Korihor

[Evangeline]

I love the following website, great for studying!

http://www.gospeldoc...m/bomindex.html

Found a gem:

"One basic limitation of worldly wisdom is its lack of longitudinality and of precious perspective."

Neal A. Maxwell

Tyler, thanks for the link! I found a quote there that really hit me profoundly:

“We did not borrow the Book of Mormon from the ancients; they wrote it to us. We are the audience Mormon ad Moroni addressed as they chose what was to be included in this scriptural record. They told us the story of Korihor because they knew that we would have our Korihors. The Korihor of the Book of Mormon story is but the prototype of our modern anti-Christs. As the modern man of faith is in the image and likeness of his ancient counterpart, believing and testifying of those truths of which the ancients believed and testified, so the modern anti-Christ but echoes the arguments and sophistry used to beguile the souls of men anciently. Invariably, Korihors are articulate and carry with them an air of sophistication. They thrive on controversy, debate, and contention, yet inevitably their popularity rests in their appeal to the carnal nature of man.” (Millet & McConkie, Sustaining and Defending the Faith, p. 96)

One argument that I find particularly insidious is the idea that if I happen to have a more conservative/orthodox viewpoint, then I must be following my leaders blindly and just thinking the way I was told to think.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Evangeline

[Duncan]

Tyler, thanks for the link! I found a quote there that really hit me profoundly:

ya

[why me]

One argument that I find particularly insidious is the idea that if I happen to have a more conservative/orthodox viewpoint, then I must be following my leaders blindly and just thinking the way I was told to think.

Of course, in some cases this can be true but certainly not for all. I do think that members can allow others (GAs) to think for them during general conference, in manuals, firesides etc. However, it is up to you to prove them wrong by thinking independently and critically as seen in your conversations with them. And yet, still be conservative and orthodox in your mormonism.

[why me]

How should we interpret this:

They thrive on controversy, debate, and contention, yet inevitably their popularity rests in their appeal to the carnal nature of man.” (Millet & McConkie, Sustaining and Defending the Faith, p. 96)

Some could claim that such statements stifle debate and controversy in lessons and in conversation with others.

[Storm Rider]

How should we interpret this:

They thrive on controversy, debate, and contention, yet inevitably their popularity rests in their appeal to the carnal nature of man.” (Millet & McConkie, Sustaining and Defending the Faith, p. 96)

Some could claim that such statements stifle debate and controversy in lessons and in conversation with others.

No, I don't think so. This is talking about individuals who focus on creating controversy, debate, and contention. They are not interested in understanding, coming to a knowledge of the truth, or in teaching. Their objective is to cause contention and nothing else.

We see these type of people on this board and in our lives. We may even be this type of person from time to time within our family or with our friends. It is a good thing to search for truth; this type of questioning is easily recognizable. It is just as easy to identify those who seek contention and beware of them. This type of person is doing the work of the evil one and it saddens all that love God.

[ShawFanX]

Sure, but it was the comment of "influence of Darwinism" on Korihor's arguments that gave me pause.

Oh yeah, I see what you mean...

[ShawFanX]

capitalism?

Fail.

[ShawFanX]

To me, an entirely absentee God is tantamount to no God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The deadbeat dad of the Universe. That's the deist's watchmaker god.

Edited July 23, 2012 by ShawFanX

[Duncan]

Fail.

is capitalism a fail? maybe, maybe not

[ShawFanX]

is capitalism a fail? maybe, maybe not

There's no question about that, at least if one has a working understanding of both economics and history.

Edited July 23, 2012 by ShawFanX

[Duncan]

There's no question about that, at least if one has a working understanding of both economics and history.

American politics that is! but not everyone is American

[ShawFanX]

I have no idea what Korihor's views of economics were at all. Based on the scriptural record we have, however, it appears that the closest analogue in contemporary times to his own views might be Ayn Rand's Objectivism (which would cover some of Korihor's severe materialist/rationalist and anti-religious tendencies as well). At the same time, Korihor is a thoroughgoing nihilist/value relativist; he doesn't believe that absolute moral or ethical knowledge, and hence standards and moral boundaries, are possible (and clearly he does not think them desirable).

I find it very interesting, as I have discussed this at length with others before, that Korihor's philosophy, and perhaps more importantly, the implications and potentialities of his philosophy, would fit quite well within the framework of both the contemporary Left as well as what I would term "strong" or "purist" libertarianism. Korihor is not an 18th-21st century collectivist or egalitarian leveler. At the same time, his vision of society, if carried to its ultimate conclusions, are very likely to create the conditions in which that kind of social order could arise, both from below and from the top down.

Similarly, his extreme, atomistic individualism looks a great deal like other aspects of the Left (the non-Hegelian, non-Marxist Left) of the late sixties-early seventies era that arrived in the social and cultural sphere, and I mean here particularly the sexual revolution and youth revolution (the rise of "Apollonian" culture in the late sixties) and Marcuse's concept of "polymorphous perversity." Korihor is, in an ancient setting and as a pattern of anti-Christ, the archetypical postmodernist - a hybrid of patterns, attitudes, values, beliefs, and general perspectives that glorify the free, unrestrained (what Judith Butler would call "self crafting," individual, following Foucault) radically autonomous self that is, in scriptural terms, a "law unto itself."

Interestingly, in the Book of Mormon there is no archetypical character answering to figures that loom large in modernity such as Comte, Saint Simon, Condorcet, the Jacobins, Marx, Lenin, Gramsci, the Frankfurt School, the Fabians and American progressives, and numerous others who's overall concern was collectivist egalitarianism, not unrestrained, amoral individualism. And yet Korihor's vision, if followed and expanded to hold a critical mass of a society under its influence, contains all the necessary seeds to sprout and grow to maturity these very systems, all of which are equally a part of Korihorism, or what might be called Gadiantonism, or the Great and Abominable Church.

Both the collectivist and radical individualist approaches to what it is to be "anti-Christ" contain some similar elements, which I would propose are:

1. Atheism/metaphysical materialism

2. Man is the "measure of all things;" he is his own god, own redeemer, and own savior, if there is to be such.

3. The genius of "the creature" is the core of human felicity and salvation, if there is to be such. In Korihor's system as we have it, it is the radically autonomous and morally self determining individual clawing his way to the top. In collectivist/egalitarian ideologies, it is the organic state and grand liberationist ideologies that also determine that which is moral and that which is not for the collective and in relation to ideological goals, and ground human salvation in politics and materiality.

4. Nihilism/moral relativism. Whatever a man does is right. There is no overarching standard, at least that any human being could know for himself. Korihor is a Nietzschen immoralist. The will to power and the expansion and domination of one's circumstances and of others through that will is all that matters. In a different context but in a similar manner, modernist collectivist systems minimize the individual and absorb him into the collective mass, and his morality is then given to him by the Korihorist state, and by the reigning ideology. The ideology and its representatives in the state determine what is right and wrong, and when.

5. Religion is a scheme and ploy by the dominant classes of society to oppress and control the common person and justify that oppression through appeal to arcane religious laws and norms. This tracks extremely well with virtually all the hybrid forms of modern academic and activist leftism in modern times, from postmodernism to Cultural Marxism to traditional Marxism (base and superstructure theory) to cross-fertilizations of all these. At the same time, another version of this is clearly to be seen in the Objectivist and purist, secularist libertarian tradition, in which religious concerns and the importance of religion and a deeply grounded morality to the viability of a stable, civil social order are dismissed with a wave of the radically individualist hand as "blue nose" prudery and near superstitious concerns with things such as prostitution, drug use, and pornography, which are brushed aside as harmless pastimes that are "nobody's business." and are to be ignored unless they "harm someone else," and are otherwise understood to have no appreciable cultural consequences.

I think all of these tendencies, both overt and potential, can be seen in Korihor's philosophy.

Edited July 23, 2012 by ShawFanX

[ShawFanX]

American politics that is! but not everyone is American

Doesn't matter. I have never discussed the intersection between the gospel and politics in American, European, Asian, or other national terms, but as matters of principle.

[Duncan]

Doesn't matter. I have never discussed the intersection between the gospel and politics in American, European, Asian, or other national terms, but as matters of principle.

that's fine and economics isn't something I have any real interest but i was just commenting on history and economics in the sense that not all countries share the same history-like you can't compare my country of Canada with the US because we just have had different experiences and that's fine

[cdowis]

_{The Grimace, on 22 July 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:}

_{Zarahemla claimed religious freedom. If this was the case, why was Korihor brought before Alma?}

_{The text tells us:}

_{[12] And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people}

_{[20] But behold they were more wise than many of the Nephites; for they took him, and bound him, and carried him before Ammon, who was a high priest over that people.}

_{He had no legal authority but they took him to the head of the church to see if there was anything he could do. Alma did not bind him up.}

[volgadon]

Fail.

Only reason I didn't give him a rep point for that is because the verse isn't about politics.

[Evangeline]

Of course, in some cases this can be true but certainly not for all. I do think that members can allow others (GAs) to think for them during general conference, in manuals, firesides etc. However, it is up to you to prove them wrong by thinking independently and critically as seen in your conversations with them. And yet, still be conservative and orthodox in your mormonism.

Personally, I think there are some (or perhaps many) people in this world who don't have the desire to engage in intellectual debate, and yet, they somehow have wisdom in abundance. They just "know" about what's most important in life and somehow they're able to discern truth from error without having to lean on the wisdom of man. I believe it's a gift from God.

I think they prove the wisdom of their thinking by the ideal way they live their life, not necessarily by how well they can prove their intellectual capabilities.

[Pahoran]

We had the same discussion on Sunday. I mentioned my view that Korihor's teaching actually looks like a foreshadowing of Nietzschean philosophy. Something else that emerged was the rapidity with which the acceptance of his teachings led to sexually promiscuous behaviour.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited July 24, 2012 by Pahoran

[WalkerW]

See David B. Hart, "Christ and Nothing," First Things (Oct. 2003) for a great article on Christianity and nihilism.

[volgadon]

Has anyone considered that there might be more to the terms "creature" and "genius" than a presentist reading reacting to social Darwinism?

I take that as a no.

[volgadon]

Creature might not be entirely obvious at first glance, but it wasn't until the mid-17th century that genius acquired the abstract sense of a character trait, which is how we tend to use it today.

[WalkerW]

Creature might not be entirely obvious at first glance, but it wasn't until the mid-17th century that genius acquired the abstract sense of a character trait, which is how we tend to use it today.

"Genius" (pre-17th century) - guardian deity or spirit

"Creature" (pre-17th century) - anything created

Have anything different, Allen?

[WalkerW]

If taken this way, this seems to place all blame on one's guardian spirit. The "creature" is "managed" by and prospers by his/her "genius." Hence, whatever we do is not a sin. We are simply under the influence of our guiding spirits.

In other words, the devil made me do it.

Thoughts?

Edited July 25, 2012 by WalkerW

[Evangeline]

Just wondering, why would God have Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon using pre-17th century definitions of English words? Does this sort of thing happen elsewhere?

[volgadon]

"Genius" (pre-17th century) - guardian deity or spirit

"Creature" (pre-17th century) - anything created

Have anything different, Allen?

For genius, no. For creature, yes. Creature is a cognate of the Hebrew yetzer. Yetzer is a little ambiguous as it appears in the Bible (cf. Gen 6:5 and 8:21 where it is rendered as 'imagination' in the KJV), it usually means human tendencies, but it can also be understood as an internalised, independent, or semi-independent entity connected with directing the heart.