There’s a story I once read on the Church’s website that I still think about from time to time. In the story, a high school student was upset that her science teacher expected them to learn about evolution. She went to the teacher distraught about being persecuted for her religious beliefs, bore her testimony, and the teacher told her how much he admired her principled stand. She then felt vindicated and left on cloud nine, thinking that she was right all along. As the kids say, of all the things that never happened, this story never happened the most.
Here’s another story that never sat right with me. In the Book of Mormon, Korihor is fighting against the Christians, but eventually after they physically attack him and bind him and are ready to murder him, he admits that he believed in God all along. Even though he had accused church leaders of deception, he was the deceptive one believing the devil’s carnally pleasing lies. He is then cast out and eventually killed. (Putting the lie the statement that “there was no law against a man’s belief” Alma 30:7). Apparently it’s not illegal to be an atheist, but if people murder you for it you won’t be protected, and besides, being an atheist was just you lying anyway–and who tells people they don’t believe in God but apparently they do believe in devils (?). This story is extremely self-serving and frankly bonkers.
This type of storytelling is particularly prevalent in Christianity, but it applies to many ideological communities. Have you been served videos of repentant MAGA voters by the algorithm like I have? If you are anti-abortion, you may have heard a story of an abortion doctor who had an experience that completely changed his or her perspective and now they are tearfully pro-life.
Are these stories fake? Sometimes, maybe even usually. They are important in terms of validating us psychologically and socially, and they follow a pattern:
“An atheist / scientist / liberal / professor / celebrity looked closely at Christianity and finally admitted that Christians are right.”
The truth of these stories is that they are usually one or more of the following things:
- exaggerated
- selectively edited
- based on rumors
- stripped of nuance
- completely fabricated
The psychological relief they provide to believers are as follows:
- “Our beliefs are intellectually respectable.”
- “Even critics secretly know we’re right.”
- “We are morally vindicated.”
- “Opposition to us is unfair and disingenuous.”
These types of stories are far more psychologically validating than stories about insiders who believe. They illustrate (whether true or not) that:
- outsiders validate the group
- the group is morally heroic
- critics are confused or dishonest
These narratives also include miracle stories, persecution stories, “former atheist” narratives, testimony bearing, near-death experiences, and stories of elite experts (in various fields) affirming faith. The more the affirmation is seen as coming from outsiders, the more valuable it is because it not only bolsters the belief but undercuts the criticism of that belief. While believers may find these stories uplifting and encouraging, they also have some downsides when they are used to:
- avoid engaging serious criticism.
- replace evidence with emotional anecdotes
- shield beliefs from scrutiny
- create the illusion of intellectual victory where none exists
Another story that you may recall in light of this description is the story of Martin Harris bringing Dr. Anton the characters from the gold plates to verify their authenticity as ancient writing, bolstering the value of the Book of Mormon as authentic. In the LDS version of this story, Dr. Anthon affirms that the characters are ancient, but then when he realizes the purpose of the authentification is for an additional book of scripture, he tears up the certificate. You can read more about the story here, but the gist of it is that Dr. Anthon’s version of the story is quite different than the one we all heard in seminary. He claimed on three different occasions that he told Harris the characters were a fraudulent imitation, not authentically ancient, although in one version he said he gave Harris a pity authentification, then took it back. This version most closely resembles the story we’ve heard.
Going back to the story that I started with, I can imagine a situation where a Christian student with a developing teen brain is emotional and upset that she thinks her beliefs conflict with what the science teacher is teaching (nevermind the fact that BYU teaches evolution–another reason this story should not have been on the church’s website!). She approaches the teacher in tears, feeling like she has to defend her beliefs and not understanding the science (and maybe not even the doctrines she’s defending). The teacher, who is trained to support students and help them learn, is kind to her and treats her with dignity and understanding and does not tear down her faith. She still doesn’t have a clue what evolution is, but takes his kindness as validation that she was right. That’s a version of this story that I believe could have happened.
The trick with these types of stories is to determine if they are being told to encourage inquiry or to shut it down (by treating the outsider / critical viewpoint as knowingly in error). When stories become substitutes for evidence or tools to avoid difficult questions, they stop functioning as a testimony and start functioning as ideological insulation.
- Have you heard these types of stories?
- Do you find these types of stories suspect or have you believed them at face value when they supported your viewpoint?
- Can you think of some examples (from any facet of life) of these types of stories?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Algorithms are so very annoying. YouTube has started offering all manner of nonsensical tales about the royal family. I asked google AI why these bizarre conspiracy theory tales exist in the hopes that the algorithm will desist. It hasn’t so far. I’m wondering what I might have viewed that the folks who also view this nonsense might have viewed.
Then there are the crazy sob stories of suffering, which claim to have made national newspapers, and which if true, must surely have done so. Yet a very quick search on google for the news articles in question provides a very small circular group of links of YouTube, Facebook and Instagram and zero actual news articles at all. It infuriates me that harrowing lies are believed, and people’s emotions manipulated like this.
On church publications, which I rarely look at now, I remember a good few years ago being infuriated by an article lauding a girl who gave up her ice skating dreams (I think it was ice skating) because the lessons were going to clash with early morning seminary. Something like that.
Stories that never happened is absolutely a thing. I am struggling with your Korihor, example, though – just from a purely textual basis. If we take the account in its own words, your retelling certainly leaves off a few important details that change the entire tenor of your paragraph:
“Here’s another story that never sat right with me. In the Book of Mormon, Korihor is fighting against the Christians, but eventually after they physically attack him and bind him and are ready to murder him, he admits that he believed in God all along. Even though he had accused church leaders of deception, he was the deceptive one believing the devil’s carnally pleasing lies. He is then cast out and eventually killed. (Putting the lie the statement that “there was no law against a man’s belief” Alma 30:7). Apparently it’s not illegal to be an atheist, but if people murder you for it you won’t be protected, and besides, being an atheist was just you lying anyway–and who tells people they don’t believe in God but apparently they do believe in devils (?). This story is extremely self-serving and frankly bonkers.”
-> where does the account say that the Christians physically attack him before binding him and being ready to murder him?
Verse 20: the people of Ammon basically get him bound and removed from their land. Doesn’t say anything about attacking him, and would seem out of character for the people of Ammon.
Verse 21: in the land of Gideon, again bound and taken to the chief judge and high priest of the land. Doesn’t say anything about attacking.
Verse 29: the Gideon leadership transfers him to Zarahemla, in front of Alma and the chief judge over all the land. Again, nothing about attacking?
Are you really trying to instead assert that any act of binding is by definition an attack aka assault? Such as by an “officer of the law” in their day? Now for my turn in subtext, to me those verses read as though Korihor would have been arrested for their version of “disturbing the peace” or something similar.
-> Where does it say in the account that the Christians were ready to murder him?
Verses 49-50: after the colloquy between Korihor and Alma, Korihor asks for a sign and is struck dumb as the sign. Where here does it suggest anyone wants to murder him? Are you conflating the stories of Korihor and Nehor? Nehor was put to death, but that was because he murdered Gideon, not because of his beliefs …
-> Where does it say that Korihor was murdered for being an athiest?
Verses 56, 58-59: Korihor remains dumb (Alma leaves it up to the Lord whether the curse is taken from him), and is “cast out.” I don’t pretend to understand exactly what that would have meant/operating mechanisms of that culture in that era – cast out for breaking a law? For professing to be an atheist? Or perhaps that is what they did to “dumb” people, kind of like was done with lepers? I have no idea. But even among those options – even the most abhorrent – nothing there suggests an intent to kill him.
As I’m sure you are well aware, Korihor’s death comes at the hands of the Zoramites, NOT the “christians” that bound him to begin with, and that the story likely took this turn as dramatic irony since the perspective of the storyteller would have likely lumped Korihor’s proclamations and the Zoramites’ beliefs in the same/similar bucket. In fact, and this is again MY version of subtext, I believe the tone of the story leads more to the conclusion rendered explicitly elsewhere that those that listen to Satan are eventually abandoned by Satan, NOT that any protections are removed for atheists. In fact, I would suggest that the whole point of the story was to show how completely bonkers it was for someone to believe Satan instead of God – but that is again my flavor of interpretation.
It just seems like a very ill-thought out comparison/example that does not actually support the narrative point you were trying to make in the OP.
HAVING SAID THAT – I cringe when I hear simplistic “faith-promoting” stories at conference that are stripped of all nuance (can you tell yet that I feel like nuance is important???). Giving the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, I can only assume that often it has been done to try and uplift those that are the least sophisticated in their understanding and beliefs; but I think (and have anecdotally observed) they tend to do more harm than good on average in terms of suggesting things should play out a certain way.
For example: I am repeatedly commenting to my wife how I wish speakers in general conference would share more stories where things did NOT play out in the storybook ending way – less of Thomas Monson’s outcomes where the person was asking for him and he got there right before they died, and more of times where someone followed a prompting and it seemingly COMPLETELY failed, nothing changed, or blew up in their face.
A small point in reply to Adam F. I imagine Korihor (a person in the place of Korihor) would tell the story differently than the text in the Book of Mormon. For one example, binding and removing are quiet soft words used by the authorities. Nobody who has been manacled and thrown out uses quiet soft words about what happened to them. To them it’s violence perpetrated on them. In effect this difference speaks to the point of the OP.
To my point—every time I have had the opportunity to hear the other side the story is different. “I didn’t really say that” and “they understood my words the way they wanted to” are common. My personal experience includes being asked “do you believe in God?”, “are you a Christian?”, “are you a Mormon?”, “are you active [church-wise]?” and more. Even though I might say yes to all those question in my mind, in my private deliberations, my now standard out-loud answer is if you are asking then no, not like you’re thinking. That tends to prevent misunderstanding and put a point to the idea that we each tell our own story.
Elder Gene Cook (not to be confused with apostle Quentin Cook) meeting Mick Jagger on a plane, as recounted in his 1988 Ricks College address, has to be exaggerated, selectively edited, stripped of nuance, and/or completely fabricated: https://youtu.be/dh6GNeJEf70?t=1293.
This was the era when Church leaders were preaching hard against current popular music (I remember well—I was a teenager then). Cook claims he asks Jagger about the effects of his music, and Jagger’s response—offered as a “direct quote”—is, “Our music is calculated to drive the kids to sex.”
Right. Sure. LDS leaders were warning that current pop music was designed to get young people to have more sex, and what do you know, Mick Jagger just comes right out and admits that’s been his motive all along. It’s not that he enjoys writing songs. It’s not that he wants to make a lot of money. It’s not that he loves performing in front of huge crowds. Nope. Mick Jagger’s whole purpose in becoming a musician was to get young people to have more sex.
It gets better. Cook then claims Jagger made a scene on the plane attacking the Book of Mormon, but Elder Cook saved the day for the other passengers—who might otherwise have been swayed—by bearing his testimony and calling Jagger to repentance. Right. I’m sure it all went down just like Cook claims.
The message to Ricks College students was clear: you young people who think your Church leaders are out of touch when we tell you current music trends are just trying to get you to have more sex—here’s proof, straight from one of the biggest music stars in the world, that we’ve been right all along.
The irony is that a fair number of Church leaders in their 50s and 60s today probably love the Rolling Stones. Stones songs are almost certainly now played at BYU events without anyone batting an eye.
Adam F—while I appreciate the pushback and added context, I still question the assertion that it wasn’t the “Christians” who killed him. Sure, the Zoramites carried out the stampede, but I think there’s a deeper issue with the label itself. Why are we referring to people who supposedly lived before Jesus of Nazareth as “Christians” at all?
If I understand the term correctly, “Christian” refers to those who identify with Christianity—a religion that, even within the LDS historical framework of the Book of Mormon, does not yet exist at this point in the narrative. It seems like modern readers are retroactively importing later religious categories into the text, which can end up reinforcing conclusions we already want the story to support.
At minimum, I think it’s worth recognizing how much interpretive framing is happening there.
“[M]odern readers are retroactively importing later religious categories into the text” because either Joseph Smith or King Benjamin explicitly invited them to. From Mosiah 5:9:
As for Gene Cook, there are plenty of holes in his story, but one theory I have heard is that the encounter actually happened, but that Jagger was deliberately yanking Cook’s chain with the “drive the kids to sex” thing.
@lastlemming, Jagger yanking Cook’s chain with the “drive the kids to sex” line is entirely plausible. What I doubt is that Cook was naive enough to miss it. Presenting the story as if Jagger said it sincerely is dishonest.
Gene R. Cook showed up at a mission conference with one of his sons, a recent RM, and they both spoke. My mission was likely the most “successful” mission in Europe at the time, but his son–who’d served in Latin America–told us that if we’d just do things like they did them in his mission we’d see similar baptism numbers. Based off that experience I think it’s entirely plausible that Cook Senior is naive.
My personal theory about that story is that it’s unlikely Jagger would be sitting anywhere other than first class, and that Cook was sitting in either economy or business class next to someone who pretended to be Mick Jagger in order to get a reaction. It worked.
Paul Dunn made his General Authority career out of telling stories where the truth was stretched at best. If you listen to a general conference today, they are full of stories about one thing or another with no context. It happened at a time or in a place that is not specified or vaguely referenced. Of course, not all talks are like this, but enough, I think, where members become used to this way of speaking “truth.” I think there is too much risk for the church to just say it like it is directly.
This makes me think of Elder Holland from a few years (jk it was 2017) ago sharing the story about the missionary finding his way-ward brother. Here’s a link talking about it when he retracted the story. https://www.ldsliving.com/elder-holland-withdraws-missionary-story-shares-important-lessons-from-true-version/s/86014
AdamF: ChrisianKimball already answered sufficiently for me on most of your questions, but to clarify: 1) I consider “binding” him to be physically assaulting him. I guarantee you he didn’t just hold his hands out to be shackled because he literally did nothing against the law. 2) he was only bound because the Christians didn’t like him “attacking” (contradicting would be a more accurate term) their beliefs, and what reduced him to the position he ends up in during the story? His being detained and manhandled, right? We can’t take anything else about this story, including his confession, as credible because the things said make no sense in terms of motives and actions. His actions are retold in a way that doesn’t make sense, and the mob’s actions don’t make sense. The story really does remind me of some of the bizarre versions of events being told by the current administration to explain shooting citizens in supposed self-defense or how detainees died in custody or people who were roughed up and released far from home and later died. If he was reduced to begging as a result of being detained by the state (whether indirectly or not), isn’t that an indictment of the state? Where is the duty of care to a person who was unjustly detained? His detention is not justified by anything in the story, and that’s the catalyst that led to his demise.
Todd S, FWIW I was using “Christians” as a direct quote of Hawkgrrrl’s OP, not as any sort of narrative framing of my own.
Hawkgrrrl, I certainly agree that being arrested is by and large not a peaceful affair today, and cannot imagine it was any better in the past. I guess I just found it odd that you would frame the “Christians” as having attacked him THEN bound him – certainly would imply to a lay reader that there was more than just the binding happening there … I guess I’m just reading too closely. But if we are going to take the position that how we tell stories matters or, in other words, the words we choose matter, then your framing of the story certainly suggests an effort to tell it in a way that supports a different viewpoint that must read in a lot of assumptions not conveyed by the story itself.
Indictment of the state? Absolutely. Though from what I’ve read, there really wasn’t much of a state in many ancient governments, including to my understanding the Israelite judges system (which occurred well before Jeremiah’s time), which allegedly would have been what this story’s judges would have been potentially modeled after. But to our modern sensibilities, I’m right with you on that.
AdamF: Regarding there not really being much of a state, that’s perfectly true enough, but the BOM reads as if there were, and the various “states” it describes would be recognizable to the colonist settlers of the US in the 19th C. Your point about me listing physical assault as if it’s separate from binding him was just a wording issue. I don’t see how binding him wasn’t a physical assault, but the story doesn’t specify any other physical assault aside from the binding and then turning him loose to beg in the streets and getting trampled by Zoramites. Still, given the facts it does “report,” the statement that there was no law against anyone’s belief is a stretch at best. Was there no law against detaining people for *not* breaking the law? For reducing them to penury because you don’t like what they believe? For shrugging when they are murdered as a consequence of all these things? Well, anyway, I know you already got that point.
As to my presenteeism in reading this story I think that’s totally fair game on two grounds: 1) the BOM, whatever it claims to be, is clearly not written like any ancient record, and 2) it’s supposedly written “for our day,” so presenteeism is fair game.
Adam, the thing that stands out to me in the Korihor story is that Mormon, assuming we take the text on its own terms as a historical narrative, repeatedly emphasizes before the story even begins that people cannot be punished merely for their beliefs. He goes out of his way to stress that point multiple times. That framing matters because the story then never clearly identifies what Korihor’s actual crime was.
What exactly did he do that justified being bound, expelled, and ultimately silenced? The text never says.
You suggest something like “disturbing the peace,” but that is an inference we have to supply ourselves. The narrative itself doesn’t provide a legal rationale. What it does show is Korihor publicly criticizing religious authority, accusing priests of exploiting the people, and preaching a philosophy centered on self-sufficiency and merit. Whether one agrees with him or not, the tension in the story is obvious: a society that loudly proclaims freedom of belief nevertheless uses institutional power to suppress a dissenter whose ideas threaten the religious order.
That is why the repeated insistence that “there was no law against a man’s belief” feels so rhetorically loaded to me. If belief truly was protected, then Mormon’s refusal to specify the offense becomes conspicuous.
And while I agree I overstated things by saying the Christians were “ready to murder him,” I still think coercion is central to the story. Alma’s arguments themselves do not persuade Korihor. The “fine-tuning” style appeals to creation and order go nowhere. What finally breaks Korihor is not reasoned debate, but the threat and reality of divine power—specifically the curse that leaves him dumb. The story resolves not through persuasion, but through overwhelming force.
That matters because the narrative then retroactively reframes Korihor’s disbelief as dishonesty: he supposedly always knew God existed and was simply deceiving people because Satan deceived him first. In other words, atheism is not presented as a sincere intellectual position, but as rebellion against truths one secretly knows are real. From my perspective, that makes the story feel deeply self-sealing. Disbelief cannot simply be disbelief; it must ultimately reduce to moral corruption or willful deception.
And yes, you are correct that the Zoramites—not the Nephite Christians—are the ones who physically trample Korihor. But even there, the narrative framing matters. Korihor is stripped of social standing, cast out, reduced to begging, and abandoned before his death. The story reads less like a defense of freedom of conscience and more like a cautionary tale about what happens to those who reject the religious system.
That’s ultimately why the story unsettles me. Not because it contains a villainous atheist, but because it presents itself as a society committed to liberty while simultaneously depicting dissent as dangerous, deceptive, and deserving of exclusion
To add another wrinkle to the Korihor account: in my experience, almost everyone, both the Book of Mormon’s critics and its defenders, leave out the single most salient feature of Korihor’s preaching, namely, that “every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime” (Alma 30:17). I hope I don’t need to belabor the point that this is the exact same doctrine of “Beyond Good and Evil”-era Friedrich Nietzsche, “Atlas Shrugged”-era Ayn Rand, present-day Elon Musk, and pretty much all of Silicon Valley today–not to mention the current U.S. President. The bombing of Iran, the kidnapping of Maduro, the saber-rattling over Greenland, the blatant corruption and insider trading, the doubling our already-bloated military spending, and the raping of children by billionaires, are all expressions of this belief that it is strength alone that matters.
That is, Korihor’s doctrine is inherently violent, coercive, threatening, and oppressive. Arguably, the people of Ammon’s binding and expulsion of Korihor was an act of self-defense. They were nipping his vicious philosophy in the bud before it could infect them. (There’s an old saying among Germans: if you have ten people present at a dinner party and one of them is a Nazi, and the other nine don’t kick him out, then you have ten Nazis present.) Given that Nephite society fully bought into Korihor’s philosophy whole-sale within a couple generations, while the Lamanites became the more righteous ones instead, the people of Ammon made the right decision.
Yet the defenders of the Book of Mormon never emphasize vs. 17 when retelling the Korihor story in Sunday School, reducing him to a mere generic “non-believer” in generally, because the vast majority of them–at least if recent voting trends in Utah/Idaho/Arizona are any indication–have fully bought into this same philosophy as well. The Mormon corridor today is a hot-bed of pyramid schemes, Ponzi scams, and some of the most flagrantly dishonest and predatory sales-reps I’ve ever had the misfortune of working with–and it is all the doctrine of Korihor. He ultimately won the day here, as well.
You can still argue that the there’s something that doesn’t add up about the pacifist People of Ammon treating him so roughly, or how anti-climactic it is on a narrative-level that Korihor is defeated not by sound argumentation but only a literal deus ex machina, or even accuse Mormon of editing this tale a little too selectively; but if vs. 17 is an accurate summation of his beliefs, then when Korihor was trampled to death, he was only being treated the same way he wanted to treat everyone else.
JB: That’s a really great point about this story, and I suppose I’ve always read it that those three things are a false equivalence / slippery slope argument against atheism made by believers, but you could read them as a list of separate things. To illustrate:
Pre-condition: Every man fared in life according to the management of the creature. This is written in a fairly ambiguous way that could be interpreted several different ways, but I always took it to mean that supernatural or divine forces are not driving outcomes, rather human effort does (or you could even say that if there is divine interference, it’s BASED on human efforts–which the Church teaches today). Other well-worn aphorisms fit into this same paradigm such as “nothing ventured, nothing gained” or “cheaters never prosper” or “you get out of it what you put into it”
THEREFORE:
1) Every man prospered according to his genius. This could be simple meritocracy, or it could be an Atlas Shrugged / Fountainhead style “I made everything with no help from others so they can’t have any of my stuff”
2) Every man conquered according to his strength. Here we slip into a haves/have nots “might makes right” thought process, particularly with the use of the word “conquer.” As you say, it sounds a whole lot like Trump saying he’s not beholden to the law or anything else to guide his moral reasoning, just his own conscience (which given his conscience is yikes as hell).
3) Whatsoever a man did was no crime. Because this one is ridiculous on its face (would Korihor really think that this was an acceptable way to run a society–it would be mass chaos!), I always took it to be a fallacious version of his real argument, meaning that this is like someone describing what they think atheists think. But it’s totally true that Trump does actually think this way, at least for him and his cronies.
The reason I still see this as a believer making a strawman argument against atheism vs. a Trump-style argument that the rules don’t really matter because you can get away with anything if you just force your will on others and gain enough power is that I concluded that long before Trump was doing all this stuff, and I’ve heard similar ridiculous straw-man arguments against atheism. A former bishop I knew said that because his brother in law became an atheist he cheated on his wife and also if you were an atheist, why wouldn’t you just murder people if you could get away with it. That just goes to the point that many believers (though obviously not all) think that the only thing that makes people be good is belief in eternal punishment & reward, not a moral compass or conscience, and not pro-social behaviors that lead to a happier life and societal flourishing.
So I’m not sure you’ve convinced me, but you have certainly made me think about that with your completely valid alternate view of that passage. I’m only unconvinced because I think both ways of reading that are plausible, not because I think I’m right and you’re wrong.
If I had written this post, I would probably have titled it “Phony Stories That Build Faith.” Sure, some stories are just exaggerated, some are quite exaggerated, and some are entirely made up (phony).
But you and I probably think “PHONY STORIES that build faith,” emphasizing the phoniness, and think its bad because the stories are phony (essentially lies). Whereas LDS leaders read it as “phony stories that BUILD FAITH” so they at least have a good effect — and hey, it’s not like part of a con job or fraud scheme to swindle people out of their money. Well, except for tithing …
Remember the Boyd K. Packer claim that not all truths are useful or faith-promoting? The flip side to that way of thinking is that some lies are useful and faith-promoting.
It’s true, of course, that when Paul H. Dunn’s stories were exposed as exaggerated or simply imagined, it hurt Elder Dunn’s standing in LDS leadership. But it’s not like an apostle ever delivered a General Conference address rebuking the practice or describing Elder Dunn’s actions and the consequences. So it’s bad to tell phony stories and get caught, but even then the Church won’t publicize the wrongdoing or decry the practice. Because it is so useful.
“A former bishop I knew said that because his brother in law became an atheist he cheated on his wife and also if you were an atheist, why wouldn’t you just murder people if you could get away with it.”
I am convinced that when people use this kind of hyperbole (religion is the only thing keeping me from murdering someone), what they’re really saying is “religion is the only thing keeping me from exploring my sexual desires.” If we look around at the world, it’s not hard to find theists killing people in the name of God, but it’s the atheists who tend to live with more sexual freedom. So believers are justifiably concerned that if they left the church, their celibacy or monogamy or sexual identity might go out the window with their faith.
The ironic part is, this Korihor story that conflates atheism with licentiousness was written by a professed prophet who ended up amassing a harem of secret wives. So Korihor the literary character is not only a flimsy strawman but also a projection of Joseph Smith’s shadow self. Defensive storytelling indeed.
I thought of another example from my missionary days. In LeGrand Richards’ “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder”, Richards shares this anecdote from an outsider:
“Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me:”
“‘You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.'”
Here we have an outside expert — a Roman Catholic scholar — putting Mormonism and Catholicism on equal footing. Protestantism is dismissed outright: only Mormonism or Catholicism can be right, and Mormonism’s claim is presented as very compelling. Protestants would obviously reject this framing, but that objection is never addressed. And Mormons have no trouble accepting the half of the argument that flatters them while ignoring the half that doesn’t, so the anecdote ends up confirming an outside expert’s view that Mormonism is the one true religion — even though the expert himself actually believes Catholicism is.
One thing worth noting: Richards quotes Whitney without naming the scholar, and most readers encountering this story (including most young LDS missionaries) never learn the name either. The scholar was Dr. John M. Reiner, identified in Whitney’s autobiography “Through Memory’s Halls” (1930, pp. 222-23) but stripped out by the time the story reached “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder”. The anonymity seems to make the claims in the anecdote stronger–an unnamed “great scholar with a dozen languages at his tongue’s end”–is more impressive than an actual person (who, if named, no one would recognize), which makes the anecdote more impressive.
Kirkstall, I really love your comment that Korihor is a projection of Joseph’s shadow self. That is so true. And while he was writing the Book of Mormon, he was still fighting his shadow self. So, yes, trample it to death. Makes me wonder what the BoM would sound like if Joseph had written it during the Nauvoo period after he had given in to his shadow self.
This has been a fascinating tangent studying the story of Korihor. At first I rolled my eyes about here we go off on a tangent, but the tangent ended up a pretty good study of the story of Korihor as literature, rather than scripture.
Kirkstall: That’s a very insightful psychological observation, and yes, it has often occurred to me that when believers claim atheists would commit all sorts of crimes if there were no divine consequences that it reveals more about their own motives than they intend. I don’t get it at all, honestly. I have never found the concept of the afterlife super motivational either way. There are plenty of consequences to behaviors during this lifetime, the kind of person you are becoming, the relationships you are building, etc. Maybe I’m just not machiavellian enough.
I did a post ages ago about the Ring of Gyges (also the basis for the Ring in the Lord of the Rings). In the story, if you wear this ring, you become invisible and can do whatever you like without detection. It’s a thought experiment from Plato’s Republic. Would you behave in a just way if you had total immunity? Well, we’ve certainly seen that some people would not, and perhaps others would. If so, I guess religion is doing the potential exploiters of immunity a service by keeping their baser instincts in check. Society benefits from that.
Kirkstall — your comment about Theism being treated as the only real foundation for morality reminded me of a bit by comedian Brian Regan about the phrase “crime doesn’t pay.”
The joke works because the phrase unintentionally reveals a strange assumption: that the main reason people avoid crime is simply because it’s a bad financial strategy. The implication is almost, “Well, if crime did pay…” then the moral objection would suddenly become less important. That’s what makes the line funny—it accidentally frames morality as a cost-benefit calculation rather than a genuine ethical conviction.
I think something similar happens in a lot of arguments about atheism and morality. The assumption seems to be that without an “eye in the sky” watching, rewarding, or punishing us, people would have no meaningful reason to act morally at all. But that framing can unintentionally reduce morality to a kind of divine surveillance system: behave because someone is keeping score.
Ironically, that can sound less morally mature, not more. If the primary reason a person refrains from cruelty, dishonesty, or exploitation is fear of punishment or hope for reward, then morality starts to resemble compliance rather than character. Most people—religious or not—would probably like to believe that empathy, conscience, human solidarity, love, and concern for others have value beyond celestial incentives.
None of this means religion cannot deepen or inspire moral behavior. Clearly it can, and for many people it does. But the claim that atheism necessarily collapses morality often says more about how the speaker understands morality than it does about atheists. It can unintentionally imply that absent divine oversight, the only thing holding society together is the cosmic equivalent of security cameras.
I’ve long read the Korihor story in the same way. He doesn’t really seem to do anything wrong other than “leading away many women, and also men [men too!!!???], to commit whoredoms.” (Alma 30:18), so I guess he said it was fine for women to have extramarital sex. Alma 30 reassures us several times that there is freedom of speech and then what happens to Korihor? He gets bound and forced to answer before a few judges who harass him over things he says. Finally Alma works some black magic and curses him dumb. After being struck dumb, the chief judge writes a question to him, which I find curious since I thought he was only made dumb and not deaf as well. After the incident a proclamation was spread throughout the free speech-loving community that is they said the things that Korihor said that the same would happen to them. Korihor is eventually trampled to death. He was a victim of religious oppression.
Brad D: Yeah, and even the “leading away to commit whoredoms” means what exactly? Don’t they make their own choices? It doesn’t say he was raping them or doing human trafficking. It sounds again like some kind of religious hysteria, like people are a “corrupting influence.” I mean, OK, but that doesn’t absolve people from the responsibility for their own actions. The ones committing whoredoms don’t get a pass because he supposedly led them away, right? Seems like a sus excuse like when Ted Bundy got his giggles convincing the religious right that he only killed women because of watching porn, and they nodded their heads and warned their flocks that porn causes you to become a mass murderer.
I don’t know if this is exactly relevant, but I’m throwing it into the discussion. In the KJV, committing whoredoms has both a literal and a figurative meaning. Because the relationship between God and the Israelites is frequently compared to a marriage, committing whoredoms is sometimes pretty clearly referring to following other gods rather than committing sexual sins. I genuinely don’t know how Joseph Smith would have used the phrase. I do think it’s possible that the Book of Mormon is actually just rephrasing the idea that Korihor was leading the people away from God.
Korihor, was a home wrecker–he destroyed families. He knew what he was doing was wrong and yet he did it anyway. And he did it at the incalculable cost of the broken hearts of women and children–and even men in some cases. It was pure evil.
Here’s a reminder from Jacob when (in his day) some of the men were marrying multiple wives and concubines:
“Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. . . For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts. For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts. . . Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.”
Jack: So, obviously you could just as easily replace “Korihor” with “Joseph Smith” in that statement since he instituted secret polygamy and lied to his wife and coerced very young girls (two were 14 years old) into marriages that were not legally binding and offered them no protection or financial security, eliminating their chances for a normal life. Was that your point?
@Jack, a number of people have been honestly engaging with the actual text of Alma 30 here. Based on the text, I think it’s a big stretch to call Korihor a “home wrecker.” Go back and reread the chapter. Korihor taught that there was no God, no Christ, and no need for an atonement; that people should rely on themselves rather than God; that church organization and leadership were wasteful; that following religious teaching was an unnecessary burden; that sin wasn’t defined by God; and so on. The whole chapter catalogs these teachings. Only verse 18 touches on anything sexual: “leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.”
As someone else noted above, the chapter is so devoid of any other reference to sexual sin that “whoredoms” here may well be functioning as a generic synonym for “sins” rather than specifically sexual sin. On the other hand, “whoredoms” usually does carry a sexual meaning, so maybe that’s what Mormon intends. Either way, there is no discussion of homes being wrecked or families torn apart. If you read “whoredoms” as sexual sin, you might infer that some families were harmed, but the text never says so explicitly, and–more importantl–says nothing about how widespread the problem was. It also says nothing about women suffering more than men. If anything, the strange phrasing “women, and also men” could be read to suggest women were involved at a higher rate than men–not necessarily the innocent victims that you suggest they were (and as the text portrayed them in Jacob’s account that you reference).
You then add a long quote from Jacob describing problems several centuries earlier. That’s a different scenario at a different time. In short, the “home wrecker” framing just isn’t supported by what the text of the Korihor account actually says.
Jack, according to the text, Giddonah, the high priest in the land of Gideon, takes issue with Korihor interrupting the rejoicings of the people who believe in Christ and in speaking against the prophecies of the holy prophets. Alma takes issue with Korihor not believing in God or Christ and in Korihor’s accusation that Alma is profiting from preaching. There is no textual evidence that he was directly wrecking families. He simply seemed to be sharing his opinions and upon those opinions “many women, and some men” decided to “commit whoredoms,” however that is to be interpreted. But even if a free love hippie came among the people of Zarahemla, or even if it is to be interpreted that Korihor was telling people to have extramarital sexual relations, wouldn’t he be entitled to his opinions according to the law of the people? Why would binding, exile, and physical impairment be warranted? Why would it be right for that person to be trampled to death?
As a rather staunch social conservative I admit my tendency to view everything with respect to the family. I see the 60s and 70s as essentially a repeat of Korihor’s destructive teachings and methods–though on a much larger scale. The rise of irreligion and the shredding of the family went hand in hand–there are no two ways about it.
That said, I think perhaps one of the reasons as to why Korihor was bound on at least two occasions was because adultery was punishable by law among the Nephites–and there may have been a fear among some folks that his doctrines would encourage infidelity and promiscuity.
That (and that) said, when Mormon says that many women were committing whoredoms–I think he means, “a lot.” And when he goes on to say that men were also committing whoredoms he’s saying, “that’s how out of control the situation was.” Hugh Nibley interpreted the men’s involvement as “men with men” — for the simple reason that women committing whoredoms already implies “men with women.”
All of that said, I think it’s telling that the only problem that Mormon identifies specifically–because of Korihor’s teachings–is sexual promiscuity–that’s it. Of course, when the people “lifted up their heads in their wickedness” that may have had reference to all kinds of unsavory things. Even so, it’s promiscuity that seems to be the central concern. And that was the central problem that led to the shredding of the family during the 60s & 70s–coupled, no doubt, with other less than worthy motives that served as fuel for fire.
I’m kind of fascinated by the general LDS reflex to be like Jack and see condemnations of sexual transgressions everywhere. I’m certainly not going to argue that God tell us that promiscuous sex is okay, but I am frequently surprised when people see such clear messages in ambiguous passages. It’s been pointed out a couple of times that whoredoms does not always apply to sexual sin, and yet Jack is apparently unable to see any other message.
It’s like Alma 39. Alma is condemning Corianton for leaving the ministry to follow a harlot. Alma says twice that Corianton should not have abandoned his ministry to follow a harlot, then says this sin is second only to murder or denying the Holy Ghost. I don’t think it’s very clear whether the sin is abandoning his calling from God or following the harlot, yet I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say the serious sin might be idolatry. When given a choice, we seem to always choose to see sexual sins.
To PWS’s point, I was curious, and started looking up the definition of “whoredom” in several English dictionaries. Here are the 2 definitions from Webster’s 1828 dictionary (1828 is interesting because it reflects the English of Joseph Smith’s day):
1. Lewdness; fornication; practice of unlawful commerce with the other sex. It is applied to either sex, and to any kind of illicit commerce.
2. In Scripture, idolatry; the desertion of the worship of the true God, for the worship of idols.
Alma 30 uses a lot of space to condemn Korihor for teaching people not to believe in God, Christ, the church organization, religious leaders, and religious restrictions. There is no way to know for certain, but given this context, and taking the chapter as a whole, definition #2 seems to fit the rest of this chapter much better than definition #1.
I disagree with Jack when he says it is “telling” that Mormon chooses only to call out whoredoms–sexual promiscuity–as a problem. On the contrary, I think that had Mormon chosen to name problems, we’d find a list of them. Because Mormon didn’t do this, it’s another piece of evidence pointing to “whoredoms” here simply meaning “the desertion of the worship of the true God”, not sexual promiscuity specifically.
Absolutely nowhere in Alma 30 do we find an account of Korihor teaching that adultery is OK. The text is pretty clear that the main problem is that Korihor is teaching people not to believe in God, Christ, the church organization, church leaders, and religious rules. Sure, adultery is one religious rule, but there is simply no evidence in the text to suggest that he was directly telling people that it was OK to commit adultery, nor does that text say that that is why he was bound and taken to be judged multiple times. Jack is adding an awful lot to the story that isn’t in the text, in order to make these claims.
Unfortunately, Jack’s comment is the first claim I can ever recall hearing that the Book of Mormon has explicit statements against homosexuality. The language “women, and also men” is awkward. It is far too much of a stretch to suggest that this is a condemnation of homosexuality. LGBTQ people suffer enough as it is in the Church, so I hope I never hear that theory again.
Jack I’m not disputing the problems of sexual promiscuity. Between STDs and unwanted pregnancies whose father is unknown, it’s a losing scenario, although modern science has enabled safer forms of promiscuity. What I am taking issue with is the idea that not believing in God inherently means sexual promiscuity, (at least promiscuity of the type that would destroy a family), which is what Alma 30 strongly suggests. I also take issue with the idea that women are more to blame for promiscuity, which is also what Alma 30 suggests. Lastly I take issue with Korihor not being free to spread his opinion that God doesn’t exist especially when the law technically allowed him to spread his beliefs.
It should be noted that the divorce rate among atheists is lower than divorce rates among almost all Christian denominations. So I don’t see the connection between godlessness and wrecking the family.
I’m certainly open to the 2nd definition that mountainclimber479 points out–idolatry. We definitely see that sort of usage in the Old Testament. Even so, I think the words of Jacob make it pretty clear that “whoredoms” in the Book of Mormon means fornication, adultery, etc. And there are other passages that seem to use that particular definition as well–as when King Noah’s wicked influence on the people is being described.
That said, I could be wrong about all of this–even so I can’t help but find it curious that in the first verse of the very next chapter we get a description of the next problem that Alma has to deal with–and it’s the leader of the Zoramites causing his people to bow down to dumb idols. Here the BoM seems to make a clear distinction between idolatry and whoredoms. Of course, that’s not to say that there can’t be some overlap between the two–and I think there usually is–I just think it’s interesting how chapters 30 and 31 of Alma seem to be talking about both of them in separate and distinct terms.
Here are a couple of verses from Mosiah 11 about King Noah that I wanted to share:
2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.
6 Yea, and thus they were supported in their laziness, and in their idolatry, and in their whoredoms, by the taxes which king Noah had put upon his people; thus did the people labor exceedingly to support iniquity.
While its possible that these usages might be rhetorical flourishes–as overlapping descriptions–they seem to “ring” more distinctly to me. That is, “their idolatry” and “their whoredoms” seem to be two different things.
Jack – why would it be automatic to assume Alma 31 is making a hard distinction between “whoredoms” and idolatry? It seems more plausible that Alma is continuing to address the very same underlying problem introduced in chapter 30, only now expressed more explicitly through the Zoramites religious behavior.
As you pointed out yourself, “whoredoms” in the Old Testament is frequently covenantal language tied to idolatry. Israel is repeatedly described as “playing the harlot” after other gods. Yet those same texts will also separately use the word “idolatry” or directly mention idols. Using your logic, should we conclude that the Old Testament authors intended those terms to be mutually exclusive categories? Probably not. More likely they are overlapping descriptions of the same spiritual condition viewed from different angles.
“Whoredoms” emphasizes covenant unfaithfulness and spiritual betrayal, while “idolatry” identifies the object or practice itself. They are distinct terms, but not necessarily distinct sins. In fact, the prophetic literature often treats idolatry as the very manifestation of spiritual whoredom.
That is why Alma 31 feels less like a pivot to an unrelated issue and more like a continuation or clarification of the previous chapter’s concerns. Korihor undermines belief and covenant loyalty intellectually, while the Zoramites embody the social and religious outcome of that corruption through prideful worship and false religion. The chapters flow together naturally.
And even if “whoredoms” can sometimes include sexual immorality in the Book of Mormon, that still does not require us to sharply separate it from idolatry. Ancient religious systems regularly intertwined the two concepts anyway. The broader scriptural tradition tends to treat covenant infidelity, false worship, and moral corruption as deeply connected realities rather than neatly isolated categories.
Todd S,
I agree that the terms can have overlapping meaning–and I think it’s possible that such overlapping occurs in the Book of Mormon. Even so, I think it’s hard to get around the clear usage of “whoredom” as referencing sexual immorality in Jacob 2 and Mosiah 11 and other places in the BoM. In fact it seems so clear–to me at least–that it’s almost irrational to interpret it differently in Alma 30. I could be wrong–but it seems to me that the Book of Mormon has it’s own way of expressing itself on certain matters. And that expression doesn’t always line up neatly with the other standard works–a very good and interesting phenomenon, IMO.
Jack—possibly. But at this point, I probably attribute much of the phenomenon you’re pointing out to modern Christianity’s—and especially LDS culture’s—preoccupation with suppressing human sexuality rather than seeking to understand it. While I agree that sexuality can be particularly destructive when misused, I’m not convinced our modern sexual ethic is identical to the one that existed anciently, or even consistently throughout Mormon history.
The New Testament clearly condemns adultery, but it says surprisingly little about “fornication” as we define it today. Anciently, the issue surrounding adultery often had less to do with sex itself and far more to do with economics, inheritance, and patriarchal property structures in which women were largely viewed as belonging to the father or husband. That context matters.
Part of the reason adultery or premarital relations could be described as “next to murder” was because of the devastating social and economic consequences imposed on women. A man could often engage sexually with multiple women and remain socially intact, while a woman labeled “defiled” could lose virtually all standing, security, and value within that system.
That imbalance is visible even in the New Testament story of the woman taken in adultery. Why was only the woman dragged before Jesus? Where was the man? The outrage seemed selective, which says something important about the cultural framework operating underneath the moral language.
None of this is to suggest sexuality can’t be harmful—it absolutely can be. But I think many of the most damaging forms of sexual misuse are often ignored by religious communities because we tend to define sexual ethics in overly legalistic terms. We implicitly suggest that as long as two people possess the correct paperwork—marriage—the relationship is therefore “chaste.” But misuse of sexuality, manipulation, coercion, selfishness, and emotional harm can occur just as readily within marriage as outside of it.
Jack said “adultery was punishable by law among the Nephites,” which sorry to say is going to take me down a rabbit hole. Strap in, folks. I’m not going to dispute that, theoretically anyway, adultery was punishable by law in the BOM. Here’s the thing–there is not a single story of anyone being punished for it, and there are MANY examples of it occuring with no legal, civil or other punishments. As PWS already pointed out, Corianton has no punishment other than a stern talk with his dad who addresses it as an ecclesiastical matter solely. King Noah and his priests commit lots of adultery and “whoredoms” in both the sexual and idolatrous sense, violating the moral laws they are supposed to uphold. There are no legal or civil consequences, and when they are ousted, the priests go on to commit further moral sins by abducting women. Still no legal consequences. The Zoramites (also already mentioned here) commit adultery and immoral acts, and there are no civil or legal penalties to them.
Make of that what you will, but I would hope we can all agree that if adultery is “punishable” but never punished, it’s kind of like it not being seen as that big a deal. The Corianton example was what immediately came to my mind, but there is not a single reference throughout the entire BOM in which adultery is punished by the law, unlike in the Bible (both old and new testaments).
This discussion has been such a fascinating deep dive into the story of Korihor that I actually picked up my Book of Mormon and reread it for the first time in years.
I want to follow the thread of thought that JB introduced when he described Korihor’s teachings: “every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime” (Alma 30:17).”
Verse 17 looks like Alma’s summary of Korihor’s teachings. But when (presumably), Korihor is allowed to argue his own beliefs in verses 23-28 and 31, they aren’t as obviously wicked as verse 17 might suggest.
Korihor accused Giddonah and then Alma of actually doing what Korihor was preaching — the Machiavellian exploitation of others. Korihor accused the priests, specifically Giddonah and Alma, of controlling the people and glutting themselves on the labor of others. The priests are swindling the people and therefore ‘prospering according to their genius.’ Korihor is accusing the priests of hypocrisy — asserting that they’re doing what Korihor is telling everyone else to do. Get ahead by any means necessary.
Several verses are devoted to Korihor’s accusations of priestly profiting off believers. Korihor is angry that the priests are using an unprovable belief in God and the traditions of their fathers to exploit believers. Alma flat out says that isn’t true. Alma says he doesn’t get paid to be a priest and he labors with his own hands. That’s a pretty big factual inconsistency. But based on the rest of Alma’s life, Alma probably wins this one. Nothing Alma says suggests he was ever living a luxurious life.
According to Alma, Korihor is trying a DARVO tactic. Korihor denies that he’s causing any harm, and launches into accusations that it’s the priests who are causing general misery by tricking people into a bunch of religious duties and glutting themselves on the labors of the believers. If Korihor is accurately describing the burden of religion, then he’s trying to liberate people. Alma insists that religion is joyful.
Perhaps the people whom Korihor convinced were the ones suffering under religion. I’ve got to read into the text to assume that some people were relieved to quit believing in their religion, yes. To fully insert myself into this text, I have to admit that Korihor speaking out against the “foolish traditions of your fathers” (Alma 30:23) is something I agree with wholeheartedly. I inherited my religious beliefs from my parents and it was both terrifying and liberating to set those aside.
Korihor also attacks the idea of original sin: “Ye say that this people is a guilty and a fallen people, because of the transgression of a parent. Behold, I say that a child is not guilty because of its parents.” (Alma 30:25). Joseph Smith agrees with that 100% and it even made it an Article of Faith: “We believe that all mankind will be punished for their own sins and not Adam’s transgression.”
In verse 27-28, Korihor accuses the priests of frightening the believers. The believers “durst not look up with boldness” or enjoy their rights and privileges, or make use of that which is their own. The priests have oppressed the believers by convincing them that if they didn’t do everything the priests told them to do, the believers would “offend some unknown being, who they say is God.” Korihor sounds a lot like he’d fit in great here at W&T. How many of us have thrown off the fear of offending God, and the Church’s endless list of things to do?
Korihor’s teachings have some depth. The way Alma tells the story, Korihor attacked the priests in a DARVO type argument. But if Korihor got to tell the story, he’d probably say that Alma was the one using DARVO tactics. He, Korihor, was trying to liberate people from oppressive religious beliefs, and Alma cast him as a villain.
On the topic of whether the “whoredom” referenced in verse 18 was sexual sin or idolatry — Verse 18 is Alma’s summary of the effect of Korihor’s teachings. Once we got Korihor’s words when he was arguing with Giddonah and then Alma, he doesn’t say a word about sex, adultery, fornication, or any other sexual sin. He doesn’t even bring up marriage. He talks only about religious beliefs.
Just want to point out that the book of Alma was written by Mormon who is telling a story about Alma that was originally documented by persons unknown. It is impossible to know the extent to which Mormon is copying large sections word for word out of whatever his source text is, or whether he is completely reformulating the story as he sees fit, or somewhere between those two extremes.
Nothing to add about Korihor, but I’ve seen Maleficent, so there’s a whole other story
But I was delighted when Jack wrote, “That (and that) said, when Mormon says that many women were committing whoredoms–I think he means, “a lot.” And when he goes on to say that men were also committing whoredoms he’s saying, “that’s how out of control the situation was.” Hugh Nibley interpreted the men’s involvement as “men with men” — for the simple reason that women committing whoredoms already implies “men with women.”
So thanks Jack( or Nibley?), Lesbians for the win.
suzanne – great observation! Lesbianism is never condemned as a sin. Or men just ignore women’s sexuality entirely. One of the two.