Korihor

[volgadon]

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?

In the case of "genius," those definitions were never lost, even when new ones appeared.

[volgadon]

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?

That is more or less it. Korihor severely limited man's autonomy in regards to will, assigning guidance of man's actions to both external and internal entities. A wretched, fiendish doctrine any way you look at it, but little to do with Social Darwinism. In regards to God's involvement, it would seem that, for Korihor, God assigned the governing of the world to those entities, but the church rebelled against that, going after an "unkown God," thus usurping the role and authority of God's chosen agents.

[WalkerW]

That is more or less it. Korihor severely limited man's autonomy in regards to will, assigning guidance of man's actions to both external and internal entities. A wretched, fiendish doctrine any way you look at it, but little to do with Social Darwinism. In regards to God's involvement, it would seem that, for Korihor, God assigned the governing of the world to those entities, but the church rebelled against that, going after an "unkown God," thus usurping the role and authority of God's chosen agents.

If there is a modern parallel, it would seem closer to the disputes over "free will" within neuroscience if anything. That or hyper Calvinism.

Either way, it has little to do with atheism and even less to do with capitalism or social Darwinism.

Edited July 25, 2012 by WalkerW

[volgadon]

We need more in-depth essays on the various heretics and splinter groups mentioned in the BoM. The more we know about them, the deeper our understanding of the BoM's message will be.

[volgadon]

If there is a modern parallel, it would seem closer to the disputes over "free will" within neuroscience if anything. That or hyper Calvinism.

Either way, it has little to do with atheism and even less to do with capitalism or social Darwinism.

True that.

[volgadon]

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

I've noticed a tendency to go overboard with that idea of the BoM being written for our day. How are we defining our day, as some of the controversies and dangers in Joseph Smith's day aren't factors in our day. Is our day truly this generation only? What of the next generation?

"As the modern man of faith is in the image and likeness of his ancient counterpart," is a problematic statement. Men of faith share a great deal of characteristics through all ages and places, but there are always differences. For example, I'm Israeli, my wife is Ukrainian, and we are currently in the USA. Church has defnitely been a different experience here for both of us. What people emphasise, what examples they share, how they teach, even being assigned conference talks for Sacarament meeting talks, it has been a bit of culture shock. Now, imagine a place AND time vastly different to yours. The differences would increase, even if we believe the same gospel.

[Evangeline]

Volgadon, I get what you're saying. Personally, I'm wary of jumping on ideological bandwagons and I think I tend to look at things critically. If I have latched on to something that is false, usually over time it becomes clear to me.

That said, I had a small revelatory moment when I read that quote. I do depend on the Spirit to guide me and for me that trumps other people's arguments. I felt like God was sending me a message. It was a personal message, something meant for me. I actually feel very reticent talking about it.

I happen to believe that the Book of Mormon was written for our day, but I also believe that the messages we learn from it can be unique to each individual. I believe the revelation that we receive should be in accordance with our own particular stewardship. When we use the Spirit to guide us in our study, those personal messages will be clear to us.

Sorry, that's all I feel like saying right now.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Evangeline

[volgadon]

Volgadon, I get what you're saying. Personally, I'm wary of jumping on ideological bandwagons and I think I tend to look at things critically. If I have latched on to something that is false, usually over time it becomes clear to me.

That said, I had a small revelatory moment when I read that quote. I do depend on the Spirit to guide me and for me that trumps other people's arguments. I felt like God was sending me a message. It was a personal message, something meant for me. I actually feel very reticent talking about it.

I happen to believe that the Book of Mormon was written for our day, but I also believe that the messages we learn from it can be unique to each individual. I believe the revelation that we receive should be in accordance with our own particular stewardship. When we use the Spirit to guide us in our study, those personal messages will be clear to us.

Sorry, that's all I feel like saying right now.

I agree, there is definitely a personal layer of meaning in any text.

[why me]

I think that a good scriptural text is generational. Each generation can relate to what was written in the text. And I think that we find this with the book of mormon. Each generation can see a part of themselves in it. And this is because the book of mormon is a book about the human condition attempting to navigate through life with all its complexities.

[volgadon]

I think that a good scriptural text is generational. Each generation can relate to what was written in the text. And I think that we find this with the book of mormon. Each generation can see a part of themselves in it. And this is because the book of mormon is a book about the human condition attempting to navigate through life with all its complexities.

But it doesn't make Korihor into a social Darwinist and atheist.

[WalkerW]

Mark Allen Wright had this to say about guardian deities and Mesoamerican culture in a personal email:

Certain individuals seem to have had personal "patron gods" that they propitiated throughout their lives, but keep in mind that in Mesoamerican studies the term "god" refers to any "supernatural sentient being", so by that definition there's no distinction between gods and angels (or devils and unclean spirits, for that matter). There is also a class of beings known as way among the Maya or naguales among the Nahuatl that are sometimes referred to as animal spirit companions, but not all of them are animals (and frankly, they are not entirely well understood, at least in the Classic Maya era). If Korihor was steeped in Mesoamerican culture (as I presume he was), it would make perfect sense for him to believe the devil when he appeared to him in the form of an angel, since the Mesoamerican pantheon was both large and fluid; a major god at one city may have been non-existent to their neighbors. In our Judeo-Christian mindset it defies logic that there could be a devil or angels if there is no God, but it makes perfect sense in ancient Mesoamerica.

[ShawFanX]

I've noticed a tendency to go overboard with that idea of the BoM being written for our day.

The contemporary Brethren have never appeared to share this view.

How are we defining our day, as some of the controversies and dangers in Joseph Smith's day aren't factors in our day. Is our day truly this generation only? What of the next generation?

The controversies and dangers in Joseph's day are not particularly relevant to the Book of Mormon's warnings and object lessons for us, in and of themselves, because the Book of Mormon is not a production of Joseph Smith's sociocultural milieu, but that of certain groups of people in the ancient America's many centuries before Joseph. The important thing about the BofM are the patterns and motifs or aspects of modernity that are "after the order" of "the Nehors" and of Korihorism and which are mirrored by similar patterns and tendencies among the ancient Nephites. Those patterns are transcultural and transgenerational, which is why they are so important and why they appear in the Book of Mormon.

Edited July 25, 2012 by ShawFanX

[WalkerW]

The patterns and motifs are important. But taking "for our day" as meaning exact sociocultural parallels is what is problematic and may even cause one to miss the intended pattern and motif.

[volgadon]

The contemporary Brethren have never appeared to share this view.

They have more pressing demands, I would think. If it came down to a choice between someone using anachronistic, presntists readings of the BOM, but applying it in their lives, and someone not reading it at all, I would prefer the former.

The controversies and dangers in Joseph's day are not particularly relevant to the Book of Mormon's warnings and object lessons for us, in and of themselves, because the Book of Mormon is not a production of Joseph Smith's sociocultural milieu, but that of certain groups of people in the ancient America's many centuries before Joseph.

But it was revealed to the world in Joseph's day. If Mormon 8 is taken as scriptural support for the idea of the BoM being written specifically for our day, how can one exclude Joseph's generation and prefer ours.

The important thing about the BofM are the patterns and motifs or aspects of modernity that are "after the order" of "the Nehors" and of Korihorism and which are mirrored by similar patterns and tendencies among the ancient Nephites. Those patterns are transcultural and transgenerational, which is why they are so important and why they appear in the Book of Mormon.

The general patterns are transcultural and transgenerational, but the speicifcs are not. I like what Walker just said about missing the patterns if one tries to read today \into it too much.

[Rivers]

I feel that it is important to realize that this story was recorded by the Nephites and from their perspective. Mormon is likely presenting Korihor's arguments somewhat differently than Korihor understood his own arguments in same manner that FOX news might interpret MSNBC's arguments.

[volgadon]

I feel that it is important to realize that this story was recorded by the Nephites and from their perspective. Mormon is likely presenting Korihor's arguments somewhat differently than Korihor understood his own arguments in same manner that FOX news might interpret MSNBC's arguments.

It is quite possible, I like to look for the other side's POV when reading the BoM, but I suspect that in this case, Korihor's words and much of the information supplied is fairly accurate. I don't see too many of the tell-tale signs of an ancient hatchet-job. The descriptions are fairly restrained, for instance, sexual morality is acribed to Korihor and his supporters, but lurid and sensational details are avoided.

[SamIam]

I've noticed a tendency to go overboard with that idea of the BoM being written for our day. How are we defining our day, as some of the controversies and dangers in Joseph Smith's day aren't factors in our day. Is our day truly this generation only? What of the next generation?

"As the modern man of faith is in the image and likeness of his ancient counterpart," is a problematic statement.

This is one of those thoughts that I have to develop first and then bring it back towards the end to apply it to what you are saying above so please bear with me.

I'm not so sure that there really is an issue from at least one perspective that I have adopted over the years. I observed that some of the most difficult conversations to observe in a Gospel Doctrine class were when an individual had a perspective of understanding that was adequate for them but someone else in the room had an understanding that was equally potentially correct on the same subject but had an exactly opposing sense in its presentation.

One of the first topics I noted this on was the concept of judgement. The predominate statement I hear over and over is that we are not supposed to judge others. The world teaches this side of the discussion as part of its tolerance and open mindedness mentality that it wrests to support tolerating evil behaviors. So it not only is a true principle, but this particular aspect of the principle receives constant overwhelming support from correct application and also from a venue that wants to use the perspective to advantage an unworthy interpretation for their cause. Scripturally it is represented in the multitude of scriptures that state the "point" of judge not lest ye be judged.

However, on the other side of the judgement coin is the material such as is found in Moroni 7. This material that makes the point that "it is given unto you to judge" and then he proceeds to educate on the exact and proper methodology of how to make valid judgements. In fact the major aspect of agency really is very simply that agency was simply the ability to judge between good and evil. Once we have selected one or the other, then the 2 Nephi 2:28-29 conditions take over and you are continually influenced from the perspective that you have chosen and you will remain acted upon by that force indefinitely until you actively choose to take the course of behavior that invites the opposing side to begin to influence you. Over time the dominate influence we prefer will shape us to become righteous or unrighteous as a matter of course.

In a Gospel Doctrine setting, I have noted how when two opposing sides of the conversation are engaged in an opposite sides of a principle discussion that both sides can use scripture to back their claim and both sides can remain adamant that they have a correct perspective. I have further observed that judging by the spirit in the room that both sides are wrong even though ostensibly both sides have a valid interpretation because neither side is making the effort to understand the principle from a perspective of its particular application to the moment of the discussion. They are simply defaulting to the point as they understand it but even when we happen to be right in our point of understanding and apply it the way we know how we are still wrong because accidentally getting it right is inadequate when one seeks true knowledge and comprehension.

I found the response to Russell M. Nelson's talk several years ago on God's love is not unconditional but is instead very conditional to be perfectly consistent with these views I am presenting. Many simply failed to be willing to expand their comprehension of the truth of God's love and preferred to stay locked in a point of understanding that God's love is universal and that he loves all of his children. True indeed and yet Elder Nelson's talk on God's love was reflective of a far more refined and comprehensive understanding of Gods love that many had considered up to that moment in time.

With a complete understanding of the perspective of judgement for instance there is no equivocation that favors one perspective over another but the individual that truly understands is free to apply the principles of judgement perfectly and correctly in each situation that presents itself. This even though from the outside looking in it may appear that yesterday he judged someone this way and the next day it was exactly opposite from the previous days conclusions and yet it is perfectly correct to each moment based on a fullness of understanding. The New Testament is full of these types of events where Christ seems to judge quite differently, depending on the circumstance and people involved.

It is actually this conundrum that fuels the atheists, and those who have given over to a science priority. The Korihors of our experience want to stand upon points of perceived truth, that can in their limited application actually be interpreted as a correct perception for a very limited scope. However, it always fails in the grander fullness of understanding that is typical of the spiritually discerning and full of comprehension. They see the scriptures as full of conflicts in application and from a perspective it is right but when fully understood correctly there is no conflict whatsoever in the differing applications of a principle. For those not grounded in a fullness of understanding the compelling nature of the arguments of the Korihors can take precedence over fullness of understanding by that which seems applicable from time to time.

If we consider the laws of marriage on which Christ commented. In the beginning, there was no place for divorce and it was never intended, but Christ indicates that Moses allowed the institution of divorce to fit the needs of a decadent people and thus reduce the need to sin in an even greater degree by being married and then breaching the covenants with immoral behaviors. They could at least cease to be married and the hope of honorably renewing with another person to keep the covenant the second time would be better than the travesties of immorality that were obviously going to prevail otherwise. Thus Moses with a greater understanding was able to overcome the cultural bias to make a correct and culturally dramatic change to the rules of a people. This is a very significant aspect of correct understanding of a principle.

What I have finally realized is a perspective that I use the term "spectrum's of truth" to define. I realized the principle of opposition in all things also applies to a principle in the gospel and that even within a complete true understanding of a concept was its opposite. So that two people discussing opposing sides of a principle could appear in disagreement when actually they were failing to see they were discussing different sides of the exact same principle. For instance thou shalt not kill is the commandment however in the Nephi / Laban scenario the command is - thou shalt kill. Again, both sides right and both sides potentially wrong. Now, I have come to realize that the only way to truly understand a point of the gospel is to understand the spectrum of implication of meaning that defines the what, when, where of application.

When we stop trying to understand a principle at the point of spiritual significance and insight that was provided at at point of understanding surrounding an event in our lives we usually have grasped the point of application that is suitable for the circumstance in which we needed the guidance. However, it is a limited point of understanding and not the entire spectrum that applies to the principle involved. Therefore the only way to intelligently comprehend a principle of the gospel is to study it out and observe all of the applications and circumstances and nuances of how to apply the principle based on recognizing the circumstances of application.

Back to your point, certain conditions predispose one to view their "points" of understanding in consistent ways for a culture or group of people. These dominant conditions would cause someone who has grown up in a culture, for instance, where one was required to defend their family and lives or where such was a more common composite of their daily existence, might not have the same abhorrence on the taking of a life that someone growing up in a comparatively non-threatening culture might have. However, the cultural expectations really only prescribe a narrow application of the principle and not a fullness of the principle which is able to be molded to suit the true requirements of the moment of application.

The Thai people where I served my mission have an entirely different view of the value of a life based on the Buddhist expectation that we are in a cycle of lives. Thus the cultural bias might enable a Thai person to correctly understand what is required in some instances of defending, as did Moroni, the rights and obligations of the people to protect their families, and possessions and right to worship even after joining the church and realizing that the very common tactic of suicide was the wrong method to exit this life thinking you were going to come back to another chance at a better life. I however, have a very distinct challenge in contemplating killing anyone for any purpose and yet I am of the perspective that I am wrong, based on a fullness of understanding, if it comes down to having to protect the things that Moroni defends as warranting the death of those that would deny specific rights. My Thai friends are LDS and I am LDS. However, we both have a different cultural bias that makes certain points of truth more readily embraced by one side or the other. However, by truly understanding each others positions and the scriptural presentations that defend both perspectives as an individual I can readily determine that the fullness of understanding overwhelms the cultural predisposition to favoring one perspective over another.

However, I am convinced that these distinctions of understanding exist at all levels of people so that even to the point of the Gospel Doctrine class discussion of two different people of same cultural background can fail to see they are in more agreement than personal bias wants to admit.

So what you are describing as a cultural shock to me is really a profound perspective of differing cultural requirements imposing widely distinct interpretations that are correct upon "points" of scriptural interpretation suitable to gain passage through the conditions of your cultural experience. Now you come to another culture and on the surface it appears that since we have differing cultural requirements of interpretation to meet the demands of our cultural experience that we see things differently however they are correct for the points of need of the demands of this environment and thus the conflict in understanding seems to be along radically different understandings. So like a Gospel Doctrine class one culture may debate a point of application that consistently is appropriate for the demands of their originating culture while the other culture is perfectly right for the demands of its cultural environment. However, neither is right because they really do not understand the principle in its fullness. They only grasp the significant aspect that was germane to their existence - an incomplete, potentially dangerous perspective.

What I am positing is that neither cultural perspective represents a fullness of understanding and thus the individuals involved are illustrating more than anything else differing states of ignorance that predominately approach the perspective of an interpretation from the perspective of what is right to "me". I am convinced that if we take a full spectrum approach that strives to embrace the oppositions inherent in every principle of the gospel and understand them completely - for instance, when to kill and when not to kill then we are far more capable of understanding true and correct application of truth independent of the cultural bias that has served to make us appear quite different. Instead we can apply seemingly opposite behaviors perfectly correctly in differing situations because we know, we comprehend, we understand the fullness of the principle and for that cause we understand each other much better.

In other words, I might be able to understand a person of a different culture much better understanding the facets of interpretation that their situation favored. In other words, presentism that is scoped by the limiting factors of "I" and "me" based on my culture and my way of seeing the world will always fall short of what I consider a perfectly acceptable form of presentism that strives to embrace a fullness of understanding. For at the point we embrace a fullness of understanding it ceases to be presentism that is bound by the constraints of a moment in time and it embraces all applications that are suitable across all boundaries of time, culture, people places and things thus it approaches an eternal perspective freely molded to suit the conditions of any time.

Thus your problematic sense of incongruity felt in the statement "As the modern man of faith is in the image and likeness of his ancient counterpart," in my opinion is a p'shat (for those not familiar with the term-foundational or early level) level sense of understanding that is correct and consistent with what you observe. However, I am convinced that as we tackle these incongruities with a desire to address our own sense of conflict and yet strive to comprehend the truth in the other perspective that seems so different from what we are feeling that this is the process of building higher levels of increasingly more whole and complete levels of accurate perceptions that mark a mature and eternal comprehension which embraces much more than a limited presentism mindset will embrace.

Edited July 28, 2012 by SamIam