Mormon, Kirohor, and equality:

[pelagius]

Prepping my lesson. But I am intrigued by the following and I thought I would hopeful get your input:
Read Alma 30:7-11:

(7) Now there was no law against a man's belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds. (8) For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve. (9) Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him. (10) But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished. (11) For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man's belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.

Mormon digresses into a discussion of Nephite laws as he begins the Korihor story. I think it is interesting that equality ("for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds") is equated with the ability choose to serve God or not (Joshua 24:15).

• Do you find this surprising?
  
  
• Is equality related in some sense with the ability to choose to serve God or not?
  
  
• Does this definition or aspect of equality have any bearing on the way we read the rest of the Korihor narrative?

Don't have any good answers to these questions so I would thought I would throw this out there separately so it doesn't get swallowed up by the rest of the material

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Prepping my lesson. But I am intrigued by the following and I thought I would hopeful get your input:
Read Alma 30:7-11:



Mormon digresses into a discussion of Nephite laws as he begins the Korihor story. I think it is interesting that equality ("for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to equal grounds") is equated with the ability choose to serve God or not (Joshua 24:15).

• Do you find this surprising?
  
  
• Is equality related in some sense with the ability to choose to serve God or not?
  
  
• Does this definition or aspect of equality have any bearing on the way we read the rest of the Korihor narrative?

Don't have any good answers to these questions so I would thought I would throw this out there separately so it doesn't get swallowed up by the rest of the material

I've always thought it has something to do with the Zoramites and the Rameumpton. Maybe the logic was that through laws on beliefs, you would somehow exacerbate the situation going on with the Zoramites where the religious were putting themselves about the rest? But as I think about it, I'm stretching to find the logic there.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Prepping my lesson. But I am intrigued by the following and I thought I would hopeful get your input:
Read Alma 30:7-11:



Mormon digresses into a discussion of Nephite laws as he begins the Korihor story. I think it is interesting that equality ("for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to equal grounds") is equated with the ability choose to serve God or not (Joshua 24:15).

• Do you find this surprising?
  
  
• Is equality related in some sense with the ability to choose to serve God or not?
  
  
• Does this definition or aspect of equality have any bearing on the way we read the rest of the Korihor narrative?

Don't have any good answers to these questions so I would thought I would throw this out there separately so it doesn't get swallowed up by the rest of the material

I am a little slow, but I am nto sure I get your point. Doesn't the sricpture say that God prohibits a law creating inequality, as opposed to requireng equality in the worshippers?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by creekster

I am a little slow, but I am nto sure I get your point. Doesn't the sricpture say that God prohibits a law creating inequality, as opposed to requireng equality in the worshippers?

Ya, that's more accurate. Its about a law creating inequality (not about ensuring equality).So I would amend my question to why not allowing people to choose Christ or Nephite Universalism would lead to a law that creates inequality?

Sure, I can see why it would be a bad thing to have a law that reduces freedom of religion (particularly given modern sensibilities) but does that necessarily equate to inequality. If it does create an inequality then is the inequality that not everyone is able to choose their optimal or preferred belief system.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I've always thought it has something to do with the Zoramites and the Rameumpton. Maybe the logic was that through laws on beliefs, you would somehow exacerbate the situation going on with the Zoramites where the religious were putting themselves about the rest? But as I think about it, I'm stretching to find the logic there.

I can certainly see parallels to the two situations and I think it is a useful to contrast in general. I actually think that would be a nice way to approach the lesson. The Nephite response to an outsider preaching and the Zoramite response to an outsider preaching.

I wonder, though ... I don't think Nephite law at least as described by Mormon would prohibit what the Zoramites were doing to the poor.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Ya, that's more accurate. Its about a law creating inequality (not about ensuring equality).So I would amend my question to why not allowing people to choose Christ or Nephite Universalism would lead to a law that creates inequality?

Sure, I can see why it would be a bad thing to have a law that reduces freedom of religion (particularly given modern sensibilities) but does that necessarily equate to inequality. If it does create an inequality then is the inequality that not everyone is able to choose their optimal or preferred belief system.

I feel like I'm getting set up here, in light of some of the topics of recent days. Pelagius, you're not trying to do that, are oyu?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by creekster

I feel like I'm getting set up here, in light of some of the topics of recent days. Pelagius, you're not trying to do that, are oyu?

Of course not. I am probably just obtusely missing the point of the verse. I just don't understand the "Now there was no law against a man's belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds."

I don't understand how restrcting beliefs has much to do with equality. Its strikes me as about freedom. If everyone's is restricted in a similar way how is it promoting unequal ground? I must admit I find the verse to be weird. I don't understand the logic.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by creekster

I feel like I'm getting set up here, in light of some of the topics of recent days. Pelagius, you're not trying to do that, are oyu?

I think i got it what you were implying earlier:

1) God say right to choose to serve him or not is important
2). Having people on unequal ground is bad

Therefore, the Nephites must not have a law that targets people like Kohiror. It leads to unequal ground in terms of being on able choose to serve God.

Its is probably the only sensible reading but I don't think its what the text actually says.