Of great intellectual interest are the teachings, doctrines, rhetoric, and logic that stand behind the words and argument of Korihor. Rarely has such a case presented such a thorough précis or summary of the full sweep of secular philosophies, past and present. Many of Korihor’s points were not original to him. They can be found in biblical examples, in ancient Greek philosophy, and the history of academic inquiry dating back into Lehi’s and Alma’s day. Some of Korihor’s arguments resonate with other arguments in the history of philosophy, including Enlightenment rationalism, Hegelian and Marxist class conflicts and dialectical materialism, Existential nihilism, and relativistic and deterministic philosophical strands that would not emerge or flourish until later in the nineteenth century or on into the twentieth century. As the accompanying chart shows (Figure 1), Korihor’s brief one-liners project the headlines of numerous ideologies. No doubt, Korihor had developed his bullet points much further and had much more to say on each of his assertions. Each “Korihorism” is aligned in this chart with a possible modern or standard philosophical counterpart. Indeed, a strong syllabus for any modern course in the history of philosophy could take Korihor as its guide. He misses very few of the standard sophistic, skeptical, or cynical beats.
Figure 1 John W. Welch and Greg Welch, "The Teachings of Korihor in Alma 30," in Charting the Book of Mormon, chart 78.
This chart summarizes the teachings of Korihor mainly in Zarahemla (30:12–18). His teachings there were mainly practical, political, social or secular in nature. His litany is essentially a standard road map to modern secularism.
For example, various schools of thought have followed the axioms of Agnosticism or Empiricism (30:15), “You just cannot know anything you cannot see,” which of course is simply not true. Knowing and seeing are not the same thing. Korihor tosses in psychological arguments to denigrate or dismiss anything that is spiritual. Such arguments jump to the simplistic conclusion that all spirituality “is some kind of mental derangement, the result of a frenzied mind” (30:16).
Logical Positivism, the main philosophy of the mid-twentieth century, accuses people of believing things which are not so (30:16), and you have to have things positively logical in order for them to be believable. However, even the proponents of this view abandoned that school of thought as it was circular or incomplete.
Sophism, or the view that “every man fares in this life according to the management of the creature” can be found right in the Greek Sophists, who were challenged in several of Plato’s dialogues. Sophism insists that God does not influence or have any control over this world, but that we somehow do. “Man is the measure of all things,” as Protagoras famously put it, and Korihor does too (30:17).
Naturalism, Egoism, Humanism, Relativism (whatever you do is no crime, 30:17), and so on, all the way down to Nihilism and Atheism which is Korihor’s final card (30:18). He boldly asserts that “You talk about a being who never has been seen or known, who never was nor ever will be” (30:28), but how can he be so absolutely sure of any of that, either past or present, let alone future? Highly recommended are the wise and sobering articles published in the 1970s and written by two BYU philosophy professors, Chauncey C. Riddle and C. Terry Warner, listed and linked below. Gratefully these are now readily available and only a click away.
As you read Korihor’s ranting, do not overlook the fact that his philosophical and political arguments shift dramatically in nature and tone when he speaks to the righteous people in the city of Gideon (30:22–28). Another chart could and should be produced to list Korihor’s many further arguments in that location, which become much more theological or ecclesiastical in nature. There he deployed his mental gymnastics to “pervert” or twist “the ways of the Lord,” to deny any promised messiah, to “interrupt” the rejoicings of faithful people, and to speak against “all the prophecies” (30:22). He baldly labeled all traditions, ordinances, and practices as “foolish,” ignorant and oppressive (30:23). He ridiculed the idea of Christ being “slain for the sins of the world” (30:26). He accused the priests of being self-serving, following their dreams, whims, visions, and “pretended mysteries” (30:27–28). As is often the case in critical thought, Korihor’s arguments are mainly negative. He offers little in the way of helpful solutions to existing problems or human needs.
And if that were not already enough, Korihor’s allegations and propositions get even more strident and less coherent when he is transferred from Gideon to the authorities back in Zarahemla (see 30:30–31). In his behalf, we can be sure that Korihor was very bright and that we only get a very brief thumbnail of his multiple lines of debate. He must have been able to discourse on these various arguments at great length. He was very persuasive in the minds of several followers, and he must have been very shrewd. But so were many in the audiences he addressed. The people in Jershon, having just been defended by the generosity of the Nephites, understandably gave him no quarter. And the officials in Gideon wisely realized that this case was above their experience or paygrade.
Riddle, Chauncey C., “Korihor: The Arguments of Apostasy,” Ensign,September 1977, 18–21.
C. Terry Warner, “An Open Letter to Students: On Having Faith and Thinking for Yourself,” New Era, November 1971, 14–19.