Book of Mormon Contradiction: Freedom of Belief

[_Darth J]

1. Korihor was arrested for exercising the freedom of religion the Nephites supposedly had.
2. Korihor had to justify his beliefs to Alma the Younger, who was the head of the government (chief judge), even though the Nephites supposedly had freedom of religion.
3. As a penalty for exercising his freedom of religion, the chief judge called upon God and made Korihor unable to speak, so that he could not exercise his freedom of religion.

So in what sense exactly was there "no law against a man’s belief" when Korihor was arrested and had to justify his beliefs to the head of state?

And in what sense exactly does God allow free agency when he makes a man unable to speak because he chose one day whom he would serve? The Spirit will tell Alma the Younger not to use the power of God to prevent women and children from being burned alive in a furnace, but God will let Alma the Younger use divine power to shut up someone who is exercising his legal rights (under Nephite law)? What's the theodicy at work here?

[_brade]

Binding and carrying someone to Alma to answer charges, in an equal debate about the existence of God, is not the same as a Gulag silencing, where there is no recourse to argue your point.

I agree, I don't think it's the same as Gulag silencing. Three cheers for merely binding somebody and forcefully removing them to a new location because they expressed views contrary to some religious ones!

[_Darth J]

Binding and carrying someone to Alma to answer charges, in an equal debate about the existence of God, is not the same as a Gulag silencing, where there is no recourse to argue your point.

I agree, I don't think it's the same as Gulag silencing. Three cheers for merely binding somebody and forcefully removing them to a new location because they expressed views contrary to some religious ones!

When you are tied up and forcibly taken to the chief judge and ruler of your polity, it is not an "equal debate about the existence of God."

[_RayAgostini]

I agree, I don't think it's the same as Gulag silencing. Three cheers for merely binding somebody and forcefully removing them to a new location because they expressed views contrary to some religious ones!

It's amazingly tolerant. In the 19th century, under Australian law, a person could be imprisoned for blasphemy, such as "taking the name of the Lord in vain". That law continued into the 20th century, until it was eventually annulled by parliament.

[_RayAgostini]

When you are tied up and forcibly taken to the chief judge and ruler of your polity, it is not an "equal debate about the existence of God."

Maybe he was like you, a stubborn God-denier who needed a whack on the ass.

Go into any Islamic society, and see how far you get criticising or denying the existence of God. Then compare that to how the Nephites treated Korihor.

[_Darth J]

Alma 30 does not say a man could be imprisoned, or arrested, or anything for blasphemy, or for not believing in God---the latter being exactly what Korihor was arrested for.

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.

But the whole premise of the Korihor story is based on there being a legal mechanism for taking an atheist to court for no reason other than being an atheist.

[_RayAgostini]

But the whole premise of the Korihor story is based on there being a legal mechanism for taking an atheist to court for no reason other than being an atheist.

The "more wise among the Nephites" did not arrest or imprison him. They dragged him before Alma, perhaps illegally according to law, but they did not deny his right to defend himself before Alma.

[Guest]

When you are tied up and forcibly taken to the chief judge and ruler of your polity, it is not an "equal debate about the existence of God."

Maybe he was like you, a stubborn God-denier who needed a whack on the ass.

Go into any Islamic society, and see how far you get criticising or denying the existence of God. Then compare that to how the Nephites treated Korihor.

Oh, Ray....there you go making things up again to construct your narrative. Kind of like your amazing UFO documentaries that fabricate evidence.

You feel free to find a thread where I have said I don't believe in a God, though.

And the Islamic countries you are talking about DO have laws restricting freedom of religion. Alma 30 specifically says that the Nephites had no such law.

[_Darth J]

But the whole premise of the Korihor story is based on there being a legal mechanism for taking an atheist to court for no reason other than being an atheist.

The "more wise among the Nephites" did not arrest or imprison him. They dragged him before Alma, perhaps illegally according to law, but they did not deny his right to defend himself before Alma.

If there was no law against what he was doing, there was no reason for him to defend himself.

Wait, I know! Maybe the chief judge of the Nephites, who was also a prophet, didn't know what the law was respecting religion, and that's why he exercised subject matter jurisdiction that he didn't have.

[_RayAgostini]

You feel free to find a thread where I have said I don't believe in a God, though.

Take the MDB stage, my friend, and state what or who you believe God is.

Please be my guest and state your case.

I, Darth, believe in God because......

You fill in the rest.