normal folks believe in all sorts of superstitious, irrational, illogical, unsubstantiated claims. If someone claims Mormons believe in Mormonism because of frenzied or deranged minds, I’d defend the Mormons as generally not having frenzied or deranged minds. Many non-Mormons may think the beliefs of Mormonism are strange or baseless, but I don’t think they generally think Mormons believe what they believe because of frenzied or deranged minds.

It’s interesting that many Mormons believe that atheists commonly think “whatsoever a man did was no crime.” Thing is, this philosophy seems to be like some fringe form of anarchism. I’m sure there are some atheist anarchists, but I don’t think they are common. Alternatively, if by “crime” this verse means “sin” or “immoral act,” then such a person who believes that whatever they do is not bad or immoral is a sociopath. Again, I’m sure there are some atheists who are also sociopaths, but I don’t think they are common.

I remember thinking as a believer about atheists in this way. My reasoning was something to the effect of, “If you believe in no God and no eternal judgment, then there is no purpose to anything, so what’s to stop you from doing whatever you want, even raping or murdering?” This kind of reasoning fails to account for morality without belief in God. It fails to account for the desire to have joy and to help others have joy even if you have no belief in a god. It fails to account for the fact that most atheists realize that joy is in many ways inextricable from pro-social behavior.

The part about faring according to the management of the creature, prospering according to one’s genius, and conquering according to one’s strength seems confirmed as true in Alma 10:4-5, “I have also acquired much riches by the hand of my industry. Nevertheless, after all this, I never have known much of the ways of the Lord, and his mysteries and marvelous power” (Amulek explaining that he prospered according to his genius).

Also in Alma 10:32, “Now the object of these lawyers was to get gain and they got gain according to their employ.”

Alma 30:19-20

Notice the irony in this.

According to Alma 30:7-9,11, Korihor had committed no crime and the law provided that a person could not be punished for their belief. Yet the people of Ammon who “were more wise” took Korihor, and bound him, and carried him before Ammon. Who committed the crime here?

So much for the freedom of religion indicated in Alma 30:9.

Reminds me of this quote by A. C. Grayling:

“Religious apologists complain bitterly that atheists and secularists are aggressive and hostile in their criticism of them. I always say: look, when you guys were in charge, you didn’t argue with us, you just burnt us at the stake. Now what we’re doing is, we’re presenting you with some arguments and some challenging questions, and you complain.”

It is interesting to see an 'Anti-Christ' chastising the church for condemning children for the acts of their parents here.

This is a statement that most moral people would agree with. Children should not be judged or condemned because of the wickedness of their parents. Yet in November of 2015, the church announced that children of gay parents cannot be blessed or baptized , punishing the children for the sins of the parents.

It seems Korihor agrees with the 2nd Article of Faith - "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins" (aof 1:2), while the church did not In 2015.

Verse 31 contains the phrase "did rise up" which is unique within the KJV bible, only being found in Psalms 35:11 which has "False witnesses" doing the rising. Also the phrase "great swelling words" (or any instance of "swelling words") is only found in two very similar KJV New Testament verses, 2 Peter 2:18 and Jude 1:16.

Alma 30:32-35

Again, notice the irony.

I believe modern general authorities do receive money from the Church.

“The living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people” (President Gordon B. Hinckley, “Questions and Answers”, October 1985 General Conference).

First of all “modest in comparison with executive compensation” could easily include 6-figure annual allowances. That’s much more than your average person. But we will never know until the Church discloses its finances. Why would they hide their finances? Not all, but many other Churches voluntarily disclose finances. None of this is in keeping with what Alma argues against Korihor.

I was wrong when I wrote the above. We found out part of what LDS general authorities make even though the Church did not disclose its finances. MormonLeaks provided documentation that as of January 2014, the base living allowance given to LDS general authorities was $120,000 annually (DeseretNews Article
and MormonLeaks documents).

This is a fallacious argument. Just because something can make people happy doesn't mean it isn't a lie.

Santa Clause makes my kids happy, but he's a lie.

Alma 30:40-41

Alma and his Church are making extraordinary claims of an all-powerful God who intercedes in the affairs of man. Since he and his Church initiate the extraordinary claim, the burden of proof would generally be theirs. However, because the character Korihor has claimed “there shall be no Christ,” as if he knows that, then Korihor would have the burden of proof to claim to know such a thing.

The Book of Mormon Student Manual for Religion 121-122 makes a very good point on page 217 that I’ll paraphrase in the rest of this paragraph. In Alma 30:15, Korihor argues, “Ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.” In verse 22 of this chapter Korihor is accused of asserting “that there shall be no Christ,” and he seems to admit this in verse 23. Yet, by his own reasoning, Korihor cannot know that there shall not be a Christ. By his reasoning, he would have to be able to see all things in the universe to know that there was no Christ. It is a good reminder that proclaiming to know something that is not falsifiable is not rational. It would have been much more rational for Korihor to proclaim that since he sees no evidence for Christ, there is no reason to believe in Christ.

Alma asserts that all things testify that there is a God and that Christ will come. But isn’t that just Alma’s interpretation of all things? What of the cruel and horrific torment of the innocent (even small children) by human depravity and by nature? Many interpret this to show that there is no omnipotent, all-caring God. The argument is that if such a God were omnipotent, then he doesn’t care enough to end unnecessary suffering, or if he cares, then he must be impotent to end the suffering. At any rate, it doesn’t necessarily follow that because of the universe, therefore God exists. A person may feel like the existence, order, or beauty of the universe testifies of this, but feelings lead to all sorts of contradictory conclusions. Look at all the people who have felt the Spirit of God testifying that theirs is the only true Church even though theirs is not the LDS Church (for examples, see this video: My LDS Journey - Follow the Spirit).

Considering all the things on the face of the earth, including the frequent and horrific suffering inflicted on the innocent by other individuals and by nature, I think these things witness of the cold, uncaring universe in which we live. This verse does not provide a robust approach to a serious philosophical concern. This explanation fits the Bronze Age religion of the Old Testament though.

I have personally been accused of seeking signs because I have expressed that I will not believe in extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, but let’s consider what it means to seek for signs in the context of the Book of Mormon. Here are a couple of examples where proof and evidence apparently led to belief in a good way:

2 Ne 11:4, 6-7 - Nephi’s “so ul delighteth in proving unto [his] people the truth.”

Helaman 5:50 - Prisoners see sons of Helaman, Nephi and Lehi, encircled as if by fire; see angels; and hear voices. When the prisoners told the Lamanites about this, “the more part of the Lamanites were convinced of them, because of the greatness of the evidences.”

And, don’t forget that Samuel the Lamanite describes the signs of the death of the savior (Helaman 14:20-27 ) then tells us that these signs were “to the intent that there should be no cause for unbelief among the children of men—And this to the intent that whosoever will believe might be saved, and that whosoever will not believe, a righteous judgment might come upon them” (Helaman 14:28-29). Doesn’t the e xplanation by Samuel make more sense? Shouldn’t I be held accountable for following the evidence wherever it leads rather than to be held accountable to extraordinary claims with no substantial evidence?

Korihor is promised he will be struck dumb, meaning that he will be unable to speak. After being struck dumb, the chief judge writes to Korihor. Why? He was struck dumb, not deaf.

When you stop to think about this one, it’s actually kind of funny. I mean, I wonder how many atheists today cannot believe in God because . . . the devil appeared to them in the form of an angel? This makes no sense at all. Maybe there are some atheists like this, but they have to be an amazingly small percentage of the population of atheists.

Regarding Book of Mormon anti-Christs, it’s been said: “They are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and underdeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator” (B. H. Roberts, member of the first council of the seventy from about 1888, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Vol. 26, No. 3 , bottom of p. 85).

I couldn’t agree more. Korihor seems a naive caricature of atheists.

Does this even make sense? Let’s assume Korihor has such a frenzied or deranged mind that even after being struck dumb (and deaf? See verse 51) by God, and then having the curse lifted, Korihor would decide to go out and again try to lead away the hearts of the people. Couldn’t God just shut him down again?

Another problem with this curse is the often used argument regarding the problem of evil. The problem being that if God exists, he allows unspeakable suffering, including that inflicted by sadistic humans. The argument is that God allows this human-inflicted suffering because if he interceded and stopped it, he would be interfering or diminishing the moral agency of the perpetrator. Yet, this curse is a canonized example of God interceding by cursing a would-be evil doer to prevent suffering (in this case suffering caused by being led away from God).