Musings from July 21 2024:

Korihor Strawman

This is my typical setup for a rant: Sunday School, reviewing the story of Alma’s showdown with Korihor. SS teacher’s lesson plan is to use Alma’s approach to refuting Korihor’s philosophy as a guide for how we, in our day-to-day lives, should approach someone who is espousing similar philosophies.

First, I believe this is a bad idea because our typical interactions with someone who doesn’t believe in God is not “apples-to-apples” with Korihor vs. Alma.

Some key differences:

1. Korihor KNOWS he’s lying. His arguments are not sincere, he’s deliberately deceiving (as shown by his end-of-life confession). Most atheists we encounter will actually be sincere and believe their own point of view genuinely. It is condescending and arrogant to enter a conversation with someone on a topic where you disagree under the assumption that the person you’re talking to is knowingly deceiving you, on-purpose, in order to manipulate you. Good, productive conversations begin with assuming the best intentions.
2. Korihor is deceived. This may seem similar to #1 but I bring it up because most people we have discussions with hold beliefs that are likely as-well (if not better) arrived at than our own position. Our assumption should be that we have as much to learn about the topic as the other person. Assuming, upfront, that an atheist (or whoever we’re talking with on whatever topic) has been somehow manipulated and deceived is arrogant and judgmental and will inhibit good discourse. Note that the difference between #1 and #2 is the difference between KNOWING you’re lying in #1, and in #2 just being deceived/believing someone else’s arguments. We should ask about sources and support for any argument, but not start out assuming our sources are more-reliable than those of the person with whom we’re discussing.
3. For the religiously-minded, Alma is a “prophet” and has extra close contact with “The Spirit” to discern Korihor’s real intent. It is very dangerous for “the rest of us non-prophets” to assume we can tell the inner-motives of a person with whom we’re conversing.
4. Korihor saw an angel. 99.9% sure that no one in this class room is going to be dealing with an atheist that saw an angel.

Why this matters: In real life, each individual we encounter is just that: an individual. Each will have varying degrees of knowledge supporting their position and varying levels of motivation for their beliefs. To, carte-blanche, map Korihor vs. Alma onto our own discussion with another real human being is to paint them as a caricature (a mustache-twisting villain/boogeyman out to get us), and ourselves as a caricature (an all-knowing prophet with God’s only real “truth”). 

Every individual we talk with deserves to have their ideas evaluated on the ideas’ merits without preconceived notions of how, where, or why those ideas originated. We can be curious and ask questions about the sources of the ideas, and THEN make judgements about the merits of those sources, of course!

The Book of Mormon sets up Korihor as a rhetorical “straw man” - a caricature without the nuance of reality - that is easy for “the good guys” to dismantle and “knock down” all the while touting their own right-ness.

“Straw man” reasoning is not solid reasoning, it creates a false sense of strength in your position without pushing you to find valid defense and justification. This false sense of security and over confidence (see the Dunning Krueger effect) is likely to get you into hot water when encountering real world situations. Don’t fall for the trap of oversimplifying scenarios in such a way!