3 Book of Mormon Verses We Might Be Getting All Wrong


Recommended Posts

Here's the thing about interpretations: They're subjective. There's probably a conclusive, correct answer in each of the cases we'll be looking at below, but unfortunately Mormon isn't here to give us the thumbs-up. That said, take a look at the following examples and give the alternate interpretations some serious consideration. Who knows, you might like them. 1. Is sexual sin really almost as bad as murder? The idea that sexual sin is akin to murder comes straight from Alma's encounter with his missionary son, Corianton, in Alma 39:3-5: And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel. Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted. Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above...

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done, Brother @dsnell.

The reason such alternate* interpretations are not often discussed is that many (dare I say, most) members assume that if you're putting forward a non-standard interpretation, you are rejecting the traditional interpretation. As Brother Snell points out, this is not necessarily so. Snell brings up Alma's conversation with Corianton. His supposedly alternate interpretation is really just reading what's there. Corianton's great sin** was forsaking the ministry to go after his lusts. That—the forsaking of one's covenants—is the sin next to murder in seriousness. Does that mean sex sin isn't? Not necessarily. All who have received their endowment in the temple have specifically covenanted to avoid all extramarital sex. So such sex sin is indeed a forsaking of covenant. This is exactly why Israel is called "adulterous" when it forsakes its covenants with God. Christ pointed out that "a wicked and adulterous generation" seeks for a sign. This is clearly because such a sign-seeking generation is always a covenant-breaking generation, with no exceptions. Sign-seeking as practiced by the corrupt Jews in ancient Israel is a sure indication of breaking one's covenants. That is as true today as it was then.

*The so-called alternate interpretation is not really necessarily an alternate to the traditional reading. In many cases, as discussed above, it's simply a less biased and more text-based interpretation, often comprising the traditional interpretation as well as giving more insight—again, as discussed above.

**By the way, I have long believed that Isabel was no mere prostitute. Seriously, how many guys in ancient times who are in search of a prostitute are going to go three towns over to find The Really Great Prostitute, because she's just so fine? Seriously, that is just absurd. Isabel "stole away the hearts" of men, not merely their lustful desires. It seems much more likely to me that Isabel was a leader (something like a "high priestess") of a sex cult, something extremely common in ancient times and frankly not that uncommon today. All the so-called fertility rites might just as accurately (or more accurately) be described as the rites of a sex cult. I think this public forsaking of the ministry to go after Satanic "fertility" cult practices is much more likely to be a father's cause of severe condemnation and comparison to murder than going privately to seek out a prostitute. I'm not declaring the latter to be no big deal; it is a very big deal indeed. But publicly embracing the practices of a fertility cult is a whole 'nother degree of perversion.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Well done, Brother @dsnell.

Hmm. I found the article typical of the progressive nonsense we see on Third Hour, with a big ol' "Of what real use is this article?" question mark over the entire thing.

The underlying progressive messages seem to be: Extramarital sex isn't as bad as you think. All you so-called faithful members are really judgmental jerks. And stop worrying about working so hard in the gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love alternate interpretations.  They display the depth of the scriptures and how the same passages can have different meanings to different people - or to the same person during a different part of their life.  Another great reason to continue studying the same material and looking with an objective eye.

And I agree sex sins are bad, as well as ubiquitous.  Apostasy, leading away the Lords sheep, and breaking ones covenants are no doubt also horrendous.

The combination of all four are obviously worse than fornication alone.  Corianton will likely have some penance to do in the hereafter. 

1 hour ago, Vort said:

By the way, I have long believed that Isabel was no mere prostitute. Seriously, how many guys in ancient times who are in search of a prostitute are going to go three towns over to find The Really Great Prostitute, because she's just so fine? Seriously, that is just absurd. Isabel "stole away the hearts" of men, not merely their lustful desires. It seems much more likely to me that Isabel was a leader (something like a "high priestess") of a sex cult, something extremely common in ancient times and frankly not that uncommon today. All the so-called fertility rites might just as accurately (or more accurately) be described as the rites of a sex cult.

I agree that Isabel must have been particularly seductive to a young man.  But I bet that King David would not have given her a second look.  Bathsheba on the other hand was irresistible to David.   I suspect that because David could have had any woman he wanted, it took a unique satanic setup to bring him down.  She was the perfect woman in David’s eyes: beautiful, graceful, young, wholesome, and unavailable.

Isabels don't tempt me.   But each of us have particular things that we find seductive.  

I love the Corianton chapters because we get such great teachings from Alma.  But I don’t really feel much empathy toward Corianton.

On the other hand Psalms scares the heckfire out of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I love the Corianton chapters because we get such great teachings from Alma.  But I don’t really feel much empathy toward Corianton.

I would add this in hopes to give you a better view on him.

Alma 48:17 is a very popular verse, it reads

“17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.”

but go ahead and read one more verse.


“18 Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon, the son of Mosiah, yea, and even the other sons of Mosiah, yea, and also Alma and his sons, for they were all men of God.

We like to think of Moroni as this great man, yet he was still compared to the righteousness of all the sins of Alma, including Corianton. There was about a 4 year difference between Corianton’s rebuke and this verse describing Moroni. I like to think Corianton did some major repenting, and like Zeezrom, became a mighty man of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores

I didn't really have a problem with the first two topics.  I've actually considered them myself in the past.  I had a different interpretation of the third one.  But it is really a question of degree and nuance.

I think everyone understands the principle of "pray as if everything depends upon the Lord, and do as if everything depends on us."  One can get bogged down in the details of grace/works until it doesn't have anything to do with Christ.  And that is where it goes too far. 

The point is this:  As long as our eye is single to His glory, I don't see how we can falter too badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. I found the article typical of the progressive nonsense we see on Third Hour, with a big ol' "Of what real use is this article?" question mark over the entire thing.

The underlying progressive messages seem to be: Extramarital sex isn't as bad as you think. All you so-called faithful members are really judgmental jerks. And stop worrying about working so hard in the gospel.

I would have to agree with you; although, the overall intent is that we remain humble and understanding of other interpretations. Other interpretation might open a truth we had not considered.

#1 - Is splitting hairs between two items: apostasy (or causing someone to go into apostasy) and sexual sin. Was it apostasy or sexual sin that is after denying the Holy Ghost and murder. The fact that both are mentioned -- clearly -- we shouldn't try to split hairs saying, "Wait, it wasn't sexual sin that is like unto murder, it was apostasy or causing someone to go into apostasy." They both are mentioned.

#2 - I actually am not familiar with the "common" interpretation provided. I have always looked at this in relation to the other interpretation. We see this today in our Church and by non-members. Ever heard the term "Sheeple"? A word used that persecutes those who do not appear to believe according to their own will and pleasure. I would add a similar application, if you defend a prophet or apostle it is humorous how someone will say, "Prophets and apostles aren't always right, may be you don't realize this. That's OK you are human too." In other words, I am sorry you can't think for yourself, or you don't believe according to your own will and pleasure (you can't think for yourself). It is laughable.

#3 - I don't see any difference between either interpretation. We are saved by grace after all we can do, is the same as saying we can do all the works we want but we are saved by grace. I think to Protestant Christians they will like the later statement. Any member who is studied knows, that no matter what we do, although we are commanded to do (works, i.e. baptism is an easy example) we are saved by grace. There is no salvation without the grace of Christ.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was already familiar with both interpretations of #3.  Reading #2, I naturally interpreted it the way he did without reading the author's explanation; although I had never focused on that verse before, I do like the interpretation the author gives and how applicable it is to our modern culture.  As far as #1, I think it is a very interesting distinction, and I must say it makes sense if you consider 'how great will be your joy' if you bring 1 person unto Christ, I would assume 'how great will be your anguish' if you take 1 away from Christ to be similarly applicable; interesting perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

#1 - Is splitting hairs between two items: apostasy (or causing someone to go into apostasy) and sexual sin. Was it apostasy or sexual sin that is after denying the Holy Ghost and murder. The fact that both are mentioned -- clearly -- we shouldn't try to split hairs saying, "Wait, it wasn't sexual sin that is like unto murder, it was apostasy or causing someone to go into apostasy." They both are mentioned.

In my view, it takes a special kind of twisting to "interpret" Alma 39 as if it's discussing anything but sexual sin as the "most abominable save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost". Moreover, and more importantly, the living prophets and apostles have taught that principle fairly plainly through the years. But what I really have to wonder is, as I've said, what's the value in re-interpreting it to not mean sexual sin? Seems to me like little more than capitulation to the "feeling bad about what you've done is the worst thing" trend we have going around nowadays.

41 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

#2 - I actually am not familiar with the "common" interpretation provided.

Agreed. It's just strange to me that the conclusion he seems to draw in the article is that this scripture is a condemnation of faithful members who dare to correct those who see the gospel in "alternative" ways. Like it's a nod to relativism as legitimate -- as if every member's view is just as valid as the next's.

41 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

#3 - I don't see any difference between either interpretation.

I've always been bothered by, and frankly, disagree with Brad Wilcox's His Grace Is Sufficient speech.

In my view there's a fair amount of twisting and wriggling and redefining terms going on just to cater to "Christian" ideology because they're offended we believe in works. Well here's the thing, mister Christian...WE DO! Christ's is a works based gospel and there is simply no getting around it. Duty, service, commitment, hard work. These things are required of us.

So what we have it this word -- "earn" -- that we're redefining. Does anyone ever actually "earn" anything? Does the guy making a billion dollars "earn" it? Does the guy making a single dollar "earn" it. By what right? Well by the right of the conditions set for a labor performed. How is gospel "earning" any different? There is a price offered based upon conditions. Therefore those conditions are the means whereby we "earn" said price to be paid us -- the same as if someone offers you a million dollars in exchange for digging a ditch, and someone else gets offered a hundred dollars for digging a ditch. In the end, both individuals "earned" the money paid them because they met the conditions set for the payment.

And yet we're trying to say that this isn't the case in the gospel -- because no one really "earns" salvation -- which is true if one defines "earn" as something different than doing what is required of you to receive a payment based on set conditions.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I've always been bothered by, and frankly, disagree with Brad Wilcox's His Grace Is Sufficient speech.
 

Indeed...  While I know there is a time and place for the "Jesus Loves you no matter what" truth...  But the simple fact is that this life is not for Jesus to show how much He loves us (Which he does absolutely) But a time for us to Show how much we love Jesus...  And that requires require more then just words... as flawed as our attempts to show that will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Fether said:

I would add this in hopes to give you a better view on him.

Alma 48:17 is a very popular verse, it reads

“17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.”

but go ahead and read one more verse.


“18 Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon, the son of Mosiah, yea, and even the other sons of Mosiah, yea, and also Alma and his sons, for they were all men of God.

We like to think of Moroni as this great man, yet he was still compared to the righteousness of all the sins of Alma, including Corianton. There was about a 4 year difference between Corianton’s rebuke and this verse describing Moroni. I like to think Corianton did some major repenting, and like Zeezrom, became a mighty man of God.

I had never put that together.  Thank you for sharing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts:

#1 is not all that new. I find it interesting that it is gaining traction from the oldest article in Dialogue (1999) to Ash's article at Sunstone (2006) which most conservative members seems to treat with disdain to now being published by Book of Mormon Central which is considered more mainstream.

Ultimately, I think it illustrates some of the hazards of trying to rank sins. One, as noted by these articles, the Book of Mormon does not detail Corianton's sin -- only that his dad described it as forsaking the ministry to chase after the harlot Isabel. We don't really know how far he got in the chase or anything about Isabel's side of the story. One challenge in ranking sin is defining exactly which sin we are ranking. I have long felt that one problem with the typical ranking is that it ranks consensual sexual activity at the same level as assault and rape. In my opinion, rape must be somewhere between murder and consensual sex, but the standard interpretation doesn't acknowledge that -- perhaps because it wasn't on Alma's radar and he's the source for the ranking. Exactly what sin is next to murder in seriousness? Two, all sin keeps us out of God's presence, so it doesn't matter what sins you are guilty of.

Another thing that has recently crossed my mind on this one is whether or not this is simply an exaggerated expression from a very frustrated dad. Alma is obviously frustrated with Corianton. How many frustrated dads (when the object of the frustration is the son's girlfriend) will compare her to a prostitute? Could Alma be exaggerating the seriousness of the sin out of frustration rather than an expression of doctrinal truth?

#2 In many ways, I like the interpretation presented, but dislike that the entire argument seems to hinge on the presence/absence of a comma. We don't know exactly what was on the plates, but many ancient texts did not use much punctuation at all, and to a relatively uneducated youth like Joseph Smith, detailed rules of punctuation may not have been well understood or always followed exactly. Presence/absence/misplacement of commas can provide some interesting ideas to consider in reading and interpreting a text, but I don't think I would want to hinge my final declaration of truth on commas.

#3 is interesting. I recall somewhere reading that, when John Taylor originally translated the BoM into German (and other languages), he rendered the English "after" in this verse with word(s) that meant "in spite of" or "despite", so I don't think this is a new thing. As others have noted, because of our troubled relationship with other Christians (including Protestants and Evangelicals), I think we sometimes struggle with our ideas and understanding of grace and faith and works and salvation. As @The Folk Prophet notes, we maybe need to be careful that we don't become too Sola Fide/Sola Gratia Protestant in our views, because we are not Protestants. At the same time, we believe that "justification through the grace of our .. Savior is just and true." (D&C 20:30) It sometimes seems to me that we have swung between wanting to appear less Protestant then appear more Protestant without ever clearly and simply stating where we stand. I have noted before that I see us as having a "Sola Gratia" type but not a "Sola Fide". Protestants seem to tend to conflate the two, and it seems to me that, if we could tease the two apart, that our belief could be very well expressed as by grace alone but not by faith alone.

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Book of Mormon is scripture, but it’s punctuation may not be.  The original manuscript had no mid-sentence punctuation (these were added by a guy named John Gilbert, who never did join the Church).  So, some degree of open-mindedness is good; although certainly the traditional interpretations gain weight to the degree that they are promulgated in sermons of Church leaders and especially by Joseph Smith himself.  

But, I also daresay there’s an agenda behind why SOME passages of the BoM—but not others—are subjected to this kind of reverse-engineering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The Book of Mormon is scripture, but it’s punctuation may not be.  The original manuscript had no mid-sentence punctuation (these were added by a guy named John Gilbert, who never did join the Church).  So, some degree of open-mindedness is good; although certainly the traditional interpretations gain weight to the degree that they are promulgated in sermons of Church leaders and especially by Joseph Smith himself.  

But, I also daresay there’s an agenda behind why SOME passages of the BoM—but not others—are subjected to this kind of reverse-engineering.

Alma 40:2 Book of Mormon Text as inserted by John Gilbert

”Behold, I say unto you, that there is no resurrection—or, I would say, in other words, that this mortal does not put on immortality”

The Fether inspired correction

“Behold, I say unto you, that there is no resurrection. Or I would say in other words , that this mortal does not. put on immortality.”

I believe immortality is a hat you buy in order to avoid death.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Could Alma be exaggerating the seriousness of the sin out of frustration rather than an expression of doctrinal truth?

You really think it's a good idea to second guess The Book of Mormon as to its truthfulness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share