Latter-day Korihor

A few months ago I learned of a man, Steve Bloor (and his brother, David) who fell away from the LDS Church. (Steve used to be a bishop!) He denounced his former belief in Christ, became an atheist, and embraced secular humanism. I've written several comments on Steve Bloor's blog, but you will not find my last comment there, only the words that preceded it. To prevent those words from "dying", I have recorded them below:

David, I don’t see how that has any relevance to what we’re discussing here. Steve’s “authority” as your bishop no more validates (or invalidates) his teachings than my lack of supposed “authority”. Nor is my alleged narcissism at issue.What matters is the truth.

(I recognize the limitations of putting words in Steve’s mouth. I hope I’m not misrepresenting him.) 

Steve has opted to believe in the “five senses” definition of reality. If you can hear it, see it, touch it, taste it or smell it (or some extension thereof), it may be real and true. Otherwise, it’s probably just imagination, delusion, subconscious mind, etc. (Steve’s probably still open to the idea that there could be a God; he would just have to have some pretty strong evidence!) Steve is a “realist”. “This life” is all there is — as far as we can know (by our five senses and our “natural man” reasoning) — barring any “revelation”. And Steve (for now) doesn’t believe in revelation…unless, of course, some space alien were to appear and “reveal” something new. (And we don’t have any evidence of aliens.) Even if we did, why should we trust them? And who’s to say “God” isn’t an alien? And even if this “alien” could be right in some things, it’s not reasonable to suppose he could be right in everything, etc, etc. The doubting and disbelieving never stops! One can always find excuse to disbelieve. 

15 Nevertheless, the people began to harden their hearts, all save it were the most believing part of them…and began to depend upon their own strength and upon their own wisdom, saying: 

16 Some things they may have guessed right, among so many; but behold, we know that all these great and marvelous works cannot come to pass, of which has been spoken. 

17 And they began to reason and to contend among themselves, saying: 

18 That it is not reasonable that such a being as a Christ shall come; if so, and he be the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, as it has been spoken, why will he not show himself unto us as well as unto them…? 

19 Yea, why will he not show himself…? 

20 But behold, we know that this is a wicked tradition, which has been handed down unto us by our fathers, to cause us that we should believe in some great and marvelous thing which should come to pass, but not among us…therefore they can keep us in ignorance, for we cannot witness with our own eyes that they are true. 

21 And they will, by the cunning and the mysterious arts of the evil one, work some great mystery which we cannot understand, which will keep us down to be servants to their words, and also servants unto them, for we depend upon them to teach us the word; and thus will they keep us in ignorance if we will yield ourselves unto them, all the days of our lives. 

22 And many more things did the people imagine up in their hearts, which were foolish and vain; and they were much disturbed, for Satan did stir them up to do iniquity continually; yea, he did go about spreading rumors and contentions upon all the face of the land, that he might harden the hearts of the people against that which was good and against that which should come.” (Helaman 16:15-22.)

This is precisely what is happening here. And you don’t think the Book of Mormon is true? 

I’m not sure I made my point clearly. Or, if I did, you didn’t understand it. 

You don’t have to take my word for it. You don’t have to only trust others. You don’t have to rely wholly upon feelings. You can have real evidence.

When I say “come unto Christ” and you will feel His love — I’m not implying that “love” itself is the only or ultimate manifestation of Christ’s reality (even though a good philosophical argument could be made that that’s the case; that, in the end, “God’s love” is all that really matters!). I’m saying that when you come unto Christ, He manifests Himself to you — by all the ways known: to Father Lehi and his son, Nephi (by open visions and dreams); to Alma and Mosiah’s four sons (spiritual epiphanies and “out-of-body” experiences); to the missionaries Nephi and Lehi (being enveloped in fire, receiving angels and hearing voices); to receiving the Lord Himself in the flesh (as did the people in Bountiful). The manifestations of God are many and varied. Both the wicked and the righteous — from prophets to murderers — have received this gift. One needn’t by “holy” to receive the witness of the Holy Ghost. (Alma Jr., the king Lamoni and his father, the 300 Lamanites coming to murder Nephi and Lehi certainly weren’t “worthy”.) You don’t have to be “worthy”. You simply have to receive when the Spirit testifies to you…and continue to receive ever afterward. The moment you stop receiving, you stop progressing. In fact, you start moving backward, losing even that which you have. (See 2 Nephi 28:30; Luke 19:26.)

Until the point is reached of which it is spoken:

“And they who remain shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received.” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:32.)

Nephi warned of this: 

“But behold, there are many that harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit, that it hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught.” (2 Nephi 33:2.)

Nephi said that, if you receive the Holy Ghost (which testifies of Christ), you can prophesy and speak with the tongue of angels (see 2 Nephi 32). Now if you can prophesy and receive power to speak beyond mortal means, how can you deny the power of God? And if you haven’t done these things, how can you claim to have received the Holy Ghost, when clearly you have not? 

As I said, you didn’t “press forward” far enough.

That’s the great fallacy and downfall of modern Mormonism. Mormons have failed to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and the baptism of fire. 

“7 And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be. 

8 And now, my beloved brethren, I perceive that ye ponder still in your hearts; and it grieveth me that I must speak concerning this thing. For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray, ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.” (2 Nephi32:7-8.)

Now, Steve, this may shock you, but I’m going to concede that you are right. You speak of “subconscious mind” being the active force that guides all belief in religion. You are right.

I do not doubt that the entire human collective of intelligence — even every living thing — is an expression of the glory and intelligence of God and that when we receive and act upon that intelligence, we are magnified and perfected and when we don’t, we are diminished. The “oneness” Christ spoke of, in part, reflects that commonality of intelligence, even subconscious thought. It is imagined that a chorus of nations all clamoring for peace, justice, mercy, harmony, forgiveness, truth and goodness could, in fact, create a heaven on earth. And, indeed, they shall, by the collective force of their subconscious minds bending to the light and will of God.

Our thoughts bear “fruit” in our words and deeds. (Alma 12:13-14.)

You are right, Steve. Most of what Mormons — yea, even all believers in “religion” — believe consists of thoughts and feelings, yearnings and desires, hopes and dreams. It is the “stuff” of the Spirit (or spirits).

But that spirit gives birth to physical fruit, for good or ill. The religion of Muhammad, being corrupted, is a current example of that process gone awry. Mormons, too, at Mountain Meadows and elsewhere, have harvested the bitter fruit of false faith.

Whatever is “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” (Article of Faith 13) we seek after because that is how heaven will be created — by gods-in-embryo, learning to do “on earth as it is in heaven”.

Steve Bloor maintains his blog to “gain personal insight into [his] own neurology in the context of previous Mormon thinking and [his] evolving belief system”. He claims to “not wish to deconvert anyone”, but to “reach out to others who are going through a similar transition, to offer hope and inspire courage to other disaffected and questioning Mormons”. Transition to what? Courage to do what? Steve may not wish to “deconvert” anyone, but he sure hopes to inspire others to follow him out the door!

Steve claims he welcomes “contrary” comments on his blog, but apparently does not dialogue with those who are “absolutely sure of their testimonies and committed to unquestioning adherence to their belief system.” Why? I presume he wishes to avoid unnecessary contention. The adherent, he presumes, isn't going to change his views because of Steve's ruminations and Steve is hereby announcing to the world that he will not be persuaded differently by anything such an individual might have to say. Steve is so certain of the superiority of his trajectory that he can even afford to dismiss contrary claims on the basis that they violate his genteel rules of manners and propriety. No pauline proclamations that “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall”! (See Acts 23:3.) Such would be considered a “personal attack”. Steve warns: “[I]f you feel inclined to comment in an emotionally defensive and argumentative tone I will not argue with you!” Comments he deems not “respectful” are also disallowed. Neither does he tolerate “attempts at character assassination.” “I will instead wish you well in your journey and bid you farewell”.

In any case, Steve may not want to clutter up his blog with opposing arguments he disdains but cannot refute. (Irrefutable claims are not necessarily true or false, but they can be irritating – and even embarrassing – to debate, a futile exercise.) Steve knows he's right, after all. His “evolving belief system” is only evolving away from the Church. To Steve, the Church is “evil” inasmuch as it is “false”. There will be no “bearing testimony” of Mormonism allowed on Steve's blog.

His “rules for comments” end with these words:

Instead of emotion-driven thinking and comments, I value rational thought and well-considered argument. 

Please feel free to join a philosophical debate.

So he welcomes debate! With that encouragement, I submitted my last comment (see above), but Steve refused (to post) it. Wasn't it “rational” and “well considered”? It certainly contributed to the “philosophical debate”, did it not?

But Steve doesn't really want debate. He wants an echo chamber of disaffected souls he can lead to hell...er...I mean, oblivion. (Steve doesn't believe in hell.) He fancies himself a “savior” of sorts: a savior from Mormonism. He proclaims “this life is it” – “here and now” is all there is. After this life is...nothing. No consciousness. No existence. Only annihilation. So why in hell does Steve care what anyone does or thinks? From his philosophical viewpoint, life if ultimately pointless anyway. What good is it to fill a bag – even with “the very best” – only to rip it open again, losing everything? Truly “all is vain” in Steve's world.

I won't flatter myself by thinking my post “struck a nerve” with Steve or that I gave him pause to reconsider his decision to leave Mormonism. On the contrary, Steve probably pities me and dismisses my arguments with the kind of benign indulgence one exercises toward a child who is worried about leaving cookies for Santa Claus. He doesn't take my words seriously. Steve is nothing if not convinced of the superiority of his wisdom and learning. He has abandoned his “superstitions” of religious faith and now practices a lifestyle that is “free” to “live life to its fullest” (whatever that means).

Apparently Steve was insulted by my comparing him to Korihor – a prominent Book of Mormon critic and secular humanist. But Steve's words mimic that anti-Christ almost perfectly! I think Steve knows it, and that's why he won't post my comment. He doesn't want to give the Book of Mormon any credit for “predicting” his arguments. He certainly doesn't want to publish a half dozen testimonies from others (Nephi, Alma Jr., Mormon, etc.) that testify of Christ manifesting Himself unto those who love Him and keep His commandments. Christ never appeared to Steve.

Steve also never knew the Savior's love. (Or, at least, he won't admit it!) My comments expose the contradiction in Steve's logic. He claims to have known the “Mormon God” only to discover that “He” is a fake, a figment of man's imagination. But the Book of Mormon states that those who receive Christ (and the witness of the Holy Ghost) experience divine power. They can speak with the tongue of angels and experience a remission of their sins by fire (see 2 Nephi 31:17; 32:2-3). If one experiences said power, how then can one claim that God does not exist, since only God's power could bring one “thus far” (2 Nephi 31:19)? And if God doesn't manifest this power, how then can one claim he ever “knew” God (as Steve does)?

Steve can't rationally make both claims simultaneously. Either he must deny ever truly knowing God (for, in Steve's world, God cannot be real) or he must deny ever receiving God's power (for that would be evidence that God exists!). If Steve denies either claim, however, he undercuts his own argument that he is, in any sense, an “authority” on Mormonism.

If anything, Steve's failure to “come unto Christ” and receive of the heavenly gift is evidence of only two things: either Christ isn't real (and the gift of the Holy Ghost is a sham) or Steve fell short.

If Christ isn't real, nothing on earth can prove that fact. One cannot prove a negative. There is always the possibility that somehow, somewhere Christ in His glory may be revealed. (In fact, that is the very claim made by those who say, positively, that they have “come unto Christ”!) If Steve fell short, well...what would be the evidence of that? He claims he didn't receive as promised...and he didn't. So that only proves he did not receive. It doesn't prove God doesn't exist.

But what of all those who claim they have received? Are they all liars? Are they all deceived? (Steve thinks so.) Mormons can't make the claim, however, that "so many 'testimonies' can't be wrong", for don't Mormons also argue that everyone else (a far greater number!) is in error? There is, therefore, no “safety in numbers”. Countless “testimonies” are insufficient to convince. Paul was not persuaded by the many witnesses he imprisoned and put to death. (See Acts 22:19-20.) Only the vision of Christ Himself altered Paul's view.

The only way to know if God is real is to know God. There is no other way.

Steve is, in fact, a base novice, a pretender, who knows nothing whereof he speaks. Like Nicodemus who knew not what it meant to be “born again” (see John 3:10), Steve Bloor never tasted of the “heavenly gift”. He never received the gift of the Holy Ghost or experienced divine manifestations beyond feeling “warm fuzzies” in his heart or “happy thoughts” in his mind. Steve never came unto Christ.

Or if he did, he now denies it. That's why the Savior warned:

“After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.” (2 Nephi 31:14.)

Why? Because those who reject the Spirit of God after having received it cut themselves off from the only mechanism by which divine truth may be discovered, the only way an accountable soul may be saved or advanced. All who would come unto God must “enter in” at this gate! (See 2 Nephi 31:16-18.) There is no other way or means by which mankind may be saved. (Alma 38:9.)

I am not convinced that Steve ever received the heavenly gift. I am not convinced that he ever experienced the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, had the heavens opened to him, or communed with God. I don't believe Steve ever knew the Savior personally. I imagine that Steve is much like Aminadab, a man who once dabbled in the faith, who once “knew” the gospel, but never experienced its divine power (see Helaman 5:35, 39).

Such people can be rescued! (Helaman 5:42-50.) Steve's blog may yet become a true beacon of light and hope to the disaffected and disillusioned.

If, on the other hand, Steve received the gift and knows the power of God and has altogether turned therefrom, he is in danger of committing the unpardonable sin.

 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,  

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (Hebrews 6:4-6.)

I feel nothing but compassion for Steve. He tried so hard. He served as a bishop! His congregation loved him! And Steve was obviously inspired to see the “holes” and flaws inherent in the Mormon faith. (“Mormonism” certainly has them! By contrast, the “fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ” is perfect and complete.)

Ironically, as Steve was sharing his “revelations” about why he left Mormonism, I was experiencing my own “epiphanies” that helped me see the “bigger picture”. The blogs Pure Mormonism and from the desk of Denver Snuffer have hugely impacted my understanding of the gospel and the Church. (They are not the same!) I have more in common with Steve than he probably imagines. The major difference between us (I suppose) is that I have a testimony of Jesus Christ and he doesn't.

If Steve really wants a philosophical "debate" about the reality and nature of God, shouldn't he, at least, be willing to entertain “rational” and “well-considered” arguments from those who claim that God exists?