Korach and Korihor

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It is ironic that mormons pray for theocratic government to come back when they will probably be shut out if that ever occurs. 

Some do, in any case. It's like cows dreaming for an end to vegetarians.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not that they wouldn't be able to come, but that they would have been asked to shave.  Given Brigham's devotion, I suspect he would have shaved before applying as a student, professor, or staff.  Plus Brigham was beardless when younger according to portraits, so only as an older professor he have been asked to shave.

Christ...he had to have been an observant Jew in many ways or there would have been a lot more complaints about him recorded imo.  So not sure if he would have gone on his way leaving behind a pithy saying or gone ahead and shaved.

What is so ironic is that Brother Brigham's hair is much too long to be acceptable for an LDS missionary -- and the same was true of Pres McKay,

And here he is with early mustache:

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for taking the time to look at this. It would appear Korihor was also a bald-faced liar. 

Excuse my lack of sophistication, but to my musical ears Corihor/Korihor seem related to the names Qar-ḫa-a, and Qa-ri-ḫi. No? Why is Korach not related, if it also means bald, bald head. I’m not sure I understand.

All the names I cited derived from the Semitic root qrḥ mean “bald, bald head.”  That is good enough for word-play (similar sound), but not for etymological derivation of Corihor/Korihor.  We need to account for the -or on the end, and names derived from qrḥ don't give us that.

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What is so ironic is that Brother Brigham's hair is much too long to be acceptable for an LDS missionary -- and the same was true of Pres McKay,

And here he is with early mustache:

Wasn't the current missionary style and BYU grooming standard a reaction to the 60's counter-culture?  My understanding is that Wilkinson wanted to set BYU students apart and created the dress and grooming standards that are still in force today.  Missionary standards soon followed. 

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Wasn't the current missionary style and BYU grooming standard a reaction to the 60's counter-culture?  My understanding is that Wilkinson wanted to set BYU students apart and created the dress and grooming standards that are still in force today.  Missionary standards soon followed. 

That's my understanding too. Although honestly grooming standards had mostly changed back in the 30's through 40's. But codifying them was, as I understand it, a reaction to counterculture from the late 60's onward. Ditto the request to avoid excessive piercings and tattoos by Pres. Hinkley in the 90's as those became popular.

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Wasn't the current missionary style and BYU grooming standard a reaction to the 60's counter-culture?  My understanding is that Wilkinson wanted to set BYU students apart and created the dress and grooming standards that are still in force today.  Missionary standards soon followed. 

I'm no expert on this, but you are probably right.  There was an over reaction to Hippie culture -- so much so that the U. S. Navy banned bell bottom pants, which had been a naval staple for centuries.

[Exiled]

33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'm no expert on this, but you are probably right.  There was an over reaction to Hippie culture -- so much so that the U. S. Navy banned bell bottom pants, which had been a naval staple for centuries.

I remember being afraid of hippies when I was little.  We lived in the San Francisco Bay Area until I was five (1972) and my mother hated the counterculture.  All of the protests really bothered her as she just wanted to raise her young brood in peace.  I don't know if she would admit it today, but beards were a sign of sinfulness to her back then.  I still can't imagine having one today.

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I remember being afraid of hippies when I was little.  We lived in the San Francisco Bay Area until I was five (1972) and my mother hated the counterculture.  All of the protests really bothered her as she just wanted to raise her young brood in peace.  I don't know if she would admit it today, but beards were a sign of sinfulness to her back then.  I still can't imagine having one today.

All I can think of is Cartman and hippie infestations.  (No I've not watched South Park in ages - but that was a funny episode)

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

All I can think of is Cartman and hippie infestations.  (No I've not watched South Park in ages - but that was a funny episode)

Yeah, that was a funny episode for sure.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All the names I cited derived from the Semitic root qrḥ mean “bald, bald head.”  That is good enough for word-play (similar sound), but not for etymological derivation of Corihor/Korihor.  We need to account for the -or on the end, and names derived from qrḥ don't give us that.

Thank you. 

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

It is 2018. Any political meaning that MIGHT have been related to beards disappeared over 50 years ago.  Yet church leaders are still using the university to teach students how to conform to their demands.  No matter how trivial and silly those demands are.  This is outside the realm of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and stepping right in to Pharisee thinking.  Control, control, control.

I was talking about the 1960s when I was a student at BYU.

 

Korihor, Korihor, Korihor.

Quote

Now the high priest’s name was Giddonah. And Korihor said unto him: Because I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words.

Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage. Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true.

And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges.

Yea, they durst not make use of that which is their own lest they should offend their priests, who do yoke them according to their desires, and have brought them to believe, by their traditions and their dreams and their whims and their visions and their pretended mysteries, that they should, if they did not do according to their words, offend some unknown being, who they say is God—a being who never has been seen or known, who neverwas nor ever will be.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

I was talking about the 1960s when I was a student at BYU. Korihor, Korihor, Korihor.

Yeah well, the rules are still there 50 years later.  Not sure what Korihor, Korihor, Korihor is suppose to relate to.   Am I suppose to feel bad because I dare point out how freaking controlling church leaders are?  Was Christ suppose to feel bad when He also pointed out the senselessness of some of the Pharisees rules were?

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yeah well, the rules are still there 50 years later.  Not sure what Korihor, Korihor, Korihor is suppose to relate to.   Am I suppose to feel bad because I dare point out how freaking controlling church leaders are?  Was Christ suppose to feel bad when He also pointed out the senselessness of some of the Pharisees rules were?

I think that Bernard was drawing a parallel between your words and those of Korihor.  It all depends on one's POV.  One the one hand, the establishment may consist of hypocrites who have punctilious, traditional demands, but lack divine authority (as with the HP, Sadducees, and Pharisees in Jesus' day), or actually have that authority (whether Moses, Samuel, or Giddonah and Alma -- Alma 30).  Remember, Jesus also had hard demands to make of his disciples.  Indeed, Jesus' demands were so stringent that they drove the rich young man to leave in sorrow.  Jesus repeatedly demanded performance, and said that men would be judged by their works.  His bottom line was, "go and sin no more."  That leaves little room for any of us to be satisfied or complacent.

King Saul, for example, learned to his sorrow that he could not simply make any old decision.  He had to do it the Lord's way (as communicated by the Lord's chief prophet and seer, Samuel), following the dictum that "obedience is better than sacrifice."  That is why all  young Mormon missionary men (just like Marine recruits) comply with those silly rules.

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think that Bernard was drawing a parallel between your words and those of Korihor.  It all depends on one's POV.  One the one hand, the establishment may consist of hypocrites who have punctilious, traditional demands, but lack divine authority (as with the HP, Sadducees, and Pharisees in Jesus' day), or actually have that authority (whether Moses, Samuel, or Giddonah and Alma -- Alma 30).  Remember, Jesus also had hard demands to make of his disciples.  Indeed, Jesus' demands were so stringent that they drove the rich young man to leave in sorrow.  Jesus repeatedly demanded performance, and said that men would be judged by their works.  His bottom line was, "go and sin no more."  That leaves little room for any of us to be satisfied or complacent.

King Saul, for example, learned to his sorrow that he could not simply make any old decision.  He had to do it the Lord's way (as communicated by the Lord's chief prophet and seer, Samuel), following the dictum that "obedience is better than sacrifice."  That is why all  young Mormon missionary men (just like Marine recruits) comply with those silly rules.

Didn't the Sadducees, and Pharisees in Jesus' day believe they had the same authority to act for God that church leaders have today?

And do you not see a difference in hard teachings that bring one closer to God and silly rules about whether you can grow a beard or how many ear rings you should wear or whether you have a tattoo or whether your shoulder is showing?  The list is pretty long.  I see a big difference between mission rules where a person is officially representing the Church and the kind of thing we have been talking about.

I agree that obedience is an important part of drawing closer to Christ.  But please, there are plenty of commandments that are important to learn the principle of obedience.  These things are just controlling and micromanaging.

[USU78]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

Actually, the old order resulted in the balkanization of mankind into warring tribes. Haven't you read the Old Testament? Without religious pluralism, the LDS Church could have never gotten off the ground.

That's not quite what the message of the Tower was/is:  The order ordained by G-d was usurped/perverted by the decision to commence construction of a great temple that was not built to G-d's glory.  That means outside of and wholly without priesthood authority.  The result of that usurpation was that the people were balkanized.

Indeed, the mis-en-scene at the time Abram arises is a broken, thirsty world where every polity is ruled by a whoremongering murderer constantly at war with all the other whoremongering murderers.  How did the world get that way?  Rebellion against G-d.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Yeah well, the rules are still there 50 years later.  Not sure what Korihor, Korihor, Korihor is suppose to relate to.   Am I suppose to feel bad because I dare point out how freaking controlling church leaders are?  Was Christ suppose to feel bad when He also pointed out the senselessness of some of the Pharisees rules were?

 I don’t think you can justify your attacks on Church leaders by appealing to Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees. This behavior is more akin to Korihor's and Korach's attacks on Alma and Moses. You don’t stand in a place where you can act for Jesus in condemning the Prophets.

The leaders of our Church have nothing to gain from behaving badly as you accuse them.

Edited June 18, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 I don’t think you can justify your attacks on Church leaders by appealing to Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees. This behavior is more akin to Korihor's and Korach's attacks on Alma and Moses. You don’t stand in a place where you can act for Jesus in condemning the Prophets.

The leaders of our Church have nothing to gain from behaving badly as you accuse them.

Tell me what you think the difference is between not allowing a certain number of steps on the Sabbath and not allowing someone to put an extra earring in their ear.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Didn't the Sadducees, and Pharisees in Jesus' day believe they had the same authority to act for God that church leaders have today?

And do you not see a difference in hard teachings that bring one closer to God and silly rules about whether you can grow a beard or how many ear rings you should wear or whether you have a tattoo or whether your shoulder is showing?  The list is pretty long.  I see a big difference between mission rules where a person is officially representing the Church and the kind of thing we have been talking about.

I agree that obedience is an important part of drawing closer to Christ.  But please, there are plenty of commandments that are important to learn the principle of obedience.  These things are just controlling and micromanaging.

That's why I mentioned the POV we each take.  Of course the HP, Sadducees, and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin considered themselves to have divine sanction for each order they gave.  Simililary, at the very same time, the Essenes at Qumran considered themselves to be the righteous priests and interpreters of the Law, and those in control in Jerusalem to be wrong and evil.  Your POV will always determine whom you consider the correct authority.  King Zedekiah and his court held that Jeremiah and Lehi were false prophets.  The Pope in Rome and his Curia consider the Mormon Church to have no authority at all.  Pope Francis is believed by Roman Catholics to hold the sacred keys of Peter, the keys of the kingdom of God, his priesthood to be the true Melchizedek priesthood.  You miss my point entirely if you don't get the relative nature of it all.

A good many of the rules that God gives may seem ridiculous, as with the Jewish rules of Kashrut.  Why should it matter whether we eat pork?  Can't we just ignore that rule, instead of allowing the rabbis to control and micromanage our lives?

Some of the complaints you make are irrelevant and not even applicable to ordinary members in good standing.  Ordinary Mormons can wear beards to the temple, wear tattoos, earrings and noserings, etc.  If, as you admit, mission rules can reasonably be much tighter, why are you claiming micromanagement elsewhere?

[USU78]

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

Tell me what you think the difference is between not allowing a certain number of steps on the Sabbath and not allowing someone to put an extra earring in their ear.

CFR that anybody is subject to discipline over ear piercing.

CFR that anybody has been turned down for a temple recommend because of, discretely, ear piercing.

[california boy]

11 hours ago, USU78 said:

CFR that anybody is subject to discipline over ear piercing.

CFR that anybody has been turned down for a temple recommend because of, discretely, ear piercing.

Problem is, I never claimed that there was church dicipline or denial of temple recommend.  

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That's why I mentioned the POV we each take.  Of course the HP, Sadducees, and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin considered themselves to have divine sanction for each order they gave.  Simililary, at the very same time, the Essenes at Qumran considered themselves to be the righteous priests and interpreters of the Law, and those in control in Jerusalem to be wrong and evil.  Your POV will always determine whom you consider the correct authority.  King Zedekiah and his court held that Jeremiah and Lehi were false prophets.  The Pope in Rome and his Curia consider the Mormon Church to have no authority at all.  Pope Francis is believed by Roman Catholics to hold the sacred keys of Peter, the keys of the kingdom of God, his priesthood to be the true Melchizedek priesthood.  You miss my point entirely if you don't get the relative nature of it all.

A good many of the rules that God gives may seem ridiculous, as with the Jewish rules of Kashrut.  Why should it matter whether we eat pork?  Can't we just ignore that rule, instead of allowing the rabbis to control and micromanage our lives?

Some of the complaints you make are irrelevant and not even applicable to ordinary members in good standing.  Ordinary Mormons can wear beards to the temple, wear tattoos, earrings and noserings, etc.  If, as you admit, mission rules can reasonably be much tighter, why are you claiming micromanagement elsewhere?

I get your point.  And I don't mean to suggest that the Mormon Church is the only church that tries to micromanage its members.  I would say all organized religion do this.  And most churches claim to know the will of God.  Some greater than others.  I guess it is my POV that Christ was saying no to this kind of controlling behavior.  And I will tell you why I think that He brought this up by picking corn on the sabbath or helping your ox.  These kinds of silly rules distract from the gospel message.  Some people may think they are living righteously because "they are not like those that have a tattoo or an extra ear piercing,"  Its gives people a false sense of what it means to striving to be more Christ-like.  To me, Christ was saying that there are far more important things we should be concerned with and these things are a distraction.  And yeah I get that POV is not shared by faithful members.  I am sure they think that this is just another layer in showing devotion to Christ.  I am just presenting a different perspective.  

Thanks for sharing your perspective

Edited June 19, 2018 by california boy

[USU78]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Problem is, I never claimed that there was church dicipline or denial of temple recommend.  

Substanceless hyperbole then. Good to know.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I get your point.  And I don't mean to suggest that the Mormon Church is the only church that tries to micromanage its members.  I would say all organized religion do this.  And most churches claim to know the will of God.  Some greater than others.  I guess it is my POV that Christ was saying no to this kind of controlling behavior.  And I will tell you why I think that He brought this up by picking corn on the sabbath or helping your ox.  These kinds of silly rules distract from the gospel message.  Some people may think they are living righteously because "they are not like those that have a tattoo or an extra ear piercing,"  Its gives people a false sense of what it means to striving to be more Christ-like.  To me, Christ was saying that there are far more important things we should be concerned with and these things are a distraction.

Good summary, and you do seem to get the point.  Jesus can be very refreshing.

6 hours ago, california boy said:

 And yeah I get that POV is not shared by faithful members.  I am sure they think that this is just another layer in showing devotion to Christ.  I am just presenting a different perspective.  ...............

As far as I can tell, faithful Mormons and evangelicals are fully in favor of Jesus' contempt for the NT establishment, even if some of them don't see the irony in  their support of the current satanic political establishment.  I do see a divide there, and the continuing statements of the LDS hierarchy on things like immigration do not give any solace to supporters of the satanic political establishment.  In the end, Nephi & Lehi will be opposed by Laman & Lemuel, no matter how clear the issues seem to us.