Alma 30 - 31

Thank you Zena and class for a lively lesson.  Tonight we discussed what I broadly term "the doctrine of Korihor", which is found mainly in Alma 30:13-18 and 23-26.

I would like to explore some of the ways this passage of scripture is relevant in our lives today, with focus on how we understand this kind of teaching and how this kind of teaching could be responded to on an individual level and on an official level.

Firstly - what did Korihor claim?  As discussed in our lesson, Korihor asserted 'there is no God'.  That was his fundamental premise, although he did not seem (from the records we have) to actually mention that up front.  However, when confronted by Alma, he admitted that he did not believe there was a God (Alma 30:37-38).  I suspect there are several reasons that Korihor acted in this manner, not the least being that it would be very difficult to win followers if this was stated up front?  He no doubt would have lost his audience if he had started off by saying, "Guys, there is no God so why don't we ...".  Instead Korihor used a oblique angle, using, for example social issues to ground his arguments, saying "priests usurp power and authority over the people" (Alma 30:23); "priests keep people in ignorance" (Alma 30:23); "priests bring people down" (Alma 30:23); "priests glut on the labors of the people" (Alma 30:32).  

If we try to put Korihor's argument in simple terms, prefacing each claim he makes with his unspoken fundamental premise, his arguments look like this:
There is no God > therefore > there is no Christ; (Alma 30:13)
There is no God > therefore > prophets cannot exist and must be foolish traditions; (Alma 30:14)
There is no God > therefore > there is no sin (no good and evil); (Alma 30:17)
There is no God > therefore > you prosper purely on your own effort/talent/strength; (Alma 30:17)

This gives us a basic idea of Korihors argument.  However, there is a lot more to the philosophy of what he is saying, and an article in the July 1992 Ensign by Gerald Lund (see Resources below) is a superb resource to use to look at the philosophical layers of Korihors argument. 

How is this relevant today?  As we found in our class, most class members could identify someone, somewhere who promoted Korihor-like teachings.  They are not new or unique, although every proponent seems to want to declare them as "new" or "modern" thinking.  In a February 2014 BYU Forum address, Dr Albert Mohler outlined the philosophy behind some recent international social "Korihor" doctrines.  Taking the approach used above, some recent issues which are receiving social and political attention are:
There is no God > therefore > marriage is a man-made institution;
There is no God > therefore > human life is ours to give or take at will;
There is no God > therefore > the family can be defined in any way we please.
Once again, there is a lot more, philosophically, to these arguments and I recommend listening to Dr Mohlers' forum address (link in Resources).

Second: How do we respond individually to modern-day Korihors?  Looking to Alma, the people in the land of Ammon had a simple strategy, one described as wise:  they took Korhihor, they bound him and took him to Ammon, their spiritual leader, who evicted him from their lands (Alma 30:20-21).  As we discussed in class, the people of Ammon knew first-hand what a society who bought into Korihors values would look like - they had lived the reality of such a society. And they were having no part of it, so they drew a line!  In explaining a principle which relates to this behaviour, that of tolerance, Elder Russell M Nelson said: "Your gracious tolerance for an individual does not grant him or her license to do wrong, nor does your tolerance obligate you to tolerate his or her misdeed. That distinction is fundamental to an understanding of this vital virtue."

Whilst this is a straightforward approach, it is very rich and multi-dimensional.  Attributes such as tolerance, forbearance and patience are part of "how" we engage even though we choose to not have part in or support such philosophies. While a deeper discussion of this would take far more space and time than we have, one challenge for this weeks lesson is to contemplate how you can appropriately "have no part" of philosophies which are anti-Christ in nature ...  Valuable resources in this regard are the talks by Elder Nelson and Elder Oaks referenced below. 

Thirdly,  how do we understand official responses to such issues? I recall in early 1990's when I was a ward Relief Society President, a popular magazine in South Africa running a so-called "expose" on "The Mormons".  The article was factually accurate about church membership numbers and statistical data and for the rest either was totally inaccurate (e.g. in referencing polygamy as a current church practise) or quite distorted (e.g. about the temple garment).  The article caused a lot of distress among church members, and in our stake, Bishops and auxiliary presidents were counselled specifically to:
1.  remind members that is was the responsibility of the Area Presidency to make an official response to the article and that they would determine how to appropriately address the matter;
2. address any specific doctrinal concerns which arose in members minds;
3. discourage ward members from writing letters to the magazine, its editors or the journalist who wrote the article;
4. advise ward members to not defend the church's position in an argumentative way if their friends/acquaintances raised the matter; and
5. to invite friends/acquaintances who were genuinely curious to hear more from the missionaries.

In speaking of the difficulties which are experienced in dealing with this kind of opposition, Elder Dallin H Oaks stated: "Some of life’s most complicated decisions involve mixtures of good and evil. To what extent can one seek the benefit of something good one desires when this can only be done by simultaneously promoting something bad one opposes?"  This dilemma faces the Church in dealing with Korihor-like challenges. (see "Alternate Voices" referenced below.)

In the case of Korihor, Alma, in his role as the High Priest, responded directly to Korihor.  It is important to note that Alma did not get caught up in a philosophical debate - he responded directly to the matters Korihor raised.  Using his priesthood authority he responded to Korihors demands for a sign by granting exactly that - a sign.  And then Korihor was, once again, cast out.  

It is instructive to note that, in the end, Korihor lived and died among a society that lived the values that he had preached;  they had rejected the "foolish traditions of their fathers" (Alma 31:9); they refused to believe in prophets or prophesying (Alma 31:22); and they refused to be bound by a belief in Christ (Alma 31:17).  

This scripture block is rich ground for contemplation and investigation, for self-reflection and for determination to act.  I hope that it is a satisfying journey for your growth!

Resources:
Gerald N. Lund : Countering Korihors Philosophy
(Ensign, July 1992)

Dr Albert Mohler : Strengthen the things that Remain
(BYU Forum 25 February 2014) 

Dallin H. Oaks : Alternate Voices 
(General Conference, April 1989)

Russell M Nelson : Teach us Tolerance and Love
(General Conference, April 1994) 

Dallin H Oaks : Balancing Truth and Tolerance
(CES Fireside, September 2011) 

Wikipedia : Korihor (well referenced article!)