|
|
Alma 30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Behold, now it came to pass that after the people of Ammon were established in the land of Jershon, yea, and also after the Lamanites were driven out of the land, and their dead were buried by the people of the land—
While it might appear that chapter 28 is a beginning, it should be remembered that it was not a chapter break in the 1830 edition, and therefore not a chapter break in Mormon’s redaction. What we can say is that Mormon began a historical line, interrupted it, and is now returning to that earlier point. The historical narrative was interrupted by Alma’s soliloquy, and now Mormon must pick up the thread of this history. What we return to is the sad result of the great battle of the fifteenth year of the reign of the judges (Alma 28:2-7).
2 Now their dead were not numbered because of the greatness of their numbers; neither were the dead of the Nephites numbered—but it came to pass after they had buried their dead, and also after the days of fasting, and mourning, and prayer, (and it was in the sixteenth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi) there began to be continual peace throughout all the land.
The second piece of information concerns the burial and burial rites for the fallen Nephites. Mormon includes two facets of this burial. First is the fact of the burial, and the second is the social effect of the burial. For the Nephites, it appears that the rites of burial were accompanied by certain rituals. All we know of them is that they included fasting, mourning, prayer, and multiple days. While we cannot know how much of the Old World culture remained in the New World Nephite burial customs, it is still instructive to have an insight into a comparison with those Old World traits: “One marked feature of Oriental mourning is what may be called its studies publicity and the careful observance of the prescribed ceremonies. Genesis 23:2; Job 1:20; Job 2:12; 1. Among the particular forms observed the following may be mentioned: (a) Rending the clothes. Genesis 37:29, 34; Genesis 44:13; etc. (b) Dressing in sackcloth. Genesis 37:34; 2 Samuel 3:31; 2 Samuel 21:10; etc. (c) Ashes, dust or earth sprinkled on the person. 2 Samuel 13:19; 2 Samuel 15:32; etc. (d) Black or sad-colored garments. 2 Samuel 14:2; Jeremiah 8:21; etc. (e) Removal of ornaments or neglect of person. Deuteronomy 21:12, 13; etc. (f) Shaving the head, plucking out the hair of the head or beard. Leviticus 10:6; 2 Samuel 19:24; etc. (g) Laying bare some part of the body. Isaiah 20:2; Isaiah 47:2; etc. (h) Fasting or abstinence in meat and drink. 2 Samuel 1:12; 2 Samuel 3:35; 2 Samuel 12:16, 22; etc. (i) In the same direction may be mentioned diminution in offerings to God, and prohibition to partake of sacrificial food. Leviticus 7:20; Deuteronomy 26:14; (k) Covering the "upper lip," i.e. the lower part of the face, and sometimes the head, in token of silence. Leviticus 13:45; 2 Samuel 15:30; 2 Samuel 19:4; (l) Cutting the flesh, Jeremiah 16:6, 7; Jeremiah 41:5; beating the body. Ezekiel 21:12; Jeremiah 31:19; (m) Employment of persons hired for the purpose of mourning. Ecclesiastes 12:5 Jeremiah 9:17; Amos 5:16; Matthew 9:23; (n) Akin to the foregoing usage the custom for friends or passers-by to join in the lamentations of bereaved or afflicted persons. Genesis 50:3; Judges 11:40; Job 2:11; Job 30:25; etc. (o) The sitting or lying posture in silence indicative of grief. Genesis 23:3; Judges 20:26; etc. (p) Mourning feast and cup of consolation. Jeremiah 16:7, 8; 2. The period of mourning varied. In the case of Jacob it was seventy days, Genesis 50:3; of Aaron, Numbers 20:29; and Moses, Deuteronomy 34:8 thirty. A further period of seven days in Jacob's case. Genesis 50:10; Seven days for Saul, which may have been an abridged period in the time of national danger. 1 Samuel 31:13; With the practices above mentioned, Oriental and other customs, ancient and modern, in great measure agree.” (“Mourning.” Dictionary of the Bible, William Smith .) The Nephite practices overlap those of the Old World in the fasting and prayer, and in the multiple days assigned to the mourning period. While we do not know whether or not there were specific visible signs of mourning, it would not be surprising if these were not also present among the Nephites. When Mormon lists mourning as one of the aspects of the period following the burial, we may assume that, for him, mourning included certain visible (and perhaps audible) traits. The last piece of information in this verse is that “there began to be continual peace…” The phrase “continual peace” is characteristic of Mormon’s redaction, and is not found in the small plate material in the Book of Mormon. While the general meaning is obvious, the duration of “continual” changes dramatically. For instance, in Mosiah 19:29, Limhi has “continual peace” for only two years. In this verse we have continual peace assigned to the sixteenth year of the reign of the judges. In verse 5 we will see that the seventeeth year also gives us “continual peace.” We may therefore assume that this is a term that Mormon applies to year periods, and that it is used when there is a lack of armed battle, or of internal contention. Either of those two elements will disrupt the peace, and Mormon sees them as equally threatening. We have just ended the fifteenth year of the reign of the judges with a terrible war. There will then be two years of peace, and the next event that Mormon will list that disturbs that peace is the arrival of Korihor (verse 6). For Mormon, Korihor is a disruption of peace just as was a war.
3 Yea, and the people did observe to keep the commandments of the Lord; and they were strict in observing the ordinances of God, according to the law of Moses; for they were taught to keep the law of Moses until it should be fulfilled.
The second possibility is that this verse looks back to the mourning rites for the dead. Certainly there would have been ritual associated with the burial of so many, and the statement that they obeyed the law of Moses might be seen as applying to the burial of the slain rather. Thus there may have been a greater tie between the Old World funeral customs listed above and the those of the Nephites, even though we have so little of them in the text.
4 And thus the people did have no disturbance in all the sixteenth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi. Alma 30:5 5 And it came to pass that in the commencement of the seventeenth year of the reign of the judges, there was continual peace.
Chronology: The seventeenth year of the judges would correlate to approximately 77 BC in the correlation being used in this commentary.
6 But it came to pass in the latter end of the seventeenth year, there came a man into the land of Zarahemla, and he was Anti-Christ, for he began to preach unto the people against the prophecies which had been spoken by the prophets, concerning the coming of Christ.
“By Joseph Smith’s day the idea of an antichrist had evolved into the idea of an Anti-Christ. The word antichrist is the Bible term for the false teachers in the Church who taught a false Christ instead of a true Christ. the Greek preposition anti, roughly translated, means instead of. It also carries the meaning of "face to face" or mirror image. The image in the mirror, looking back at you, is face to face with you. It looks like you. Yet it has no substance. It is a counterfeit of you, in a sense. It only appears to be you. So when John in his epistles spoke of antichrists, he was speaking of the belief of the Gnostics that God is a substanceless spirit rather than a resurrected being. (See 1 Jn. 2:18-22; 1 Jn. 4:1-3; 2 Jn. 1:7.) Such a god is like the image in the mirror--really nothing, a counterfeit. Through the centuries thereafter, the term antichrist became Anti-Christ, and by Joseph Smith’s day it referred to those who opposed Christ.” (Glenn L. Pearson and Reid E. Bankhead, Building Faith with the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1986], 74 - 75.) In the case of Korihor, we appear to have someone who most clearly fits the definition of one “who opposed Christ” that will be the centerpiece of the theological conflict between Korihor and Alma. Another well organized mode of thought that was Anti-Christ was the order of Nehor. Korihor does not appear to be associated with the order of Nehor, even though he shares a denial of the Atoning Messiah with them. Korihor’s denials appear to extend even further, however, and Korihor may not have been a believer in any of the traditions of the Nephites, including the law of Moses. It is quite possible that Korihor has accepted one of the religions of the land, and therefore comes to combat against the entire Nephite religio-political spectrum.
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. Alma 30:8 8 For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.
The second piece of information is that the law of the land was related to a scriptural basis. We do not know whether or not this justification by scripture (referring to Joshua 24:15) was part of the Nephite codification of law, or whether or not it is an interpretation by Mormon. Regardless, the idea that scripture might serve as the basis for civil law is certainly permitted by Mormon’s culture, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that it would have similarly been available to Alma, and to Mosiah (deemed the lawgiver – see Alma 11:1 as an example). The method of creating a scriptural basis for the law is interesting. The scriptural text defines a specific instance where a prophet declared that others had a right to choose. That right was not legalistic, but rather pragmatic in the episode in Judges. Nevertheless, the principle of choice was selected from that text, and the pragmatic principle was expanded to a legal principle. The law is both an expansion and formalization of the scriptural episode. A single episode becomes a model, and then a formal, legal model for social actions. This is by no means an unusual way of formulating law. For instance, we find the following in the Dead Sea Scrolls: 4Q271 Frag. 1 Col. 1 '[...] with silver [. . .] [. . .] and the year of [jubilee] shall arrive [. . . ] [. . . ] no one should abandon [. . .] [. . .] for it an abhorrent thing; and the verse that says [. . . . . . "if you buy from] your neighbor, do not defraud him" (Lev. 25:14). Now this is the meaning [. . . ] [. . . he must be frank about] all that he is aware of that is found [in whatever he is selling;] [if there is a fault in it] and he is aware of it, he is cheating him, whether it is human or animal. And if [. . .] to betroth, he shall tell him about all her defects, lest he bring upon himself the judgment of [the curse, which says, "Cursed] is he who leads the blind astray on the road" (Deut. 27:18). Moreover, he should not give her to someone who is not proper for her, for this [is a case of 'forbidden mixtures" . . . like plowing with] an ox and ass, or clothing made of wool and flax together. (Wise, Abegg, and Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls. A New Translation._ HarperSanFrancisco, 1996, p. 63). In particular, note the expansion of the meaning of Deuteronomy 27:18. The writer of this particular scroll is basing regulation on statements from scripture, and applying the scripture in new contexts for new laws, precisely the process we see in this Book of Mormon text.
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. Alma 30:10 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. Alma 30:11 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.
Legal: We saw that Mormon was able to see a basis for Nephite law in brass plate scripture (verse 8). This general explanation of the nature of Nephite law might also have found its legal precedent in the law of Moses. The law of Moses focused on the actions performed by a man, and proscribed those actions. While there might have been a presumption that the thought would precede the action, and that the thought ought to be regulated as well, this was not explicit in the law. The law of Moses focused on the act of adultery, not upon the lust that might lead to it (this shift in location of emphasis is one of the major themes of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, which will be discussed as part of that chapter). The Nephite laws are described precisely in terms of the separation of thought and action. The law proscribed actions, and not the thoughts that might lead to those actions. While this might appear to be a reasonable distinction, it was nevertheless important enough that Mormon would note it. The previous reference to scripture as the basis for Mosiah’s laws and the correspondence of these ideas to the general structure of the Mosaic laws strongly suggest that Mosiah turned to scripture when formulating his legal system.
12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:
‘This is the Memphite Theology or the Shabako Stone. I think it was Breasted's greatest achievement to discover the importance of this. If you want to know about it, read Breasted's book called The Origins of Religion (of course, it's long out of date now; 1912). I say this is the oldest book in the world, and what a religious document it is. Do you expect this to be primitive mumbo jumbo, a lot of hocus pocus, wonders, and miracles, etc.? Ah, just wait. Shabako was the third king of the twenty-fifth dynasty. Interesting relationships to the Book of Mormon here. His name means "wild cat," and he came to the throne about 716 B.C. You say is this the oldest in the world. Ah, just wait. The twenty-fifth dynasty was founded by Kashta, and then his son was Piankhi. It's very funny. The twenty-first dynasty was founded by a person called Korihor whose son was Piankhi. That's a very funny name; you don't invent a thing like that. It wasn't discovered until the 1870s that Piankhi is a name that we have in the Book of Mormon. Korihor was a priest of Amon who usurped the power of the state. His son Piankhi became king. (Hugh Nibley, Ancient Documents and the Pearl of Great Price, edited by Robert Smith and Robert Smythe [n.p., n.d.], 11.) The presence of the Korihor name on an Egyptian text is intriguing, and would complicate our understanding of Korihor’s cultural associations. Were we to take Sorenson’s assumption of Jaredite origin, we would have Korihor as a possible descendant of the Mulekites who sojourned in Jaredite territories, and would therefore have retained the name their Jaredite ties. Korihor as an Egyptian name would appear to require that we have a different take on the nationality of Korihor. While he might still be of Mulekite descent, the transmission lines of the name would have to be different. There is little to suggest that a royal line from Israel would carry an Egyptian name (Mulek being a son of a king, although a puppet king). It is possible to that the name could have come through servants accompanying Mulek. The other transmission line comes through Lehi. This has some greater appeal since there are apparent Egyptian ties for the name Nephi (Gee, John. “A Note on the Name Nephi.” In” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1/1 (Fall 1992) FARMS: p.189.) With one Egyptian-related name, another from the same family would not be too surprising.
13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.
Even before declaring the specific target, he has managed to characterize it as somehow a bad thing, and a foolish thing. With that introduction, he then introduces the issue of Christ. This was a very intelligent beginning, because had he immediately begun with the question “why do ye look for a Christ?” the audience could have taken it for a serious question, and begun to think of very positive answers. In the context of his setup statements, this can only be take as rhetorical derision. The audience would not be asking themselves for positive answers, but rather for defensive ones, or – in the case of those already questioning such a belief – beginning to entertain the question in precisely the way that Korihor proposed it. Korihor’s powerful logical punch comes with the statement that “no man can know of anything which is to come.” That is a dangerous statement, but one that has an appeal to a particular level of society. In many ancient cultures it would have been unthinkable to ask such a question, for much of ancient religion was founded on the premise that man might commune with the gods, and therefore have some indication of future events. The development of a more complex society, and particularly an experience that begins to rely more upon one’s own prowess rather than the efforts of the spirits can lead to the situation where such a question might be entertained. Apparently Nephite society had become sufficiently sophisticated that they had begun to make the separation between the events of men and of the gods. The statistically prevalent number of times that God does not reveal the future could lead to a compelling argument that the lack of evidence became evidence for the impossibility of such knowledge. Korihor certainly makes the argument, and expects that it will be accepted. Social: The nature of Korihor’s argument suggests that he is preaching in the city, not in the countryside. The social sophistication of the city would have been greater, and the general tendency for rural populations is for a greater retention of their religious beliefs. The rural areas are noted for reluctance to change in many cases, where the greater education and interconnections of the city would create situations where such arguments might be more readily accepted. While Mormon does not clarify the setting, the presence of Alma in the debate is not deemed to require travel, and may be yet another indication that the location of this event is in a city. Both the argument and the presence of Alma suggest it.
14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers. Alma 30:15 15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.
The brass plates, of course, correspond to much of the Old Testament with which we are familiar. As with Abinadi, we may look with special knowledge on the past testament to understand the images that we may now understand as referencing the mortal mission of the Savior. However, it is also abundantly clear that the Jews were able to read those same passages and deny then, and deny now, their relationship to Jesus of Nazareth. Korihor may or may not have a belief in the brass plates, but it is virtually certain that the prophets he is belittling are the Nephite “modern” prophets. Just as the Priest of Noah could hold their position only by denying the very clear teachings of the New World prophets, it is probable that Korihor similarly attacks the New World tradition of prophets rather than the Old World tradition. We see this in his designation of the prophecies as the “foolish tradition of your fathers.” The “fathers” in the Book of Mormon nearly always refer to the New World lineages, not the Old World contexts. Korihor is laying the foundation of his doctrine by attacking the purely Nephite prophets, those who would not be supported by the sacred tradition of the brass plates and the Old World. In a very real sense, he parallels the modern world that denies the words of the modern prophets, dismissing all they have to say as part of our modern “foolish traditions.” Once again the proof Korihor uses that the Nephite prophets were wrong – even worse, foolish, is that no one can know of such future events.
16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.
Korihor belittles the religion of the peoples as the result of mass mental instability, and returns to his premise that they believe it not because it is true, but only because they have been led away by the “traditions of your fathers.”
17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.
[..every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature…] This phrase is somewhat difficult to parse. The difficult phrase is “according to the management of the creature.” This indicates that we are responsible only to ourselves. We are “the creature.” It would appear that the use of the rather animalistic term “creature” may be to further remove us from a creator God, and make us simply biology. Korihor here long predates the modern scientific-atheistic approach to mankind. […everyman prospered according to his genius…] Man becomes what he makes of himself. His destiny is not tied to the divine, but solely to his own efforts. […every man conquered according to his strength…] Korihor is stating a form of “might makes right.” As in social Darwinism, Korihor is announcing a social survival of the fittest. […whatsoever a man did was no crime.] The interpretation of this phrase depends upon whether we read “crime” as an element of a civil law, or as a reference to sin (and thus to a godly law). If Korihor is really announcing that man’s efforts may never be defined as crime, then he declares himself a social anarchist. If he is referring rather to sin, then this is simply a continuation of his attack on the foolishness of the fathers. As there is no sin, man cannot be culpable of sin according to his actions. While the first interpretation is certainly possible, and a tighter reading of the precise term, nevertheless I would prefer the second reading as more consistent with what appears to be the specific nature of Korihor’s discourse. He is not attaching the civil law, but rather the unique Nephite religious law. In that context, and his explicitly declared proposition that there is no sin from which we would need to be saved, I see the best reading of this particular text.
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.
“That reminds us of another thing—it is all miraculous, totally beyond our power of comprehension. Before the loaves and fishes there was the manna. The manna was a gift from heaven, yet some shrewd and far-sighted Israelites tried to show their appreciation by going into business. And the manna rotted before the day was over (Exodus 16:15-21). They were not allowed to hoard it. It was not negotiable. It was a gift of God. The miracle of the loaves and fishes was also the miracle of our daily bread, for which the Lord has told us to pray to him. It was just as miraculous, following King Benjamin, as the loaves and fishes. In it we acknowledge the hand of the giver whenever we give thanks; whenever we give the blessing, we acknowledge the hand of the giver. But we still have the attitude of the old Danish man in Sanpete, whom Brother Jensen used to tell about: "That's a fine carrot patch you and the Lord have there, Brother Peterson." "Yes, and you should have seen what it looked like when the Lord was doing it alone." As long as we turn our minds to the things of this world, which means just that, and think that we can manage things pretty well for ourselves, we are doomed—not only to frustration but to destruction. So say the prophets, and now every newspaper and magazine tells us that they are right. It's a poor time to dedicate ourselves to that philosophy. Finally, there is no free lunch, says Korihor (Alma 30:17-18). It is all free lunch, says King Benjamin. I side with Korihor the realist—if lunch is the aim and purpose of life, then Korihor is right, as he firmly believed, when he said that "when a man dies that is the end thereof" (Alma 30:18). A Marriott lunch is the best thing you can hope for in that world, and so he's right. But since I accept the gospel, that's out of the question. Either we believe that the lunch has been taken care of, or we are in for a long, horrible contest, both internal and external, over who is going to get the most.” (Hugh Nibley, Approaching Zion, edited by Don E. Norton [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1989], 111.) Social: One of the fascinating results of Korihor’s preaching is not just that people were led away from the gospel, but that were led to “commit whoredoms.” It is possible that Korihor’s removal of the religious laws would have encouraged these men and women to adopt the polygamous ways of the culture around them. This would therefore be a situation where “whoredoms” was being used in the same context that we saw in Jacob 2 and 3. It is also possible that it refers in this case to unchastity rather than polygamous marriage. With the removal of religious sanctions over the union between men and women, it is very possible that many took advantage of that lack of restraining “sin” and allowed “the creature” to take over their own management. Certainly we understand that the powerful urge is never removed from us, only controlled by our wills. For those whose control was externally motivated by a fear of sin, the removal of that fear of sin would have removed the restraint as well.
19 Now this man went over to the land of Jershon also, to preach these things among the people of Ammon, who were once the people of the Lamanites. Alma 30:20 20 But behold they were more wise than many of the Nephites; for they took him, and bound him, and carried him before Ammon, who was a high priest over that people.
This difference in the experience of the people of Ammon and the Nephites of the unnamed city may be seen as a difference in the nature of the testimonies they had. For the Nephites who listened to Korihor, it may well have been that they believed solely based upon the traditions of their fathers, and lacking a specific testimony for themselves, they were suspectible to Korihor’s words. The people of Ammon, on the other hand, had had dramatic personal experiences that led them to testimony. This difference in the nature of testimony was highlighted by Brigham Young. Wilford Woodruff described a sermon Brigham Young gave: "It is sometimes taught among us that we should follow Brother Joseph or Brother Brigham, or some other leader, and do as they say, and that is all that is required. Now this is in one sense a false doctrine. No man should trust solely the testimony of another. He should have a direct testimony from God for himself. Then obedience is intelligent and not blind. I might have listened to Joseph Smith testify to the truth of the Book of Mormon until I was as old as Methuselah, and in the end I would have gone away in darkness had I not received a testimony from God that he was a prophet and that he knew by revelation whereof he spoke. Men should get the spirit of God and then live by it." (Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff, His Life and Labors, comp. Matthias F. Cowley [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1916], 377 - 378.)
21 And it came to pass that he caused that he should be carried out of the land. And he came over into the land of Gideon, and began to preach unto them also; and here he did not have much success, for he was taken and bound and carried before the high priest, and also the chief judge over the land.
Once again, however, Korihor misunderstood the nature of the experience of the people of Gideon. These people had been under the firm tribute-demanding thumb of the Lamanites, and had returned to faith in the Nephite God and gospel as a prelude to being led from that land and captivity. Korihor apparently thought that the previous Lamanitish beliefs of both the people of Ammon and of Gideon might have made them easy targets to revert to those beliefs. What Korihor found instead where those whose personal experience with God had shown them the difference, and they were of no mind to return to an ideology that did not have the force of their current knowledge. Legal: Mormon has spent time telling us of the Nephite law that allowed everyone to believe as they would. This certainly applies to Korihor, but when Korihor preaches in both Jershon and Gideon he is bound and brought before the judge. Isn’t this a contradiction? Doesn’t it appear that in these two cities they acted illegally? While we do not understand the particulars of the Nephite law, there is a principle here that we can understand. While Korihor had the right to preach, the people Gideon and Korihor had the right not to listen. It is quite probable that there was no law against the removal of a person from their midst. The legal difference is that there was no punishment for Korihor’s beliefs, but there was an apparently legal ability of the people to remove an unwanted influence from their community. Even though we in the modern world have neither the legal option nor the unified communal will to bind up our unsavory influences, we nevertheless individually have the ability to symbolically bind and remove them. As did the peoples of Jershon and Gideon, we may bind and remove such influences from our families, and from our hearts. There are some influences that we may physically remove from our homes, and some against which our strong faith alone must stand in defense. In all such cases, the examples of the peoples of Jershon and Gideon show us that firm faith transcends our prior worldview. Even with past acceptance of such influences we are not precluded from a true repentance and a firm future rejection of those influences that we may have, in the past, embraced in times of our lesser faith.
22 And it came to pass that the high priest said unto him: Why do ye go about perverting the ways of the Lord? Why do ye teach this people that there shall be no Christ, to interrupt their rejoicings? Why do ye speak against all the prophecies of the holy prophets?
First, notice what is not asked of Korihor. Korihor is not asked why he does not believe. He is not asked, directly, to defend his ideas (though Korihor will take advantage of the situation to expound his ideas). What we therefore notice is that the judge does not question, nor apparently concern himself, with what Korihor believes. By not questioning Korihor’s beliefs he obeys the law that allows Korihor to believe as he will. What the judge does ask is why Korihor is preaching these things. This is a subtle difference, which Korihor chooses to ignore in his response. The difference focuses not on the belief, but upon the actions to persuade others to adopt that belief. The Nephite law protects belief, but not the potentially socially disruptive effects of preaching dissident ideas with the idea of fomenting fission in the society. We must again remember that in the ancient world religion, politics, and science were firmly enmeshed, even though Nephtie society had a greater division between politics and religion that most communities. Nevertheless, the alteration of religious ideas would have political consequences. In the past the alterations in religion led to shifts in political alliances with many defecting to the Lamanites. The story that will unfold from now to the arrival of the Savior in the New World will be one of increasing internal schism, related to this combination of politics and religion. This Book of Mormon division between the thought and the overt attempt to preach division is echoed in the modern church’s typical position to differences of opinion among the members of the church. It is no crime to hold various beliefs that differ from the main body of the church. It is very possible that many may have differing views of even fundamental concepts such as faith, and still be fully active and contributing members of ward and stake communities. What cannot happen, however, is that people with different ideas begin to attempt to convert others to those ideas with the idea of creating division among the Saints. That divisiveness is the sin, not the idea.
23 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.
It should be noted at this point, however, that Korihor is not representative of what the majority of Lamanites would have believed at this point in time. If we assume our Mesoamerican location, Korihor would not have been a typical Lamanite, but rather a separate philosopher. We do not have much evidence for the internal divisions in Maya religion, but there is good evidence for the Aztec religion at a later time that there were differences in the understanding of religion. This included not only differing versions of the religious mythologies, but also in certain philosophies.
24 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.
25 Ye say that this people is a guilty and a fallen people, because of the transgression of a parent. Behold, I say that a child is not guilty because of its parents.
Korihor’s accusation would have been theologically inaccurate, but sufficiently close that he could make his point. Korihor was not arguing for individual culpability, but specifically for the need for an Atoning Messiah, a need created by the Fall in the Garden. For Korihor’s argument, he focuses on that defining situation, then pulls that particular event out of the original context and places it into a different context. The reason for this particular argument would precisely be that the Nephites would believe the concept that children would not be punished for the sins of the parents. What Korihor has done is take an idea that the Nephites believe, and made it appear that it is in conflict with another idea that they believe. This is a remarkable tactic that is still used in anti-Mormon literature today. The intent of the technique is to create a question in the mind of the listener by creating an apparent contradiction between two concepts that the listener holds to be true. The speaker may then suggest that it is impossible to believe both simultaneously, and therefore accuse the religion of fundamental inconsistency for allowing such a contradiction. Most of the contradictions are as simplistic as the one Korihor presents. While it sounds contradictory on the surface, it relies on its superficiality. In this particular case, Korihor does not understand that the mission of the Savior was to create a condition where the power of the Atonement would create a situation where we were again accountable for our own sins. Since Korihor does not believe in, nor truly understand the Atonement, he creates this argument by oversimplifying his subject.
26 And ye also say that Christ shall come. But behold, I say that ye do not know that there shall be a Christ. And ye say also that he shall be slain for the sins of the world— Alma 30:27 27 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.
The third accusation is that the priests of the Nephites “glut” themselves on the labor of the people. Korihor accuses the Nephite priests of priestcraft, or position for gain.
28 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 never was nor ever will be.
29 Now when the high priest and the chief judge saw the hardness of his heart, yea, when they saw that he would revile even against God, they would not make any reply to his words; but they caused that he should be bound; and they delivered him up into the hands of the officers, and sent him to the land of Zarahemla, that he might be brought before Alma, and the chief judge who was governor over all the land.
Korihor is probably of little consequence in the history of the Nephites. Unlike Nehor, we have no organized movement that may be attached to Nehor. Korihor’s philosophies had some acceptance in his first city, but absolutely none in Jershon nor Gideon. Korihor’s greatest value comes in Mormon’s construction of his story. Literarily, Korihor serves two functions. First, he serves as a contrast to the success of the mission to the Lamanites. The proximate discussion of these two “missions” allows Mormon to show the power of God in the conversion of the Lamanites, but the failure of a mirrored mission to convert the Nephites. Secondly, it allows Mormon to present two figureheads in direct contrast. Alma stands for the gospel, and Korihor for the opposite philosophy. Mormon can use this individual situation to extrapolate the situation into the more universal conflict between the gospel and all detractors. Mormon constructs a great contrast between the sons and Mosiah and Korihor, and then uses Korihor as a way to show the superiority of the Lord over those who would claim he does not exist. Legal: The nature of the legal system is shown here to be somewhat flexible. Korihor is brought before both Alma and the Chief Judge. With the separation of civil and religious authorities, we might expect that only the Chief Judge was involved. What we see is that while there is a division between church and state, it is not a complete nor exclusive division. There is still enough of a connection between the Nephite religion and the political structures of the land of Zarahemla that it is deemed appropriate for Alma to be present at the judging of Korihor. Not only is Alma present, but the main conflict occurs between Alma and Korihor, presumably in front of the judge. It may be that we are seeing something of the nature of the functioning of the judge, were aggrieved parties would argue their case, and present the final results to the judge for adjudication.
30 And it came to pass that when he was brought before Alma and the chief judge, he did go on in the same manner as he did in the land of Gideon; yea, he went on to blaspheme. Alma 30:31 31 And he did rise up in great swelling words before Alma, and did revile against the priests and teachers, accusing them of leading away the people after the silly traditions of their fathers, for the sake of glutting on the labors of the people.
32 Now Alma said unto him: Thou knowest that we do not glut ourselves upon the labors of this people; for behold I have labored even from the commencement of the reign of the judges until now, with mine own hands for my support, notwithstanding my many travels round about the land to declare the word of God unto my people. Alma 30:33 33 And notwithstanding the many labors which I have performed in the church, I have never received so much as even one senine for my labor; neither has any of my brethren, save it were in the judgment-seat; and then we have received only according to law for our time. Alma 30:34 34 And now, if we do not receive anything for our labors in the church, what doth it profit us to labor in the church save it were to declare the truth, that we may have rejoicings in the joy of our brethren?
The suggests that there is something about Korihor that gives Alma this basic understanding. We have already suggested that Mormon’s structural use of the story strongly suggests that Korihor is a Lamanite. Alma’s assumption of knowledge about what Korihor must believe underneath his rhetoric suggests that Korihor must have been an apostate Nephite who has become Lamanite politically and religiously. This combination of former presence among the Nephites and current connection to the Lamanites satisfies both of the conditions we appear to have in the text. If Korihor were known to have once been Nephite (again politically and therefore religiously) we can understand that Alma would understand what his belief system would have been prior to his Lamanite “conversion.” The putative conversion to the Lamanite ways and beliefs would provide an even stronger parallel for Mormon to contrast to the sons of Mosiah. As we noted previously, the sons of Mosiah were not only fighting against the church, but were rather apostate themselves, and likely with ties to the Lamanites. Thus the sons of Mosiah were probably Lamanite sympathizers who were coverted to the gospel, and then took their new belief to the people with whom they had formerly sympathized. Korihor would be the mirror of that picture. He would be a Nephite who converted to the Lamanites, then attempted to bring the Lamanite “gospel” to the people with whom he had formerly sympathized (the Nephites). Thus the structural use of Korihor is quite direct, and unlikely to be accidental. Even though Mormon does not make it explicit to us, it is probable that to his contemporaries, the concepts discussed would, by themselves, have marked Korihor as a Lamanite sympathizer. It is probable that this structural contrast would have been more obvious to Mormon’s contemporaries than it is to us, since we are less conversant with what those Lamanite positions might have been. Social: Alma gives us a discussion of the nature of the division between politics and religion among the Zarahemlaites. Alma indicates that he is paid as a judge, but not for his work in the church. Thus there is not only a formal division between church and state, there is also an economic division between the two. Alma specifically makes use of the idea that he has labored with his own hands for his support (verse 32). This is an important phrase because it gives us the tie between the current social structure and the earlier Zarahemla system in which Benjamin himself could state that he has labored with his own hands (Mosiah 2:12, Mosiah 2:14). Benjamin had set this as an ideal, and he, in his position combining both government and religion, was able to accomplish it. The increasing complexity of Nephite society would have demanded greater activity of the political leadership, and the payment of the judges explicitly shows that the government was sufficiently complex that they received compensation for their efforts. Nevertheless, this ideal of social equality represented by laboring with one’s own hands was retained as a religious principle, and manifest in the lack of payment to the religious leaders. This difference does lead us to the question of how Korihor could state that the Nephite priests might be guilty of priestcraft and be believed by the people. It is probable that most of the Nephite leaders in the church were also leaders in the community, and certainly Alma was a judge in addition to his “church” responsibilities. In Jershon and Gideon we have judges who are clearly also believers, and probably church leaders. Thus it is probable that while there is a divisibility between church and state, there were nevertheless many who held prominent positions in post aspects of society. As part of their social duties they received compensation, and it may be that it was sufficiently difficult for the people to separate their roles that the conceptual sources of their compensation was not separated either.
35 Then why sayest thou that we preach unto this people to get gain, when thou, of thyself, knowest that we receive no gain? And now, believest thou that we deceive this people, that causes such joy in their hearts? Alma 30:36 36 And Korihor answered him, Yea.
The next question asks whether or not Korihor can make such accusations in the face of the evidence of the result of the Nephite preaching. Alma is using the same concept suggested in the New Testament: Matthew 7:16-20 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Alma reminds Korihor that the efforts of the priests has brought much joy to the hearts of the people. As the fruit if their preaching, Alma is asking how such a great fruit could be evidence of bad practices or priests. In spite of this, Korihor reaffirms his accusation.
37 And then Alma said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? Alma 30:38 38 And he answered, Nay.
39 Now Alma said unto him: Will ye deny again that there is a God, and also deny the Christ? For behold, I say unto you, I know there is a God, and also that Christ shall come. Alma 30:40 40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.
Alma first asks if Korihor will again deny God. This gives Korihor a chance to change his answer, an opportunity he will not take. Alma then gives his own testimony that there is a God, and that there will be a Christ. Verse 40 is an interesting development of Alma’s argument. In verse 40 Alma takes his statement that there is a God and contrasts it to the statement that Korihor has been making. What Alma has done is suggest that there are now two statements, Alma’s that there is a God, and Korihor’s that there is not. What Alma implies, however, is that the two statements are not equal. He notes that Korihor has his word only. By implication, Alma has more. What more does Alma have? Alma has his very dramatic experience with the angel and all of his subsequent experience with the Spirit. It is unlikely that those who would be listening to Alma, save perhaps Korihor, would b e unfamiliar with the reasons for Alma’s assertion that he had something more than just his word. This is a parallel of certain conversations that may occur in our own times. The difference for most of us is that it is we who are put on the defensive with the suggestion that it is only our word. Those who might deny God now have a much larger arsenal of presumed backing data. The essential proof of God is no different today than it was for Alma, but the acceptance of that evidence is much diminished. There is still tremendous proof of God, but it remains Spiritual, not scientific. That evidence is as powerful as it ever was, but continues to be incomprehensible to those unfamiliar with the workings of the Spirit.
41 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true; and will ye deny them? Believest thou that these things are true? Alma 30:42 42 Behold, I know that thou believest, but thou art possessed with a lying spirit, and ye have put off the Spirit of God that it may have no place in you; but the devil has power over you, and he doth carry you about, working devices that he may destroy the children of God.
Alma must have had confirmation from the Spirit that Korihor was in such a state, a state that would have been allowed if he had been an apostate Nephite as has been suggested. However, we should look more closely at verse 42 to understand what happened to Korihor. The key is that Korihor has “put off the Spirit of God that it may have no place.” Korihor began with faith, most likely a faith of his youth, and probably of his parents. What he has done is actively deny that understanding of his youth – he has been converted to the more secular Lamanite philosophy. He has been able to do this because he has changed his definition of where he might find evidence, or proof (as will be evident in his next statement). Alma’s strong evidence for his understanding of God and Christ are all based on the Spirit, and Alma knows that this is the only true source of such knowledge. To deny God, Korihor has had to deny the Spirit, and thus deny his only possible source of that knowledge. Alma is suggesting that God is not reachable through a scientific or logical approach, but only through the Spirit. Korihor’s denial of the Spirit has led to a shift in what acceptable evidence was, and led Korihor away from the very things that would have given him a knowledge of God. What is worse is that Korihor’s denial of the Spirit and God in his own life has led to a crusade to attempt to deny it in others. This is not atypical of the experience of one who leaves the church. The process of denying their own previous understandings leads many not only to deny, but to actively attempt to bring others to their new understanding. As Joseph Smith found out early, some of the most difficult pressure against the church came from those who had once embraced it, then left. Once again, this need of Korihor’s to have others follow his path suggests that he had been a Nephite believer at some point. All indications point to that change in Korihor’s life.
43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.
The problem is that Alma has already established that Korihor has shut off access to the source of proof about God. By denying the Spirit, Korihor has denied the kind of evidence that would provide the very proof that Korihor rather smugly demands. Alma has had a dramatic proof, yet Korihor will not accept that. This is the problem with those who seek signs. The signs are already available, and they have already rejected them, yet they ask for a different type of sign. The Pharisees and Sadducees in Jesus day were had much the same problem: Matthew 16:1-4 1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. 3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring, O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? 4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. The Pharisees and Sadducees did precisely what Korihor has done. They ask for some sign, but they have have had signs that they have refused. In Matthew 16, verses 2 and 3 Jesus suggests that they are able to read certain signs, but indicates that they miss the important ones. God does give us signs. Remember that Alma has “all things as a testimony that these things are true” (verse 41). This is an important distinction. God has never said that we should not have signs. What he has said is that those signs may be interpreted by the Spirit, and in no other way. With the Spirit, Alma had “all things” has his sign. By denying the Spirit, Korihor was unable to see all of those some things (verse 41). The problem isn’t in the signs, it is in the seeker. What a seeker of signs is saying is that they are unable to discern the signs that are given, and they want something else. They are saying that they are devoid of the Spirit, and want some other type of sign. Unfortunately, even such signs cannot convince without the Spirit. When I was serving a mission in Spain this principle was taught to use forcibly and undeniably. We knocked on the door of a man who welcomed us and invited us inside. He told us that he had a story to tell us. He had received a Book of Mormon some time earlier, and had not read it. The week previously he picked up and began to read, and he began to feel that it might be an important book. He knew that he needed to pray to God to know if it were true, so he knelt down to pray. He said that as he knelt to pray he remembered that he should not ask for a miraculous sign, but certainly he thought that God could find some way of telling him that the Book of Mormon was true. He decided to ask for a small witness, one that he might understand, but that would not be all that miraculous. It was a stormy night, so he thought to ask to hear a clap of thunder if the Book of Mormon were true. However, since it was already stormy, he decided that it would be too easy to mistake a random clap of thunder for his answer, so he decided to ask to hear the loudest clap of thunder he had ever heard. That had been just a few nights before, a night during which my companion was awakened in the middle of the night by the loudest clap of thunder he had ever heard. The thunder came, just as this man asked. As he told us this rather remarkable story, however, he also told us that it was just possible that he was imagining all of this, and so he had decided it probably didn’t mean anything. He told us he really wasn’t interested in having us teach him. Here as a man who could not be considered wicked or perverse, but he was nevertheless insufficiently attuned to the spirit. He asked for a sign, but even upon receiving it, it did him no good whatsoever. He even recognized the miracle of the sign, but not its significance. He was precisely like the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus day who could read the signs in the sky, but not the signs of the time. This man could read the sign in the thunder, but not the power in the book.
44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.
45 And yet do ye go about, leading away the hearts of this people, testifying unto them there is no God? And yet will ye deny against all these witnesses? And he said: Yea, I will deny, except ye shall show me a sign.
46 And now it came to pass that Alma said unto him: Behold, I am grieved because of the hardness of your heart, yea, that ye will still resist the spirit of the truth, that thy soul may be destroyed. Alma 30:47 47 But behold, it is better that thy soul should be lost than that thou shouldst be the means of bringing many souls down to destruction, by thy lying and by thy flattering words; therefore if thou shalt deny again, behold God shall smite thee, that thou shalt become dumb, that thou shalt never open thy mouth any more, that thou shalt not deceive this people any more.
Literary: “While we posses a substantial number of words that Alma spoke during the trial of Korihor (Alma 30), because of the nature of the legal interchange, we would normally expect to find nothing linked to Alma's three-day ordeal. But one matter reaches back to that experience: the idea that one soul perishes so that others may live. To illustrate, when the angel of the Lord scolded Alma and his friends, the angel specifically said to Alma: "If thou wilt of thyself be destroyed, seek no more to destroy the church of God" (Alma 36:9). This thought led Alma not only to be "racked with eternal torment" because of all his "sins and iniquities" (vv 12-13) but apparently to conclude that he "had murdered many of [God's] children, or rather led them away unto destruction" (v 14). In the case of Korihor, Alma tried to warn him simply to repent and not to seek a sign from God. "I am grieved," said Alma to Korihor, "that ye will still resist the spirit of the truth, that thy soul may be destroyed. But behold, it is better that thy soul should be lost than that thou shouldst be the means of bringing many souls down to destruction" (Alma 30:46-47). Clearly, Alma had once faced the possibility that his own life might have been taken to preserve others; and his own experience of coming face to face with this reality seems to underlie his appeal to Korihor not to "resist the spirit of the truth" (v 46).” (S. Kent Brown. “Alma’s Conversion: Reminiscences in his Sermons.” Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., Alma, the Testimony of the Word [Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1992], 151 - 152.)
48 Now Korihor said unto him: I do not deny the existence of a God, but I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God; and except ye show me a sign, I will not believe. Alma 30:49 49 Now Alma said unto him: This will I give unto thee for a sign, that thou shalt be struck dumb, according to my words; and I say, that in the name of God, ye shall be struck dumb, that ye shall no more have utterance. Alma 30:50 50 Now when Alma had said these words, Korihor was struck dumb, that he could not have utterance, according to the words of Alma.
51 And now when the chief judge saw this, he put forth his hand and wrote unto Korihor, saying: Art thou convinced of the power of God? In whom did ye desire that Alma should show forth his sign? Would ye that he should afflict others, to show unto thee a sign? Behold, he has showed unto you a sign; and now will ye dispute more?
Notice the content of the message from the chief judge. The result of the sign is noted, and while it is harsh, it is both noted as a sign, and the justice of the sign is also affirmed. The judge suggests “… In whom did ye desire that Alma should show forth his sign? Would ye that he should afflict others, to show unto thee a sign?” In his role as judge, the chief judge is suggesting that there is justice in the situation. He is a judge rendering his final verdict.
52 And Korihor put forth his hand and wrote, saying: I know that I am dumb, for I cannot speak; and I know that nothing save it were the power of God could bring this upon me; yea, and I always knew that there was a God. Alma 30:53 53 But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me.
Literary: Korihor is not only Anti-Christ, but he is here Anti-Alma. We have noted that it is no coincidence that Korihor is presented right after the successful mission of the sons of Mosiah. At this point the literary parallelism shifts away from the sons of Mosiah and directly to Alma. The confrontation between Alma and Korihor is here presented as a linked opposition. Both Alma and Korihor were believers in something, both had a visitation by an angel, both were converted by that experience, and both preached to the people the gospel learned in that experience. Korihor and Alma are too similar to be accidental. They have only one fundamental difference, and that is that Alma is converted to true, and Korihor to error. That conclusion is powerfully underlined in the curse Korihor receives because of his continued demand for a sign. Social: How could Korihor have seen a devil as an angel? This is not really a theological question, but a very important one in the Mesoamerican context in which we are placing the events of the Book of Mormon. We have the terms devil and angel as loaded religious terms, and we assume that “devil” is “The Devil;” and that “angel” is “messenger from God.” These may not have been the original terms nor the original meanings. When the Spaniards discussed native gods, they always referred to them as devils. In their Western Christian experience there was one True God, and anything else was not only false, but a devil. In the Mesoamerican experience there were many other gods of the Lamanites, and the dichotomous Christian language Joseph used to translation the plates could easily replicate the Spanish appellation of the native gods as devils. In the Mesoamerican religious system, the gods were frequently present in the world. The function of the Maya bloodletting rites was to communicate with the gods, and to materialize them into this world (Schele and Freidel. A Forest of Kings. William Morrow and Company, 1990, p. 426-7). In the context of a world view that materialized the gods in vision, it is quite possible that Korihor had undergone such a rite, with the attendant hallucinogenic effect of materializing a god – or in Korihor’s case, an angel. There is no indication that Korihor was a king, and the materialization of the gods would be reserved for the kings, but certainly the principle would have been known, and the practice of bloodletting extended beyond the kings.
54 Now when he had said this, he besought that Alma should pray unto God, that the curse might be taken from him. Alma 30:55 55 But Alma said unto him: If this curse should be taken from thee thou wouldst again lead away the hearts of this people; therefore, it shall be unto thee even as the Lord will.
Ultimately we do not know. Alma tells us only that Korihor might return to preaching against God. Since Korihor had secretly believed, but had been led astray, Alma has reason to believe that he was susceptible to the influences of the Anti-Christ position, and that he might return. Ultimately it was God who had laid the curse on Korihor, so Alma felt justified in leaving it to God to remove it.
56 And it came to pass that the curse was not taken off of Korihor; but he was cast out, and went about from house to house begging for his food.
If should be noted that this may not have been quite the situation that it would be in the modern world. In the ancient world, the vagaries of weather might cause a failure of crops in various places, and those who farmed those lands might be required to request assistance. This would have been first to their kin group, and it appears that Korihor had no defined kin group, or if he did, it had disowned him.
57 Now the knowledge of what had happened unto Korihor was immediately published throughout all the land; yea, the proclamation was sent forth by the chief judge to all the people in the land, declaring unto those who had believed in the words of Korihor that they must speedily repent, lest the same judgments would come unto them.
58 And it came to pass that they were all convinced of the wickedness of Korihor; therefore they were all converted again unto the Lord; and this put an end to the iniquity after the manner of Korihor. And Korihor did go about from house to house, begging food for his support.
What Mormon did next was a logical outgrowth of his concern to tie up the loose ends of the story, and make sure that his readers understood that the harm done by Korihor had been reversed by the cursing of Korihor. While this is important information, Mormon appears to give it to us out of order. It would appear that he began his introduction to the demise of Korihor with the story of the begging, and then remembered the inserted information. This left him in need of creating a linkage back into his planned structure. Thus he finds that he is required to repead the information about begging in this verse. This is the best solution of the very proximate repetition of this specific information. This does continue to tell us something about Mormon’s methods while he created his final text. Mormon is following an organized script created prior to committing his text to the metal plates. That process of transferring structure and copying specific speeches was not so rigid that he felt proscribed from adding other information as he wrote on the plates. Thus Mormon’s writing on the plates is the result of a multi-layered developmental process. Mormon’s first step in the creation of his work, once conceived, would have been to read the multiple sources available to him. Certainly Mormon would have made notes during this process so that he could not only refer to them in the next stage, but easily return to the sources for specific cited passages. The next step would be to construct the overall structure of his narration. In this stage Mormon establishes the stories that he would tell, and the order in which they would appear. It is unlikely that he copied the speeches, since he had them in his possession, and there would have been no need to create a copy which would then be transformed to yet a third copy in the final text. We may safely presume that he copied directly from source to metal plates when writing down the inserted discourses. The tight structure transitions such as the begging as a necessary precedent to the story of Korihor’s demise suggests that Mormon wrote a fairly detailed draft from which he copied when he created the plate text. The final creative piece would have come at the time of writing on the plates, where Mormon would at times insert information that did not appear on his draft. We see this process most clearly in cases such as this where we see him returning so quickly to a theme he had established.
59 And it came to pass that as he went forth among the people, yea, among a people who had separated themselves from the Nephites and called themselves Zoramites, being led by a man whose name was Zoram—and as he went forth amongst them, behold, he was run upon and trodden down, even until he was dead.
|
