[Edit]
As a result of some of the comments I’m convinced that my analysis in this essay has some serious flaws.
Read the comments below. [/end edit]
Every four years about this time there is a discussion about Korihor. But as time has passed I’ve seen that the most pertinent part of it all is Korihor and the modern twist on the prosperity gospel.
The old fashioned prosperity gospel was that if you became virtuous it would make you (as an individual) rich. It was the doctrine that you did not have to choose between God or Mammon.
Simply it was that if you worshipped God he would deliver Mammon.
The modern version is that if you are rich, powerful or famous then you are by definition virtuous. That wealth means nothing you do is sinful. Adultery, fraud, and more are all excused by wealth or power.
The interesting thing is that Korihor’s key teaching was that nothing that resulted from money was sinful and all profit came only from merit.
But I think that perhaps we should think more on the temptation it is to believe money justifies all things and that we are entitled to it.
Generally we focus on other things (I did four years ago).
What did you learn studying Korihor this year?
Does money justify everything else?
Wheat & Tares 
I’ve lived in many places around the US as an adult. I’ve never seen more buy-in to the Prosperity Gospel than in our previous Draper, Utah ward on the east bench. I hate to stereotype but the PG mentality was so strong there. It made me wonder how we could possibly explain the many righteous members of the Church who live in less prosperous areas.
I thinks it’s vital that we acknowledge the Lord’s hand in our blessings (financial, health, relationships) and that we express gratitude. But to associate obedience and faithfulness with financial prosperity is a very flawed way to think in my opinion.
Korihor was a hero. There was, according to Alma 30:7, 11 “no law against a man’s belief.” Korihor took that to heart and went about challenging the notions that people could predict the future coming of a Messiah figure, could tell people of things they didn’t see, that prophecy was
a real thing, and that there was an afterlife. He claimed that human success was not attributable to divine intervention. And he claimed that there was no such thing as crime (overkill here) and that people shouldn’t be held accountable for something a parent did. He also criticized the government of corruption and enriching themselves off the labors of the people. In spite of supposed tolerance of free speech in the land of Jershon, a Nephite mob detained him, tied him up, and brought him before the high priest who formally decreed his banishment him from the city. When he went to the land of Gideon, a mob there bound him up and brought him before Giddonah, who attacked and harassed him for speaking out against the prophets. The story of Korihor ends with forced confession under duress. Korihor was nothing more than a victim of Nephite hypocrisy and oppression who paid a price simply for challenging authority and pointing out that the emperor had no clothes. Why Korihor is reviled as a villain is beyond me. You’re free to disagree with Korihor, sure, but how can you keep a straight face saying that you support free speech and open dialogue and in the same breath praise the Nephites for their relentless harassment of Korihor?
It’s hard to think of a single chapter in LDS scripture that leads members to draw more wrong and bad conclusions than Alma 30 and the story of Korihor.
The entire BOM is a diatribe against prosperity gospel (the prosperity cycle that happens over and over, leading to their downfall), and yet it also demonstrates its human inevitability.
Korihor is an incredibly disturbing addition to the BOM for the reasons John lists. He’s a perfect example of the hypocrisy of BOM society, claiming they have religious freedom, then persecuting someone for “blasphemy” when they don’t like how he challenges their thinking.
And the worst part about the Korihor story is the self-serving twist at the end that strains credulity. Alma presents complete non-persuasive “arguments” in the case for God (that “all things testify” that there is a God? Really?) and so Korihor asks for a sign and is struck both deaf and mute. He then confesses that he knew all along that there was a God but he was deceived by a devil in the form of an angel. WHAT??? That’s uhm…ridiculous. We are supposed to believe that a person who claims to be basically a rational atheist is really motivated by a secret belief that he’s on a divine mission from an angel / devil? And that there’s a devil / angel, but no God? It is honestly the dumbest thing I ever read. My belief was always that whoever wrote it (ancient or 19th C) made up that ending to give credibility to their pro-religion argument. If so, epic fail.
So, if Joseph Smith wrote that, it speaks to me of a fractured mind; he finds the rational atheist arguments appealing, doesn’t have good defensive arguments against it, so he just puts it all out there. If it was written by Alma, it seems pretty clear that he has to come up with a supernatural justification and confession that warrant the completely hypocritical treatment of someone whose religious beliefs didn’t match his own, all while they claimed to have freedom of religion (which does seem to be a very American concept–were there a lot of ancient societies with freedom of religion? Did Jerusalem have freedom of religion as a tenet of society when Lehi’s family left?)
Korihor not only preached the prosperity gospel but he taught it in the context of attacking Alma. I think that was outside of what generally was seen as freedom to believe what you wanted as long as you committed no crimes. Note that his followers were free to continue and prosper. It is also worth noting that he endorsed things that were crimes in his preaching.
As for an angel, like Socrates daimonion that he claimed to have, it was quite possible to mix such beings with a denial of any being above them. Consider Diotima or Heraclitus in that context. That there might be anima, but no God, is quite consistent with such a philosophy.
Mormon’s editorial gloss at verse 60 is typical for his other editorial comments.
That said, (John) I”m not praising the Nephites for their response to him. (David) I do think a rejection of the prosperity gospel is the right conclusion to draw. I see things differently than some (Angela), but that makes them consistent with ancient sources I’m familiar with, albeit they don’t mesh well with modern society outside of modern fiction which is quite content to have devils and angels without a God.
It really seems that the society did not know what to do with him. In a similar context see Nehor and his followers. Nehor only gets in trouble when he murders Gideon. It is tempting to think that Korihor really comes across as following in Nehor’s footsteps, but independent of his movement. On closer examination it becomes obvious that Sherem, Nehor and Korihor are each surprisingly different.
All of that said, I think that the rejection of the prosperity gospel is an important point.
Stephen, I have been looking for any record of a crime committed by Korihor or of his attacking Alma. I haven’t found any. Where did I miss it?
Of course, it seems the BoM is very loose with the words “crime” — and “murder,” for that matter. Sometimes it seems to mean “sin” when it says “crime” and “homicide” when it says “murder.”
Wondering—he called Alma and other priests a fraud who was preaching fear in order to get rich off the members.
Not the same attack Nehor made by taking a sword to Gideon, but definitely attacking him.
The crimes he encouraged were adultery and similar things. Not that he participated. In most cultures for most times that would be a crime he was encouraging.
I don’t know the specific legal code they had but it would definitely be a law of Moses crime with criminal penalties.
You are right that we don’t see such things as crimes now. And we don’t treat slander as criminal either.
Stephen, I can’t quite see how Korihor is teaching the prosperity gospel. In fact, if anything, Korihor is accusing Alma and others of spreading the prosperity gospel. and preaching for profit. Here is Alma 30:17, “And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius.” Here he appears to be saying that prosperity isn’t the result of virtue or divine blessing, but simply merit. Korihor is saying that there is no God to bless you with riches. And that if you want riches, you have to work to achieve them.
The worst thing that Korihor appeared to do was, according to Alma 30:18, ” lead away the hearts of many, cause them to lift up their heads in their wickedness” and “lead away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms,” and “tell them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.” It is unclear what this wickedness is supposed to be. By saying that he caused men and women to commit “whoredoms” does he mean have illicit sex? Giddonah’s issue with Korihor was that he told people there was no Christ and that the prophets’ prophecies weren’t true. Alma’s main issue is that Korihor claimed that the high priests and leaders “preached” to “get gain,” which Alma denied, and that he asked for a sign that there was a God. The Nephites seemed to believe that Korihor’s crime was not believing in God and that Jesus Christ would come.
“The modern version is that if you are rich, powerful or famous then you are by definition virtuous. That wealth means nothing you do is sinful. Adultery, fraud, and more are all excused by wealth or power.”
It has been called neo-Calvanism as well, except Calvin explicitly rejected that thesis even if many of his followers embraced it.
Korihor is the Ayn Rand of the BOM. I guess in a way that’s prosperity gospel, specifically that each person is only responsible for his or her own outcomes, not those of the other members of society.
Korihor isn’t saying that the rich and powerful are by definition virtuous. If that were the case, why does he criticize Alma and the high priests for “glutting on the labors of the people?” In essence, he,in spite of saying that “whatsoever a man did was no crime,” accused Alma and other high priests of wrongdoing. So he did believe in a concept of wrong and accused the priestly class of it. It was wrong to make money from religion and wrong to dupe people into following “foolish traditions of fathers.” This causes us to reinterpret what is meant by “crime.” It could be derived from verse 17 that Korihor was saying that since there is no Christ and atonement, there is no sin. And it appears that he regarded illicit sexual relations to be OK and not a sin. But Korihor is clearly concerned with how wealth is made and believes it wrong for people to make money by teaching about God.
It could easily be derived from Korihor’s words the exact opposite of neo-Calvinism. Those making wealth from religion should be questioned and criticized. Even though Alma denies this, that is Korihor’s perception that he and other priests are part of the wealthy class exploiting the people below them.
Throughout the Book of Mormon, there is a recurring theme that if you’re righteous you’ll prosper and if you’re not you’ll perish. Korihor is simply challenging that narrative, saying that wealth and prosperity has nothing to do with maintaining religions traditions and not violating traditional mores. In this sense, he is dead right. Wealth has nothing to do with adhering to traditional moral behaviors.
Now we could also interpret Korihor as being a proto-Ayn Rand and saying that wealth is strictly a product of one’s labor and ingenuity and not other circumstantial factors. The problem with this interpretation is that it ignores the larger backdrop against which Korihor’s story is told. He is introduced as an anti-Christ. Before Alma, the big issue that results in his being “struck dumb” is his denial of the existence of God and the coming of Christ. His accusation against Alma for exploiting the people is of secondary importance and not as much of an issue as his atheism.
So ultimately I can see that there is room to reach an idea that Korihor is preaching a prosperity gospel, but it isn’t immediately clear and within the context seems different from what you’re saying.
John I rather like your reading. It may well be very superior to mine.
Angela C — you make a good point.
I’ve been struck that the Nephites did not bind Korihor up or anything else. That all happened when he went to the people of Ammon. And he was killed by the Nehors/Zoramitess, again a different group.
Though his accusations against Alma were apparently knowingly false. That does affect the narrative.
In case anyone missed it, I think I might well have been wrong in the expansion I made in the original post from my prior post.