WalkerW Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 This was the direction I had been going. Yahweh has no power over the creation, thus any of His commandments (and consequently transgressions of them) are irrevelant. 2
volgadon Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Korihor:Now Korihor said unto him: I do not deny the existence of a God, but I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God; and except ye show me a sign, I will not believe. Alma 30:48Darwin:though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."http://en.wikipedia....Religious_viewsAgnostic: "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.." (wikipedia)Both Darwin and Korihor were agnostic, it appears.Korihor admitted that God existed. What he denied is that God was an active, involved force in the world. That is why he demanded a sign as proof of God's involvement.As the great Austrian theologian exclaimed, THERE IS NO BATHROOM! Edited July 23, 2012 by volgadon 2
The Nehor Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Why would it be a presentist reading of Korihor's teachings, of Korihor who preceded Darwin?Was not Darwin mimicking Korihor? Was not Darwin influenced from below as was Korihor who preceded Darwin?Does not The Book of Mormon contains false teachings of the past to warn us of false teachings of today?If that's presentism, or false interpretations of the past, then why the need for the Book of Mormon?I think Darwinism and Social Darwinism (also known as Objectivism) are being confused here. 4
volgadon Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Why would it be a presentist reading of Korihor's teachings, of Korihor who preceded Darwin?Was not Darwin mimicking Korihor? Was not Darwin influenced from below as was Korihor who preceded Darwin?Does not The Book of Mormon contains false teachings of the past to warn us of false teachings of today?If that's presentism, or false interpretations of the past, then why the need for the Book of Mormon?Why don't we look at what the BoM is actually saying, rather than let political hobby-horses drive it? The "written for our day" line, while a true principle (within reason), easily lends itself to out of context prooftexting. 2
WalkerW Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 "Likening the scriptures" with an ancient book "written for our day" = the art of making crap up 3
volgadon Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 "Likening the scriptures" with an ancient book "written for our day" = the art of making crap upI think you get the point across much better.
Calm Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 "Likening the scriptures" with an ancient book "written for our day" = the art of making crap upGot to give you points just for eloquence.
Duncan Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I think you get the point across much better.What is the value of reading scriptures then if it wasn't written for our day like Pres. Benson said or likening the scriptures unto ourselves like Nephi indicated said? hmmm?
Calm Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) I think they are just encouraging people to show a little restraint (well, maybe a lot ) in doing so. We need to remember they were not identical to us. If we start making too many assumption we may actually miss the actual lesson that the author is trying to convey to us. Edited July 23, 2012 by calmoriah 1
volgadon Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 What is the value of reading scriptures then if it wasn't written for our day like Pres. Benson said or likening the scriptures unto ourselves like Nephi indicated said? hmmm?Doesn't mean that we don't have to recontextualise the scripture in order to make it applicable for our circumstances. We can, and should do it, but there is still an original context. In other words, if I want, I could turn Korihor into a tea-partier and use Alma 30 to bash conservatives over the head. I also completely agree with Calmoriah's post on missing the message the author intended for us. 1
wenglund Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 To me, an entirely absentee God is tantamount to no God.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Duncan Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Doesn't mean that we don't have to recontextualise the scripture in order to make it applicable for our circumstances. We can, and should do it, but there is still an original context. In other words, if I want, I could turn Korihor into a tea-partier and use Alma 30 to bash conservatives over the head. I also completely agree with Calmoriah's post on missing the message the author intended for us.DC 10:63 "And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them".I guess finding that the line in wresting them is something we all need to discover for ourselves 3
Bill Hamblin Posted July 23, 2012 Author Posted July 23, 2012 I think the essence is that Korihor is denying the existence of Yahweh as God. He seems to accept Satan and angels (= BOM language used to describe Mesoamerican pagan deities?) 1
why me Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 To me, an entirely absentee God is tantamount to no God.Thanks, -Wade Englund-This could be true. Also we would need to remember that for Korihor to claim that there is no god, would have gotten short notice. It would be much better to claim what he claimed. He would get more of a listen to. And Alma knew this. Korihor was truly a wolve in sheep's clothing.
volgadon Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 To me, an entirely absentee God is tantamount to no God.Thanks, -Wade Englund-That is the point. It is tempting to conflate that with an atheism which denies the existence of God.
volgadon Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I think the essence is that Korihor is denying the existence of Yahweh as God. He seems to accept Satan and angels (= BOM language used to describe Mesoamerican pagan deities?)I'm not sure that he is denying the existence of YHWH, to me it seems more like he is denying YHWH any role or power. That is an interesting thought about angels being a Nephite term for Mesoamerican deities. 1
why me Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I think the essence is that Korihor is denying the existence of Yahweh as God. He seems to accept Satan and angels (= BOM language used to describe Mesoamerican pagan deities?)I think that he is using his words carefully so he can get people on his side. The trick would be to convince people of something to then lead them to something else. Also by asking for a sign shows his true intent. If there is no sign, perhaps there is no god.
why me Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 The problem with this thread is simple: do the critics and antimormons see themselves in korihor? I do believe that some do and if more would read his story again, they would see themselves even more. The fact is there are many different kinds of korihor's among us, each doing their bit to lead people away from the church as korihor attempted to do at the time of alma. And the strategy is the same: to use intellect, to use evidence, and to ask for a sign and to use cunning words to cast doubt. 2
Calm Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I do believe that some do and if more would read his story again, they would see themselves even more. Since they believe that JS or whoever wrote it with them in mind, of course they would.
why me Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Zarahemla claimed religious freedom. If this was the case, why was Korihor brought before Alma?Good question. However, I don't think that religious freedom at that time included what korihor was doing: attempting to lead people away by blasphemy. We also don't know what else he was doing. I don't think that we have his complete story in the book of mormon. But in terms of a religious text, we know that he attempted to lead people away from the church.
why me Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Since they believe that JS or whoever wrote it with them in mind, of course they would. But how do they rationalize it in their mind? It would be interesting to get some diehard critics on this thread to hear what they think. But it seems that they are avoiding it. Edited July 23, 2012 by why me
volgadon Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 And the strategy is the same: to use intellect, to use evidence, and to ask for a sign and to use cunning words to cast doubt.In broad, general terms, I agree with you. However, the gentleman, as they say, is in the details.
tyler90az Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Cancel that Edited July 23, 2012 by tyler90az
tyler90az Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I love the following website, great for studying!http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/bomindex.htmlFound a gem:"One basic limitation of worldly wisdom is its lack of longitudinality and of precious perspective."Neal A. Maxwell 3
why me Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) In broad, general terms, I agree with you. However, the gentleman, as they say, is in the details.I don't think that details are all that different since the end result is the same: to cast doubt in people's minds and offer no alternative. When one thinks about it, one of the worst things that one can do for another is encourage them lose their faith in something that they love. And this is what korihor was doing and this is what many critics do with the lds: help them lose faith and have no replacement for that faith except a freer lifestyle. Edited July 23, 2012 by why me
Recommended Posts