Alma 30 – I can’t nuance this

Consider the following scriptures:

And again, verily I say unto you, I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your minds what those gifts are, that are given unto the church.

For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.

To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.

To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

I think somewhere along the way we, as a culture, have convinced ourselves that one spiritual gift is greater than another. I don’t believe god views it that way. Also, I think we often make the assumption that if one does not have the gift to know then they have the gift to “believe on their words” by default. Given the way the revelation is written it could be possible to have both gifts or neither gift.

For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the believer shall say, because I do not know, am I not of the body; are they therefore not of the body?

There’s a difference between saying “I don’t know” and what Korihor is saying, “no one can know.” People tend to get into trouble when they try to speak for others, especially when the other person is a judge. Perhaps there are people that do know, who are we to question someone else’s gift?

I’ve also noticed that people tend to use know and believe interchangeably, it can become an argument over semantics.

That Korihor… he sure is a character.

Korihor would have made a good anti-Mormon as well as a good anti-Christ. His tactics are the same as those of anti-Mormons: take a truth and mix in (sometimes ridiculous) lies to make it appear to be something it’s not. Satan allegedly does the same thing. Korihor was right, it is true we can’t know the future. Even atheists know that, hence they have some truth. But just because we can’t know the future (and Christ was future to Korihor’s time) doesn’t mean we can’t “know” (or believe) that there is/will be a Christ. I like what Nibbler pointed out as well – to some of us it is not given to know, but only to believe. I don’t think I have been given to know much, and I don;t there’s a Christ or an atonement – I hope there is and I choose to believe there is despite the lack of evidence.

I believe, but can’t find a solid reference, that the Givens’ have gone on record with the idea that we reduce the use of “I know” when we bear testimony or make statements. If my recollection is correct they suggest using, “I believe”, “I have faith or hope” etc.

This isn’t exactly what I was looking for but it is another example of an LDS member not knowing. I always like knowing I am not alone.

http://religionnews.com/2015/04/23/mormon-celebrates-believe-instead-know/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://religionnews.com/2015/04/23/mormon-celebrates-believe-instead-know/

You can notice the reduced use of “I know” among the GAs, and particularly the Q15. In the GC talks they rarely use the term, but still manage to bear heartfelt testimonies. Such was not always the case as you can go back and look at older conferences, say from the 1980s, and find many of them testifying the same way many testify now, full of “I know….” I think the general membership just hasn’t caught on yet.

az – in reading your post I was thinking, “wow- meeting with the family and having such a good discussion. This guy is doing it right.

Thank you for your kind words. My wife wasn’t coming to church with us, so if we were all going to get any kind of spiritual development together, that was the only way it was going to happen. I felt like we all got more out of that 10 minute discussion than we did of a three hour block.

I’ve pondered this a bit more and have read the chapter a couple times. I’m not so sure Korihor was an evil dude, but more of an agnostic or perhaps atheist. Granted he didn’t choose his audience well and it probably went over about as well as it would in any of our wards on a fast Sunday. Anyway, here are a couple things that stick out to me:

6 But it came to pass in the latter end of the seventeenth year, there came a man into the land of Zarahemla, and he was Anti-Christ, for he began to preach unto the people against the prophecies which had been spoken by the prophets, concerning the coming of Christ.

Notice the absence of words like “the” or “an.” It just says he was anti-Christ (meaning as far as I can understand “against Christ.”*

The next few verses are interesting as well, especially in light of what eventually happened to Korihor:

7 Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.

8 For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.

9 Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.

And then verse 12 is also interesting in that this time there is the word “this” prior to anti-Christ:

12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:

He then goes into his rant, but I can say that I have wondered many of these things myself – how does anyone know this stuff? We can believe and hope for it, etc., but Korihor isn’t all off base, either because most of those people (and I’m being kind here) who say they know in F&TM really don’t know.

23 Now the high priest’s name was Giddonah. And Korihor said unto him: Because I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words.

I have read several people here accuse the church of the same thing, and to some extent believe it myself.

Korihor is taken before Alma (chief judge). Alma must have had the same mission president I did. Mine taught me if all else fails bear testimony, and that’s what Alma does. (Side note: my MP was wrong – bearing testimony does not always work and I just tune it out nowadays.)

Another part that strikes me is the outcome. Korihor admits it was Satan who led him astray and told him what to teach and apparently repents – but neither Alma nor God seem to be convinced of that repentance. That part puzzles me a bit because I believe God to be forgiving and merciful to those who repent.

56 And it came to pass that the curse was not taken off of Korihor; but he was cast out, and went about from house to house begging for his food.

*A few weeks back in SS we were discussing the Anti-Nephi-Lehis. It was pointed out that anti in this case does not mean against because that meaning of anti has Greek roots and the BoM people were not exposed to Greek nor was the BoM written in Greek as the Bible was. It’s clear in these passages Korihor was anti (against) Christ, so I’m not sure what to make of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis.

There was this book I recently read, called “Influence”, by Dr. Robert Cialdini. The book covers the psychological principles behind how people are influenced in lieu of concrete evidence It’s not anti-mormon or anti-religious in any way. A lot of the psychological principles he brings up aren’t necessarily bad, in and of them selves. Some of them are good, and oftentimes essential. But they can be used in a negative way.

-The principle of commitment and consistancy: I’ve believed or acted this way in the past. I must continue to act or believe in this way.

-The principle of sacrifice: The more I have given up or devoted to a cause, the more it must be true.

-The principle of social proof: Everyone else believes/acts in this way. Therefore, I should act/believe in this way.

-The principle of reciprocation: This person, organization, belief has done something for me. I owe it my loyalty.

-The principle of liking: We tend to agree and support with those we like, or those who share similar interests and have similar backgrounds.

-The principle of authority: Anyone with authority, or the appearance of authority, must be correct.

-The principle of scarcity: If there is very little of it, it is probably a good thing to have.

It really helped me to analyze my own actions, and figure out the reasons behind what I do and what I believe. I was one of those who claimed “I know”. I said “I know” because so many others, especially those I respected, said they “knew” (ergo, testimony meeting). I had made commitments and sacrifices (mission, tithing, etc). Therefore, how can it not be true? The thought would be unbarable! I associated my positive feelings, with feelings of the Spirit. What the Spirit testifies of, is true (so I am told). Therefore, I knew!

But, so many times those positive feelings I have felt have been wrong. Not always, not often, but they have been wrong. I’ve recieved priesthood blessings with full faith from some of the best men I’ve ever known. They contained exact promises with exact dates… and they did not come true. I’m not discounting anyone else’s “knowing”. We all are blessed with our own unique experiences, and must strive to do our best with the hand we are delt. But for me, I have had to re-evaluate a lot of my own beliefs (even the ones I “knew” were true). For myself, I can’t base my beliefs on feelings, or what I believed was the Spirit. God forgive me, but I know I am too weak and prone to error.

Now, I’ve decided to take in gospel principles based on what is most “effective” in bringing me peace and happiness, and encouraging me to reach out to others. Some of them I have found to be wonderful! The word of wisdom, sexual self-control, service, charity, humility, patience… I could go on and on. Others, not so much.

“Anti” also m ans “opposite of” – so I read Anti-Nephi-Lehis as “people who are descended from Lehi but opposite of Nephites – and Insee it as a term that means Lamanites whole claiming origin not from Laman bitpput rsther from Lehi. It would be like Muslims who convert to Judaism calling themselves Anti-Israel-Abrahams.

It’s weird to us, but it makes sense in context.

Korihor was a challenge to the established leadership and religious structure – of a minority (Nephites) ruling a much larger majority (Mulekites). A big part of that majority’s authority came from its general level of education and its religion. I think that plays a critical role in the story. We overlook the political implications too much when we focus strictly on the religious aspects.

Finally, Korihor wasn’t just sharing an opinion. He was trying to establish an alternate religion that actively opposed the equivalent of the Holy Roman Empire, as it were. The HRE wasn’t exactly benevolent to dissidents whose followings challenged their authority, as witnessed with my wife’s ancestors (The Waldensians / The Poor) who were almost exterminated on more than one occasion by the Catholic Church’s armies.