DiscussMormonism.com

In the Book of Mormon we have a contradiction about whether people were free to believe whatever they like about god.

In two verses we read that people were free to believe in god or disbelieve.

Alma 1:21
Now there was a strict law among the people of the church that there should not any man, belonging to the church, arise and persecute those that did not belong to the church, and that there should be no persecution among themselves.

Alma 30:9
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.

Yet, let's see how Korihor was treated for not believing in god.

Alma 30:29
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.

Hmmmm.

You're perfectly free to believe differently. You're just not allowed to say so publicly.

just me wrote:In the Book of Mormon we have a contradiction about whether people were free to believe whatever they like about god.

In two verses we read that people were free to believe in god or disbelieve.

Alma 1:21
Now there was a strict law among the people of the church that there should not any man, belonging to the church, arise and persecute those that did not belong to the church, and that there should be no persecution among themselves.

Alma 30:9
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.

Yet, let's see how Korihor was treated for not believing in god.

Alma 30:29
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.

Hmmmm.

Oops.

I always found that contradiction funny. But, like any story, you can always find plot holes. Any good fan will try to resolve the plothole. In this case, you could argue that sending him to the land of Zarahemla to meet with Alma technically wasn't a punishment. It was an opportunity for him to change his mind.

Good catch on this, Just Me.

I saw something similar as I was perusing Alma 8-15 where Alma and Amulek preach to the people of Ammonihah.

I don't have time to find the reference right now, but Zeezrom (ahem) is trying to get Amulek to deny the existence of a Supreme Being (and will give him six onties of silver for doing so).

(It is probably in the second half of chapter 11 or first half of chapter 12, then.)

Amulek says he won't do it, that Zeezrom was never going to follow through on giving him the dough, but then says that Zeezrom was just looking for an excuse to destroy him.

This leaped off the page at me. Prior to this, as you have noted, the Book of Mormon goes to great lengths to separate church from state, saying only the church can discipline somebody for violating church tenets.

It would seem from this that, though we would consider belief in God (or the denial of same) to be something that would fall under the rubric of church discipline, the Nephites at this time saw it as secular in nature and a capital offense.

This reminds me a bit of the Romans who held the emperor to be (a) god, and for one to refuse to sacrifice to him was worthy of death.

I think that the Book of Mormon resembles American politics only on the surface, but when you delve a bit, there are lots of things that don't fit.

I believe Richard Bushman discovered something similar when he wrote his paper, The Book of Mormon and the American Revolution.


http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... hapid=1282

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

 

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Perhaps Joseph was unfamiliar with the content of the Book of Mormon...

Drifting wrote:
Perhaps Joseph was unfamiliar with the content of the Book of Mormon...

I think a strong case can be made that Joseph was unfamiliar with many aspects of the Book of Mormon.

Which is kind of strange if he composed it . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

consiglieri wrote:

Drifting wrote:
Perhaps Joseph was unfamiliar with the content of the Book of Mormon...

I think a strong case can be made that Joseph was unfamiliar with many aspects of the Book of Mormon.

Which is kind of strange if he composed it . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Would that not also be kind of strange if he translated it by the power of God, and made inspired changes to the verbiage in later editions?

consiglieri wrote:

Drifting wrote:
Perhaps Joseph was unfamiliar with the content of the Book of Mormon...

I think a strong case can be made that Joseph was unfamiliar with many aspects of the Book of Mormon.

Which is kind of strange if he composed it . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I have often seen people saying that Joseph Smith never referred to the Book of Mormon in his public utterances.

Is that true? Can anyone produce an example where he did refer to its contents, or to some of the characters unique to that book - Nephi, Mosiah and the rest of them?

Maybe he really did rip it off from the Masons.