Lesson 27: Alma 30-31

[pelagius]

Lesson 27: Alma 30-31

Nicer HTML Version

PDF of the Notes

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Adam

I should have chimed in earlier, but an important point to bring out about Korihor is that the only sin he is specificly accused of committing is leading the people into whoredoms.

Not sure I agree so you might need to explain what you mean more fully. I think he gets accused of lots of sins in the narrative. Alma certainly accuses him of lying in several places and the priest in verse 22 accuses him of what I would call sins but maybe you could say they fall under the umbrella of leading the people into whoredoms. In some sense leading the people into whoredoms is a pretty general charge.

Do you mean "sins" as formal charges in the trial ... I'm actually not sure he is accused of any thing in the trial in a formal sense... The law is silent in the whole thing ... this is emphasized by the fact the the judges never speak in the narrative.

Originally Posted by Adam

And he is the great sign seeker of the BofM.

Then you cue TPJS pages 157 and 287 and you have taught nearly everyone something new.

I certainly would not be bothered if someone used those quotes in Sunday school but I would never use them personally. Fortunately, they are not canonized so I can continue to view those statements as misreadings of Matt 12:39. Would those quotes be new info to most people? Yes, I suspect you are right.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Adam

Alma 30:18 could have listed pride or drunkeness or breaking the sabbath or a whole host of other sins, but doesn't. Korihor convinces the women and some men to have sex freely. This is his sin. He then turns around and demands signs.

Well, verse 18 is certainly not the only place that the "sins" of Korihor are mentioned. So it seems too strong to list leading people into whoredoms as his only sin. Its fine to emphasize that sin but it is clearly not "the sin" and I think elevating it to the only sin does damage to the narrative.

Second, it is possible the whoredoms are not about sexual sin. The 1828 webster dictionary lists two definitions for whoredom:

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.

Certainly, the first definition could be what Mormon via Joseph has in mind but the second is also possible. However, I suspect "sexual sin" is actually what is meant here since woman are mentioned as well. If it was about only idolatry then I suspect woman wouldn't have been mentioned. Still, the leading away into whoredoms aspect of the text is a small but important part of the overall narrative (it only becomes dominant be relying on some fairly heavy eisegesis). Note, I am note arguing that it is not important to the narrative. The narrative is clearly worried about the idea that a universalitist theology leads to break down in societies morals.

Originally Posted by Adam

I have found it true in practice too. When I taught people as WML in NYC and they would say they just hadn't been hit over the head yet to know it was true, that they were waiting for some powerful witness--a sign--I would recite to them Matt 12:39 and tell TPJS 287 and ask them about breaking the law of chastity. Without fail, they were.

Certainly you can use the Joseph Smith quote to justify such a notion. Even uncannonized statements by Joseph Smith carry a great deal of weight for most Mormons. But it really is an awful reading of Matt 12:39:

Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Aldulterous is being used here to describe the relationship of a sign seeking people with God. Jesus is clearly using a common OT metaphor often applied to covenant breaking Israel. Its not literally about a whole generation fornicating like they were at woodstock.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't find any other sins he is accused of committing outside of the whoredoms in v. 18.

It seems that the blaspheme of v. 30 is not a crime as defined in v. 7-11 but would probably be a sin. But this and any lying he does before Alma are sins of the moment, during the debate with Alma.

Do you find any other sins he is accused of prior to the sins during the discussion with Alma?

Sure, verse 22. He is accused of perverting the ways of the Lord. That is a more general accussation than leading down into whoredoms but it strikes me as a sin. It certainly includes the whoredom accusation but it is more general than that (as I think the general context suggests). I am not objecting to the sexual sin angle per say (except for the all sign seekers are fornicaters part but I have already noted my objection to that idea). I am objecting to its elevation and exclusion of other themes. I think it is clear there are other important themes.

Also, I think Alma's accusations are relevant. He accuses Korihor of some sins. They are part of the narrative.

This narrative cannot be summarized as "Korihor Goes Wild -> Seeks for Sign. Order now, only 4 Senums" The narrative is far richer than that.

[TripletDaddy]

pelagius, thanks again for posting. always fun to read your lesson notes.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

pelagius, thanks again for posting. always fun to read your lesson notes.

Thanks, DDD. And a thanks to Adam for his comments. I appreciate is efforts in paying attention to the text.