Monday, October 13, 2008

Alma 30: Yes, even Korihor had a right to preach, BUT ...

Ironicly several people have tried to use a scripture in Alma to try to prove that the Church is wrong in encourging it's memebers to support Prop 8. Alma:30 (7-11)

7 Now there was no law against 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.

Okay this all sounds good. BUT the thing here is that this scripture is outlying the rights of Korihor (an anti-christ)who was preaching that there was no God and that people who followed commandments were foolish.

"18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof."

What this scripture says is that, yes, Korihor had every right in the world to preach what he wanted to and believe what he wanted to even if it was wrong. But that didn't mean that if man followed him that while they may not be judged on Earth for their actions, they still faced the wrath of God. Look at what happened to him.

What more if you follow this scripture to the conclusion you find that the church was doing exactly what the church is doing today in preaching against such spiritual deadly doctrine. The fate of Korihor for example is enough evidence of why we shouldn't question God.

I really don't think that anyone who has a testimony in the restored gospel would want to use this an example for justifying anything they do judging from what happened next.

Interestingly enough there was a law and punishment for adultery. I doubt you want to get into a discussion over that.

I would challenge anyone to read the rest of the chapter to see what happens next. Those who oppose Prop 8 are good at accusing the church of using half truths and such to scare you into voting. I think its ironic that they would use this scripture, taken out of contaxt, about a man who is doing exactly the same thing as a lot of those who would have us go against the council of the living prophets is doing today. And of course I'm sure once they read this they will then start to complain that I'm intolarant. Its the same one note tune.

What it comes down to is pretty simple. Let's put ourselves in the feet of those who were asked to board the ark. To follow Moses into the wilderness, to follow Lehi and his family, to leave Sodom and Gomorrah. All those people had a choice to follow the Prophet or not. Those who did, while it may have been rough were blessed. Those who didn't had no promise of blessings or protection and eventually paid for their disobedience. This is the same today. I don't know how to be anymore clear other then to say that the Prophet of God has asked us to act. It's now up to us to gather the strength to follow.

5 comments:

Scott said...

Yes, this scripture is used to explain why they could not legally keep Korihor from believing and preaching what he wanted to.

But that's really beside the point. The people of Nephi felt that religious liberty was important, and they created laws that ensured that nobody would be punished for their beliefs, but that all (whether they were members of the Church or not) would be on "equal grounds".

In this particular instance, an individual exercised freedom to preach falsehoods, but that doesn't mean that everyone who exercises the right to follow their own conscience is wicked. Or do you believe that everyone who believes or preaches doctrine that differs from ours is an antichrist?

Furthermore, the Church was not doing what the Church is doing today. They were teaching correct doctrine to counter the damage that Korihor was doing, but they were not attempting to pass laws that would remove his right to believe and preach what he wanted to, or to punish him for his beliefs.

A CROW'S VIEW said...

Scott, I'll just say it out right. Are you a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and do you sustain the prophet as a prophet seer and revaltor, not just for the church but for the whole world? I think what it comes down to is you know the doctrine enough to argue your points but not enough to believe it. It can only save us if we believe it otherwise it means nothing.

BigRedHammer said...

"I really don't think that anyone who has a testimony in the restored gospel would want to use this an example for justifying anything they do judging from what happened next."

What you're really saying is that anyone who uses the scriptures and comes to a different conclusion than yourself doesn't have a testimony.

To my knowledge, voting and believing in Proposition 8 is not on the temple recommend interview. That means believing it is wrong or that the Church shouldn't be in the political arena isn't a sin.

The Church is trying to restrict American citizen's rights. The Church only has authority to restrict its members' rights. There is nothing wrong with taking a stand on moral issues. But when the Church joined the coalition to stop gay marriage it took a risky step. It will bite back.

--LT

Z i n j said...

Crow's view...you have opened a delicate topic. Is it OK to struggle with a perceived church dictate? I didn't hear much in conference directed this way. Does struggle mean compliance? Huge B. Brown was always trying to be the church's conscience. He often struggled with the strict conservatives. He was in the end set aside. His talks on this subject however are immortal. Is he today's prophet? No!!... but I still think we have a choice here. I like what Scrum had to say >>>

http://scrumcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/from-black-white-to-mostly-gray-and-im.html

thanks for sharing your perspective.

emily said...

crow--
this is an excellent post, and an excellent post.

sometimes i think i'm living in the mad-hatters house.

lds people are very confused on this issue. they don't see our responsibility to direct public policy for good.

this amendment is not about equality. it really has nothing to do with equality. it is about naming a relationship.

thanks for your courage.