There has been a lot of discussion about Korihor and Alma and what lessons we might learn.
I would suggest that if we actually read the story, rather than read into it, we learn some important things.
First, Alma gains his moral authority because in his preaching he “recieve[s] no gain.” That is, “I have never received so much as even one senine for my labor” in the church. Instead Alma labored with his own hands for his support, even though he spent significant time in travel to declare the word of God. (Alma 30:32).
Second, Alma lets Korihor speak (cf Alma 30, verses 30-31).
Third, Alma does not do anything to Korihor that is not accomplished by the power of God. He ends with “it shall be done unto thee even as the Lord will.” (Alma 30:55). Rather than attempting to have Korihor shunned, or silenced or otherwise foreclosed by social sanctions, Alma relies on the judgment of God. The clear lesson is that if God will not strike someone, perhaps it is not God’s will and we should not strike them.
So, from the Korihor story, what should we expect from leaders?
- That they labor with their own hands for their support.
- That they let everyone speak.
- That they rely upon the power of God, and let things be done by God according to the Lord’s will.
What do you think?
What lessons did you get from the study of Korihor recently?
If you were drawing lessons from the story, what conclusions would you reach?
What changes would you make to my three conclusions?
Wheat & Tares 
I hope being the first comment that I don’t turn this negative as I like all 3 of your points that you pulled out.
On your #3, I see that as Alma having real faith in God. He put it in Gods hands.
I am having real struggles with current and recent leaders over the last while not demonstrating real faith in God. Instead they try hard to “help God” by whitewashing history and shaming those that bring forth basic historical truths. And it isn’t just history. There was just an editorial in the SL Tribune about the labels/names we use for women in the church. It sounds like there is a lot of support for changing. Why isn’t this coming from our leaders?
It reminds me a bit of some actual wise words that came from the Sadducees when they took Paul in for performing miracles. In Acts 5:38-39.
And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
I think the Sadducee that made this statement actually had faith in God. Alma acted as though he felt God was in control.
“2. That they let everyone speak.”
Unfortunately the LDS church equates criticizing the church as being of the “Adversary” (LDS code for Satan). So critics are ignored, accused of using the “wrong tone”, or excommunicated. For those holding on to power in the LDS church, God is on their side and everybody who disagrees is of the Adversary. How can convenient is that?
Are we reading too much into this to say that Alma let Korihor speak? He let Korihor speak after Korihor had already been forcibly exiled from two locales (read: congregations) without even a hint of apology. There seems to be at least a tacit consent to removing a dangerous teacher from the public square. He lets Korihor speak in what could have been a private setting with just a few individuals of Alma’s choosing; and only lets him go when the danger of him spreading false doctrine is removed:
“If this curse should be taken from thee thou wouldst again lead away the hearts of this people; therefore, it shall be unto thee even as the Lord will.”
Michael Austin at By Common Consent has a number of posts about religious freedom in Alma’s day that were very insightful.
I happen to agree with all comments 1-3. The key is that the “dangerous teacher” was in fact speaking blatantly against the truth, truth that was not only already in the book of mormon but the bible as well. The leaders today do not really determine who is ACTUALLY dangerous, they just get rid of you if you stir the pot enough regardless if you’re speaking truth or not.
I haven’t left the church yet because deep down I have some perhaps sick hope that people will actually listen…
I’ve been pondering #3 lately as I watch one of my teens struggle with her role in YW/seminary. There is so much pressure put on her to be / know / do. All in an effort, I believe, to stem the tide of youth leaving the church.
I find myself wondering where is the trust in God in all these programs and pressure. Why does it weigh on the church to control the kids experience? Why not give them as broad spectrum of information as possible, teach them to pray, and let Him work it out with them?
I was reading the new doctrinal mastery document last night and it really struck me how narrow and controlling a mindset it represents, especially with a focus on ‘divinely approved sources’. (what does that even mean? ) Why not give the kids as much, divergent information on a topic, and then let God be the teacher?
@Rt
I came to be grateful for teachers who allowed me to be wrong. Even when teachers know (or think they know) the “right” answer, it’s often a more powerful lesson to allow students to figure it out on their own.
1) Working for your own sustenance rather than for money is pretty basic stuff within a subsistence economy. Within a money market economy, however, the difference becomes MUCH blurrier. I think a better analogy wouldn’t be whether one gets money, but whether one’s *motive* is money.
2) It says that the people who tied him up and cast him out were “wiser” than those who did not.
Happy Hubby, regarding the women’s titles thing, I see a lot of pushback related to point #3 (wait for the Lord’s will and timing). Some members feel it inappropriate to push for change (kind of like the Zionist Jews who fought to make Israel a state versus many ultra-orthodox Jews who felt it inappropriate to create the state prior to the arrival of the Messiah).
As for the whitewashing of history, I think there are a lot of unhealthy cultural elements at play interfering with Stephen’s point #2 (let everyone speak). Kat’s right in that we have a culture that often sees any criticism (regardless of intent) as an attack, or indication of weak faith. Also, if your aim is to promote faith, then you will only share historical details that promote faith. Difficult history can put faith in jeopardy, so people are understandably reticent about sharing the more jarring details. Doesn’t make it right, but it’s understandable. I don’t think it’s a matter of “helping God,” more that you will be held responsible if you put people in a situation where their testimony might be vulnerable.
Rt, I think “divinely appointed sources” is meant to be vague. In the materials those sources are explicitly listed as Holy Ghost, Light of Christ (conscience), parents, scriptures and church leaders. That’s technically quite a bit of wiggle room. In practice, though, I think church leadership will be the understood meaning of “divinely appointed sources.”
BTW, where are the ruins of the palace depicted in that painting?
Happy Hubby: Now it’s my turn to say that I pretty much agree with YOUR post. Your point about Alma having faith is what resonates most with me. Joseph Smith taught that fear is the opposite of faith and I see a lot of fear in our church, fear that, IMHO, lies behind silencing alternative viewpoints, calling anyone who takes anything more than a “literal” view of the B of M apostates and prevents any kind of dialogue from taking place because even a simple request for dialogue is seen as dissent.
Alma lets Korihor speak because he (Alma) isn’t afraid of anything Korihor might say. The silencing and erasing of both dissent and non-conforming people (“there are no homosexuals in this church”) of is because of fear, not faith. It’s a contradiction about this church that we teach individual choice/agency is the way to salvation or damnation, but then we blame other people who might have an alternative view for “destroying” the testimonies of believers (see Kat’s and Mary Ann’s posts).
And to Mary Ann, I really like your comment about whitewashing history. Surely it’s absurd to hide the truth about history (or leaders’ behavior, etc.) in order to save someone’s “faith”. I’ve always thought that if the church stopped building flimsy, deceptive scaffolding to support the so-called “faith” of TBMs and instead tore it all down and came clean, then we’d really have the opportunity to build a strong, vital faith instead of this faith of the members that is apparently so fragile it must be shielded from the truth. SMH.
“I’ve always thought that if the church stopped building flimsy, deceptive scaffolding to support the so-called “faith” of TBMs and instead tore it all down and came clean, then we’d really have the opportunity to build a strong, vital faith instead of this faith of the members that is apparently so fragile it must be shielded from the truth. SMH.”
^^this
Rt,
You ask the question about “Why not give the kids as much, divergent information on a topic, and then let God be the teacher?”
Similarly in the University where I work, and especially at this time of the year, some of the faculty will want to change the medical school’s curriculum. The discussion always comes back to the school only has “four years” to impart the meaningful body of knowledge which will allows them to be competent. Many of the suggested changes are insightful, some of them have good documentation for patient and physician outcomes. However, on further inspection the suggested new curriculum assumes some or much of the base information is already learned and understood.
The other insight is the school has the responsibility to remove out of the curriculum and suggested reading materials information which does not provide a clear path which leads to success.
Guess you can tell I am in the same camp as PatrickOMallow.
Stephen to answer your question of what we should learn: 1. That they labor with their own hands for their support.
“Stephen to answer your question of what we should learn: 1. That they labor with their own hands for their support.”
So you advocate a doing away with the division of labor? After all, how many of us actually produce our own subsistence “with our own hands” anymore?
Mark,
What, exactly, does it mean to “labor with their own hands for their support”?
1) If one means “hand’s on, manual labor” (which is exactly what it meant within a subsistence economy), then you’re saying we should basically destroy all education, consultation, data analysis, white collar jobs and industries.
2) If one means “gainful/profitable employment”, then they are suggesting that full-time gospel preaching should either be 1) paid or 2) only performed by the rich leisurely class who were able to save enough so that they no longer “labor with their own hands”. Both of these seem quite contrary to what you’re going for.
I’m honestly having a difficult time seeing a third option where they do labor with their own hands, but not for money.
The Korihor story is baffling to me. He preaches that there is no God . . . because the devil in the guise of an angel told him to say that. So how does that make sense? He doesn’t believe in God, but he believes in angels enough to go preaching whatever they tell him to say?
Secondly, as Kevin Barney pointed out and has also long bothered me, why is it that there is “no law against a man’s belief,” but Korihor is hounded for preaching that there is no Christ? If he’s hounded because his followers committed adultery, that seems like a stretch. Nobody who binds and questions him is asking about the “crimes,” just about his beliefs that they are wrong and can’t know that Christ will come which is referred to as blasphemy in v. 30 (clearly hyperbole).
And it’s not clear either if he’s just preaching standard Law of Moses Judaism (monotheism minus Christ) which is how the description starts out or actually saying there is no God as he later claims in v. 28 and more forcefully in v. 28. What he’s teaching changes from verse to verse. Then he’s just suddenly accused of lying about not believing in God in v. 42.
What kind of fair trial or investigation is this? It doesn’t reflect well at all on the Nephite justice system.
The sign-seeking retort by Korihor is kind of a silly non sequitur. His hair splitting in v. 48 between “not denying” and “not believing” is also confusing.
In v. 51 when the judge writes him a note, that also seems kind of a waste of whatever material they used to write on (since they were not big writers as we know) since he could hear, just couldn’t speak. Then the big reveal at the end that he always knew there was a God (What???) and only said that because of a vision (WHAT???) MAKES LITERALLY NO SENSE. This story is illogical. The motives of the characters don’t make good sense.
Then he has to go begging for food (not very charitable) and is basically trampled to death. Why is THAT not a crime? Where are the investigators of that event? Out policing beliefs while claiming they aren’t? Because it looks to me like they are too busy to give a damn that a homeless guy just got curb stomped.
Hawkgrrrl,
“He preaches that there is no God . . . because the devil in the guise of an angel told him to say that.”
I think he is basically saying that he was seduced by some other sweet talking, charismatic radical. (Think of Robsepierre or Hitler.)
“why is it that there is “no law against a man’s belief,” but Korihor is hounded for preaching that there is no Christ?”
This is actually the exact state of that Hobbes advocated in his call for absolute monarchy. Due to the wars of religion, he thought each person’s religious views were to be keep utterly private and out of public discourse. Of course, all this meant was demoting Protestant and Catholic belief to the status already occupied by Jews and Muslims. Their right free belief was *not* not a right to free speech. In other words, the state of affairs described by Alma 30 was actually the standard, default one, historically speaking.
While I know that people hate it when I go in this direction, but, I think the lesson to be learned from the story is what to do when somebody has a “personal revelation” that challenges the church. Basically, they should either keep it to him/herself, or risk being disciplined or expelled from the church. (This would make even more sense within a church community that is striving to implement the united order.)
Hey Hawk. Good comment. The question you ask about “no law against a man’s belief” highlights what to me is another disturbing trend in the church. We say things that sound really welcoming and tolerant when we don’t really mean them. I wonder if this scene we’re discussing is actually one of the seeds of that practice. Tom Holmoe at BYU said a few days ago that “we welcome everyone,” which clearly is not true, unless it’s in a temporary visitors sense or something. We “invite all to come to Christ,” but we actively work against certain groups of people, making certain that they can’t come to Christ, at least not in His church. We deny half of our members the priesthood, we actively work against people’s civil right to marry and we have prejudicial beliefs about transgender people. So there’s the rhetoric that’s welcoming on top and then there’s the actual practice of exclusion, which your example shows so clearly. I think it’s been a long tradition in this church.
Brother Sky,
You’re holding the church (and Alma) to all sorts of standards and values that they never make for themselves. They never say that any of the following are universal, moral/civil rights: marriage, priesthood or freedom of speech.
Almost every society throughout history has denied that these are moral rights. You’ve read all your own, modern values into the scriptures, thus actively creating rather than passively finding the predictable contradictions that arise from doing so.
@hawk
Your close reading and analysis is awesome. So many times we pass along the readers digest version and whatever meaning is traditionally assigned thereto.
Jeff G: I’m holding the church to the things that they say and they don’t measure up. You are entirely correct that the notion of universal or moral/civil rights is a relatively recent societal concept. You are also correct that I am reading my own modern values into the scriptures because it is impossible to avoid doing so. Anyone who reads anything brings with them all of their cultural biases, experiences and assumptions about the world. That simply can’t be avoided and to claim otherwise would be disingenuous and a mistake. We are told, after all, to liken the scriptures unto ourselves, meaning we’ve got to somehow contextualize them in relation to our own milieu. The main thrust of my comment, however, was commenting on what hawk said about “no laws against a man’s beliefs” and the seeming contradiction between that phrase and what happens to Korihor. I see a parallel in some of the church’s seeming welcoming rhetoric and the way they work against that rhetoric when it gets down to brass tacks. The church, as a private entity, is (in my mind, unfortunately) allowed to discriminate against whoever they wish in the name of encouraging what they believe to be a moral, upright Christian lifestyle. It’s my view, though, that the welcoming rhetoric is disingenuous and that they need to be up front about who is truly welcome and who isn’t. That’s the contradiction I was noting and commenting on.
Jeff G: You could certainly be onto something in saying that our definition of religious freedom doesn’t jibe with ancient Nephite views, and possibly not even with 19th c views and also not with many other historical views. Nephite justice here is troubling to me because the narrator implies they act justly, but their actions don’t bear modern scrutiny at all. I’m sure the same would be true of the Spanish Inquisition as well. How the High Inquisitor tells his story isn’t exactly what we freedom-loving Americans would say happened even if he claimed there was freedom of religion.
That the angel vision was metaphorical (Devil with a blue dress?) is possible, but in a tapirs are deer kind of way. I don’t find it too convincing. He never alludes to it being figurative. If there’s another person to blame he never passes the buck, and they really put the screws to him, so he had every inducement to indict co-conspirators.
Which actually brings me to another question I have long had in the BOM. They don’t mention torture specifically but the kinds of admissions they get from those they interrogate certainly make me suspect torture was involved. People go from being snotty and rational to admitting straight up that they are liars. That’s the kind of thing that humans don’t do unless they are being tortured. And there’s a reason we no longer use torture to extract confessions; those confessions tend to be false.
Hawkgrrrl,
I pretty much agree. (I would add that the inquisition was a rejection of both free speech AND free belief. The two are very different things and I’m convinced that the church completely rejects any and all limitations on the latter.)
By no means do I want to throw all modern values in the trash, but I get very suspicious of people importing the modern values of liberalism, republicanism and democracy into the scriptures and then getting all bent out of shape and hyper-critical when the monster they’ve created doesn’t sit well with them.
Jeff–I was more thinking by our own efforts rather than by others efforts–not by manual labor only.
Though I should have discussed Alma’s rejection of humanist prosperity gospel type thinking as well (a man prospers entirely by his own ability and should be free to do what he wants in the marketplace).
Hawk–the curb stomping did cause Alma to go investigate the Zoramites.
A lot of interesting cultural details that reflect how much difference there was between their culture and ours.
But everyone blogged about that. I wanted to write about something else.
Mark–enjoyed your comments.
Mormon states quite clearly in verse 12 that the law couldn’t have any hold on Korihor, because he technically wasn’t breaking any civil laws. The people of Ammon illegally bound him, and the high priest, Ammon, just ordered him out of the land. The people of Gideon illegally bound him, and the leaders didn’t know how to deal with him, so they sent him up to the big guys in Zarahemla. Korihor did not break any civil laws, which is why he couldn’t be punished by the chief judges. He was not a member of the Nephite church, so the high priests had no jurisdiction over him.
Mormon makes clear that Korihor committed blasphemy (a religious charge based on Mormon’s knowledge of Korihor’s later confession). Alma states that he *knows* Korihor secretly believes in God. But even Alma does not have the right to punish Korihor unless Korihor was a professed member of the Nephite church (Alma or the other high priests could have reprimanded him and excommunicated him in that case). Ultimately, the only person who was allowed to punish Korihor was God. Alma may have chosen the type of curse, but he wasn’t allowed to punish the man personally. The warning of Korihor is that *God* punishes people who go about destroying the souls of others. That’s what Mormon is saying in verse 60 when he declares this is what happens when you try to go against the will of the Lord.
I’ve heard enough religious traditions to swallow that someone could believe in angels/spirits without belief in God. Korihor only claims it must have been the devil after he’s been punished by God. Whether he really clung to a secret belief in God the whole time or was claiming it so Alma would take the curse off him, I can’t say.
As to the charge of blasphemy, it can be a religious charge or a criminal one, depending on the society. The passage isn’t clear. Alma was also chief judge. The interrogation could be civil or ecclesiastic.
Nobody seems to get into any trouble (none that is mentioned) for illegally binding Korihor. Tell me again how strongly they believe that man can’t be punished for his beliefs? Isn’t illegal seizure and detention a punishment?
Alma’s statements that he knows Korihor is lying reminded me of the Gene Cook / Mick Jagger plane incident. http://holyfetch.com/mick-jagger-said-music-promotes-teens-sex/ Bad manners, confrontation, poor listening skills, and a dose of conspiracy theory paranoia.
Does God really go around punishing people who destroy the souls of others? He doesn’t do that to Alma the Younger (or Saul, his NT counterpart). But I guess that’s because we would say that Saul and Alma Jr were repentant but Korihor was not. In all 3 cases, they got a sign.
I suppose if “angels” are kind of like an animal spirit guide or extraterrestrial, you could follow their instructions without believing in God. I just find the description of the devil in the form of an angel but without believing in God to be problematic, particularly when he’s not actually preaching there is no God. He’s preaching that they can’t know that Christ will come. Later he changes his message.
“Nobody seems to get into any trouble (none that is mentioned) for illegally binding Korihor. Tell me again how strongly they believe that man can’t be punished for his beliefs?”
Again, they didn’t do it because of his beliefs, but because of his teachings. For this reason, it wasn’t illegal.
Interesting how Alma does not have a modern viewpoint on what is free speech, what is punishment or what is proper in this case. He and later Mormon when editing this do not see anything off –the same things Americans immediately respond to. Which is why I did not draw any lessons from that part of the story.
I should have added a fourth point. Korihor teaches a version of the prosperity gospel –all success is earned and whatever you do with your money or to make money is justified. You owe nothing to anyone else, not the culture, environment or any other source but your own genius.
Alma also rejects that.
I have the graphic for point four but it somehow disappeared in editing.
Finally–happy hubby–it looks like your comments did not derail anything. 🙂
Stephen,
“I should have added a fourth point. Korihor teaches a version of the prosperity gospel –all success is earned and whatever you do with your money or to make money is justified. You owe nothing to anyone else, not the culture, environment or any other source but your own genius.
Alma also rejects that.”
You’re exactly right. This is basically the point that I’m trying to make to Clark over at BCC right now:
I’ll basically cut and paste what I said there with a few minor changes:
A big difference between modern and premodern societies is concerned not with how much social mobility there actually is within any society, but the moral evaluation that each society gives to mobility. 19th century Britain absolutely praised mobility – this is how the rich factory owners justified their own social positions. Pre-modern societies, by contrast, condemned social mobility as a sign of prideful reaching beyond one’s ascribed place. This is the difference between class and caste, two words that are defined by very different allocations and justifications for social stratification (achievement within competition vs ascription by birth/calling).
Thus, I think any reading of the BoM where caste-based inequalities are condemned is incorrect, and any reading of class-based inequalities is anachronistic. Rather, it was 1) self-interested competition and 2) social climbing (mobility as such) that were the sins condemned in the BoM, not inequality in any sense that we understand it now.
The premodern world was structured according to a great chain of being – not a ladder up which one could climb – and some communities simply had longer chains than others. Wealth as a means to upward mobility and social climbing (in other words, competition in general) was totally condemned, not wealth and prosperity as such.
This, I claim, is the big difference between Korihor and Alma’s views of money and wealth.
That is an interesting analysis.
I’ll note Korihor is also accused of spreading whoredoms.
Good point. I wonder how literally we should take that. Probably not too literally, I would guess.
Hawk, Nephihah was chief judge (switches to Pahoran in chapter 50). Alma only had religious authority, which the people of Ammonihah were quick to point out back in chapter 8.
The Book of Mormon is generally based on a theme of prosperity gospel – righteousness brings blessings and prosperity in this land, wickedness brings the wrath of God. Korihor fought that idea by saying that people prospered based on their own genius and abilities – there was no point to being righteous because there was no sin, and there weren’t even consequences after death because there was no afterlife (again, seems inconsistent with that angelic vision).
Just like with Alma’s mission to Ammonihah, there is a point where Mormon claims that God seems to intervene. The people of Ammonihah were somehow seeking to overthrow the liberty of the people in addition to other sins. God ordered Alma to try to influence people to change, giving them a chance to repent before punishment hit. In the same way, Alma attempted to refute Korihor’s arguments before finally declaring God would hit him if he didn’t shape up. Abinadi threatening the people of Limhi, Nephi son of Helaman using famine and hardship, Mormon’s claim that God often sent the Lamanite armies to punish Nephites – all of it supports a thesis that God uses the threat of punishment of wickedness (in this life or the next) to motivate righteousness. It’s a very OT way of looking at things.
BTW, the Family Proc does the exact same thing by threatening the world with calamities if people don’t protect family values.
Jeff G, “Again, they didn’t do it because of his beliefs, but because of his teachings. For this reason, it wasn’t illegal.” According to the Lamanite version of religious freedom in Alma 23, binding someone and casting them out of the land for their *teachings* was, in fact, illegal.
That’s hardly a compelling example: the king allows his new religion to be taught to his people. That hardly amounts to a freedom of religious speech.
Jeff G, then you need to explain that to the Church writers who argue that religious freedom was established among the Lamanites in the chapter heading of Alma 23. Effectively, if you are suggesting that the Lamanites and Nephites only allowed the “privilege” (per Alma 30) of being converted to Nephite Christianity, then it isn’t really religious freedom. It is Russia’s current position – you can believe anything you want, just don’t try to convert anyone away from the state religion unless they initiate a discussion themselves.
Of the three proclaimed AntiChrists in the Book of Mormon, none were told that they had broken laws by preaching another religion. Nehor was killed because he’d committed murder, not because he’d initiated priestcraft. Sherem was disciplined by God, Korihor the same. None were excommunicated or received church disciplinary action by the hand of a human. Korihor was bound, brought before leaders, and run out of town by the people of Ammon, just as Alma was bound, brought before leaders, and run out of town by the people of Ammonihah. Neither was breaking civil laws, they just were preaching against the dominant religion of the region.
After Nehor “introduced” priestcraft, others began preaching it as well. There is no indication that they were ever reprimanded for preaching priestcraft, because as long as it was according to their belief the law couldn’t have any hold of them:
Alma 1:16-17 – Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines; and this they did for the sake of riches and honor.
Nevertheless, they durst not lie, if it were known, for fear of the law, for liars were punished; therefore they pretended to preach according to their belief; and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief.
Quote:
“Alma 1:16-17 – Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines; and this they did for the sake of riches and honor.
Nevertheless, they durst not lie, if it were known, for fear of the law, for liars were punished; therefore they pretended to preach according to their belief; and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief.”
The entire priestcraft theme is an interesting one, and one we don’t seem to discuss much any more.
I’m intrigued by the directions people went.
Mary Ann,
You bring up good points. I do want to reemphasize a couple things however: 1) my distinction between belief and preaching, 2) that there was obviously variation across communities as to what was and was no tolerated or “illegal” among them, and 3) that all indications are that Korihor was punished for his preaching, not his beliefs. This type of variation in which religions are tolerated and how much they are tolerates is the historical norms by which we should read documents such as this, rather than projecting our own laws and constitutions back into the past. I simply do not think that you’ve effectively refuted these things
That said, my interpretation does not seem obvious either. I guess there is room for different interpretations. My position is that we should assume premodern practices and laws unless the text specifically says otherwise. Yours seems to be to assume modern (early 19th century?) American practices and laws unless the text specifically says otherwise. I think *this* is the root of much of our disagreement.
On a less related note, I’ve never fully understood what is and is not included under the heading “priestcraft”. Some options would be:
1) Indulgences and other profit-seeking behavior within the church.
2) Striving for distinction, stratification and promotion within the church.
3) Preaching within the church in favor of the profit-motive as Korihor seems to have taught.
4) Endorsing a division of labor, where priests are paid for their work in the same way that humanities professors are paid today.
5) Preaching alternative doctrines within the church for popularity or gain (like some accuse some speakers at Sunstone Symposia or many bloggers of doing).
6) Preaching a different religion/church that they (the preacher) know to be false.
7) Preaching a different religion/church that others know to be false.
Since only (6) and (7) seem relevant to a freedom of religious preaching discussion, I’m guessing you go with those interpretations (Alma 1 gives some support for this). I personally think that (2), (4) and (5) are more relevant based in 2 Nephi 26.
I also think that Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of cultural production is VERY relevant to understanding priestcraft – perhaps to the point where it colors my perception. Here’s my post on the subject if anybody is interested:
http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2016/04/3999/3999/
Sorry, let me rewrite the following sentence:
*This variation with respect 1) which religions are tolerated and 2) how much they are tolerated is actually the historical norm in terms of which we should read documents such as this, rather than projecting our own laws and (largely stable and wide-reaching) constitutions back into the past.*
In other words, a large amount of consistency across time and place on the matter religious toleration is VERY unusual and cannot be assumed within the BoM text.
Jeff G,
I think Mormon and others who had charge of the records (Alma the Younger included) would have been influenced by Nephi’s definition in chapter 26, like you noted: “He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.”
Nephi says it’s people who preach and set *themselves* up as the light. This would include the AntiChrists by nature of them preaching faith in themselves rather than the true “light of the world,” Christ (or telling people to trust in their own abilities per a natural selection gospel rather than God). Any Christian can still fall prey to this temptation, though, when they start getting puffed up – Ammon’s brethren started getting concerned when Ammon was all excited about their tremendous missionary success. They felt he was beginning to cross that line, but he insisted he never meant to glory in himself, rather to give glory to God.
So the “gain” and “profit” a preacher may seek is bigger than money. The intent is the biggest aspect – if someone is preaching for the intent to bring God glory, it is not priestcraft. If a preacher does not believe what they are preaching, they must have some motivation outside honest belief. It doesn’t mean they are necessarily doing it for money. Aiming for popularity and prestige would also qualify as priestcraft. In my experience, people often accuse Mormon dissenters of seeking glory for themselves. Other people will accuse church leaders of seeking gain for themselves (like with Durrant’s ponderize thing, or publications at Deseret Book). All of it would be considered priestcraft if people are acting to bring glory to themselves rather than to God. It’s unfair on either side to assume bad intent, but people do it regardless.
So I can see 1, 2, 3 and 5 as qualifying for priestcraft. #6 and #7 are very slippery definitions that I dislike. Anyone who believes Mormonism to be false could accuse a Mormon of priestcraft per #7, no matter how sincere the Mormon. Anyone who lacks a testimony in the church who serves a teaching calling could be accused of priestcraft under #6. “Knowing” a religion to be true or false is *highly* subjective.
#4 is CES and higher level GAs. My seminary teachers often joked they were guilty of priestcraft by receiving wages for teaching religion. I still think motive should play a big role in defining priestcraft, but early Mormons really wanted to rip into professional ministers, so any professional ministry is understood to qualify, for better or worse.
Mormons historically have often read American ideals into the Book of Mormon. Proclaiming a freedom to believe *and* preach according to those beliefs (Alma 1 and Alma 23) is not just American, though. Romans and Persians tended to have a very lax enforcement of any state religion because of the differing nations they conquered. The Romans didn’t care that Jesus was preaching a different religion, but they definitely cared if Jesus was inciting political revolution.
Based on Alma 1, Alma 23, and Alma 30, there is enough evidence that a declaration of a *form* of religious freedom was established. It only seems logical that the Lamanite version was based on the Nephite law, given the heavy involvement of the Nephite princes on the conversion of the Lamanite monarchy. Several times in the BoM, people try to argue that prophets should be punished for speaking against political leaders or the law (Alma 14 and Helaman 8, for example). It seems important to the Nephites to justify punishment on a legal rather than religious level. A death penalty could only be authorized by civil authority, *not* religious authority (see 3 Nephi 6).
I agree that Americans are very inclined to conflate 1) a freedom of religious belief (like the Jews and Muslims had in Medieval Europe), with 2) a freedom of religious proselyting (like we seek in those countries that missionaries are still not allowed in) and 3) a separation of church and state (of which there are many, varied interpretations to this day).
It may be that some communities in the BoM accepted all three (although I have strong doubts). I simply cannot believe that all the communities in the BoM accepted all three.
It seems like the major factor that led to the most freedom in this regard was when a nation was either 1) an international empire or 2) heavily involved in international trade. Unfortunately, the information on both question is very sparse, indeed.
Maybe a different way of approaching the issue would be whether the BoM is written with an urban or rural mode of living in mind. How big were the BoM cities? How cosmopolitan and trade-oriented were they? What non-christian traditions were there? How diverse were the Christian traditions? And so on. The answers to these question greatly shape how we interpret various “freedoms”.
Jeff, for the most part, we are only talking two communities accepting all three within a very limited time span. The Nephites switching to separation of church and state, Nehor, and Korihor all happened within the lifetime of Alma the Younger. Same with the brief period of time the Lamanites had religious freedom (it was a 14-year mission, so that’s the max for the Lamanite version of religious freedom) – all of the descriptions we rely on for this discussion (Alma 1, Alma 23, Alma 30) were happening within this same generation. You don’t have to believe they accepted this religious freedom for 1,000 years of Nephite/Lamanite history. The entire governing system of judges lasted less than 150 years.
Sherem is the one AntiChrist outside this time period, but Jacob gives us little to go on in his record. Sherem sought out Jacob, though, so it’s different than dealing with Nehor and Korihor 500 years later who were forcefully brought to leaders.
Full-time judges, lawyers, aristocracy – those have always led me to see the city-state of Zarahemla as more urban.