Those who engage in religious bullying mimic to a degree the contemptible qualities of Korihor, the quintessential anti-Christ of the Book of Mormon. Korihor, by Scott M. Snow. Courtesy of Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

Bullying is an ever-present malignant plague. While discussions of bullying often focus on youths, bullying occurs among all age groups. It is a sin that has been repeatedly decried by modern apostles and prophets. Elder Dale G. Renlund identified it as a form of persecution that we must guard against: “Persecution comes in many forms: ridicule, harassment, bullying, exclusion and isolation, or hatred toward another. We must guard against bigotry that raises its ugly voice toward those who hold different opinions.” [1] One major problem with bullying, however, is how easily we can miss diagnosing it within ourselves. Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf observed, “Often, people may condemn bullying in others, yet they cannot see it in themselves.” [2] Such unawareness does not excuse us from the harm our bullying inflicts on others. As Elder Neil L. Andersen testified, “In the gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no place for ridicule, bullying, or bigotry.” [3] The gospel of Jesus Christ is about building people up and leading them to salvation. Bullying, on the other hand, is an international public and mental health concern because it has been repeatedly connected to numerous physical and psychological problems including, but not limited to, lower self-esteem, depression, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation.[4] Thus, bullying is antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Despite the relative youthfulness of the terms bully and bullying and applying them to those who exhibit aggressive behavior intended to inflict some form of harm, such people have always existed. In this essay, I examine the story of Korihor as a window to exploring one of the unfortunately common forms of bullying: religious, or faith-based, bullying. After establishing what a religious bully is and how Mormon presents Korihor as an anti-Christ, I will show how Korihor employed the tactics of a religious bully to bolster his anti-Christian agenda. Thus, one lesson is that those who engage in religious bullying mimic the quintessential anti-Christ of the Book of Mormon. I also consider how we may be guilty of bullying and provide keys to help us rise above such offensive practices.

What Is a Religious Bully?

Unwanted aggressive behavior—whether through words, actions, or threats—characterizes all forms of bullying. Moreover, such aggression intends to inflict harm, be it physical, emotional, psychological, social, or economic.[5] Religious bullying is a subcategory of bullying that focuses on the aggressor’s discriminatory abuse of people based on their religion, faith, or lack thereof. As described by W. Y. Alice Chan, one of the world’s leading researchers on the topic, “Religious bullying occurs when a religious or religiously unaffiliated party in an incident chooses to intentionally degrade another party. It can be based on the actual or perceived religious or religiously unaffiliated identity of the party being bullied, or because of their specific religious or non-religious beliefs.”[6] Thus, religious bullying may target a person of faith or no declared faith. In the bully’s eyes the target’s religious values or lack thereof are wrong and in need of forceful correction.

A victim’s fear of repeated abuse mitigates the need for an action to be repeated in order to qualify as bullying. Despite common definitions holding that an offense must be repeated in order to be classified as bullying, researchers now realize that such a requirement is arbitrary because “being exposed to hurtful behaviors, even on single occasions, creates a constant concern within the target about renewed attacks and what the aggressor/perpetrator(s) will do next.”[7] Such concern may lead a victim to take preemptive measures that prevent further exposure to the aggressor and the abuse. Because targets of religious bullying may be members of the bully’s own religious community, avoidance can be difficult without the victim modifying, or even abandoning, his or her own religious participation.

Korihor the Antichrist

Korihor is the only person in the Book of Mormon that is specifically called an anti-Christ (see Alma 30:12).[8] By definition, an anti-Christ is “anyone or anything that counterfeits the true gospel or plan of salvation and that openly or secretly is setup in opposition to Christ.” [9] Every word out of Korihor’s mouth confirms his anti-Christ agenda of denying and replacing Jesus Christ. At the heart of Korihor’s doctrine was an open opposition to Christ: “There should be no Christ” (v. 12). First, Korihor asserted that because no one could know what would happen in the future (such as the coming of a Christ), the Nephites could not know that a Christ would come (see vv. 13, 15, 26).[10] Second, because “every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature” (v. 17), humans succeeded, failed, and suffered consequences only as a natural (and causative) consequence of their actions. Sin was thus an irrelevant concept. As such, “there could be no atonement” (v. 17) because there was no need for a Christ.

Korihor’s anti-Christ agenda also introduced a counterfeit deliverer intended to replace Jesus Christ. A fundamental tenet of Christian belief is that certain human misdeeds constitute sin for which a person must repent and needs deliverance. The only true source of deliverance is Jesus Christ (see 2 Nephi 25:20; Acts 4:12). However, Korihor’s doctrine asserted that sin did not exist (see Alma 30:17). As such, according to Brigham Young University professor of ancient scripture Daniel Belnap, “Korihor claimed that the current system [of governance] stole individual liberty” because it made the people reliant on their priests for obtaining divine forgiveness.[11] That reliance, according to Korihor, led the people into “bondage” (vv. 23–24, 27–28) instead of to the freedom that Nephite traditions taught proceeded from belief in Christ (see, e.g., 2 Nephi 2:26–29; Mosiah 5:7–8). As Belnap observed, “Korihor appears to understand himself as a deliverer for the Nephite population,” effectively replacing the need for Christ.[12] According to Korihor’s anti-Christ doctrine, the only way for the Nephites to regain their freedom would be to sever their connections to Christ and the church that preaches Christ’s doctrines.[13]

Mormon’s presentation of Korihor was not a simple historical account of what actually happened. Regarding all of Mormon’s editorial work, Book of Mormon researcher Brant A. Gardner observed that “Mormon’s purposes were didactic, not reconstructive. He told a moral story in which the moral was more important than the facts.”[14] This does not mean that Mormon concocted any of his stories! Instead, Mormon is best understood as a prophetic literary master who carefully crafted and integrated his material into his larger inspired narrative to maximize the spiritual lessons his careful readers can extract with the turn of every page.

One such lesson derives from the way Mormon introduced and concluded the story of Korihor. Immediately before mentioning the coming of this anti-Christ to Zarahemla, Mormon thrice noted that the land was in a state of peace during the sixteenth and seventeenth years of the reign of the judges because “the people did observe to keep the commandments of the Lord” (see Alma 30:2– 6).[15] Mormon then introduced the Anti-Christ: “But it came to pass in the latter end of the seventeenth year, there came a man into the land of Zarahemla, and he was Anti-Christ” (v. 6). With the backdrop of a thrice-emphasized mention of peace in the land, the contrastive conjunctive phrase “but it came to pass” hints at the beginning of a decline in peace.

Mormon’s narration of Korihor’s repeatedly abusive language invites his readership to connect the anti-Christ with diminished peace. Korihor referred to the believers’ faith and traditions regarding Jesus as “foolish,” “vain,” and “silly” (vv. 13–14, 23, 27, 31). He further denigrated the believers by denying any legitimacy to their claims to know of Christ through faith when he insisted they “cannot know,” they have a “belief of things which are not so,” and “there could be no atonement” (vv. 15–17). Moreover, Korihor asserted that the only way a person could believe such things is because their minds were “frenzied” and “derange[d]” (v. 16). Beyond simply attacking his Christian audience and their faith, Korihor mocked their ancestors by repeatedly accusing them of passing down such “foolish” and “silly” beliefs (see vv. 14, 16, 23, 27, 31).

Mormon concludes the story of Korihor by indicating he was a child of the devil. After recounting Korihor’s horrific death by trampling (v.59), Mormon summarizes, “And thus we see the end of him who perverteth the ways of the Lord; and thus we see that the devil will not support his children at the last day, but doth speedily drag them down to hell” (v.60). With this, Mormon reaffirms that Korihor perverted the Lord’s true teachings and identified Korihor as a child of the devil. The first mention in the Book of Mormon of mortal children of the devil refers to those who help the devil create a church that opposes and actively fights against the church of the Lamb of God (see 1 Nephi 13:5–6; 14:3, 10, 13). Thus, Mormon’s final identification of Korihor as a child of the devil forcefully reasserts the true nature of Korihor as an anti-Christ.

Korihor as Religious Bully

Much of Mormon’s depiction of Korihor as an anti-Christ corresponds to modern definitions of religious bullying. As defined above, religious bullying occurs when one person or group “chooses to intentionally degrade” another person or group on account of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Given Korihor’s choice of language, it is impossible to deny that he intended to insult and disparage his Christian audience. Korihor did not simply state that he did not believe in Jesus. Neither did he merely teach why he did not believe in Jesus. Instead, Korihor repeatedly referred to belief in Christ as “foolish,” “vain,” and “silly,” and to believers in Christ as “frenzied” and “deranged.” Such language shows Korihor’s contempt and derision, as well as his attempt to belittle his target audience.

Korihor’s intent to psychologically harm Christians emotionally and spiritually is plainly evidenced in his unapologetic response to the high priest Giddonah’s pointed question regarding why Korihor chose to interrupt the Gideonites’ rejoicings (see Alma 30:22).[16] Korihor’s response indicates he understood the intent of Giddonah’s question perfectly. Instead of asserting that the Gideonites were too easily offended (thereby suggesting offense was not intended), Korihor admitted to initiating the encounter and disrupting the people’s rejoicing in the coming of Christ “because I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers” (v. 23). Moreover, Korihor continued to maintain his aggressive tone of mocking derision (e.g., “foolish traditions”).

Mormon also presented Korihor as persistently preaching his combative anti-Christ views. While repetitive aggression toward a singular target is not an absolute requirement for an action to be considered religious bullying, repetition remains a frequent characteristic. Instead of detailing Korihor as repeatedly attacking a particular person, Mormon depicts him as recurrently targeting the same religious group: Christians. Furthermore, in his narration of Korihor’s verbal assaults, Mormon emphasized the consistency of Korihor’s attacks.

After detailing what Korihor preached to the people in Zarahemla, Mormon noted that Korihor intended “to preach these things” to the Ammonites in the land of Jershon (see Alma 30:19). The plain implication is that “these things” constituted what he had taught in Zarahemla. Mormon’s description of Korihor’s exchange with the Gideonite leaders reveals that Korihor taught the same things in Gideon as he had in Zarahemla (see vv. 20–28; see also vv. 13–17). Similarly, when he spoke with Alma, Korihor “did go on in the same manner as he did in the land of Gideon” (v. 30), which corresponded to what he had preached in Zarahemla. Moreover, Mormon recorded Alma’s fear that, if given the chance, Korihor would continue to preach his unwanted and hostile doctrine (see v. 55). Therefore, even if Korihor did not repeatedly target the same person, Mormon presented Korihor as unrelenting in his efforts to attack Christianity whenever the opportunity arose.

Everything Korihor said referred to his Nephite audience’s religious beliefs. He primarily attacked the doctrine of Christ, both the Nephites’ need for Christ and the coming of Christ. But Korihor also attacked the character of the priests who taught those truths. Korihor did not explicitly address the Christian church’s influence on the sociopolitical sphere. Neither did he address his Nephite audience’s wealth or poverty. Mormon makes no mention of Korihor addressing issues of race or Nephite relations with the Lamanites, either recent converts or ancient enemies. When Korihor accused his audience members of mental incompetence, his criticism centered on their belief in the coming of Jesus Christ, not on any objectively measurable metric. Everything focused on the Nephites’ religious beliefs and, importantly, on belittling those beliefs. Thus, all Korihor’s anti-Christ activities, as presented by Mormon, correlate with labeling Korihor with the modern designation “religious bully.”

Korihor and Us

Mormon’s narration of the story of Korihor invites us (his latter-day readers) to consider where we stand in relation to Korihor. Using a literary device known as “audience surrogate,” Mormon framed the story of Korihor by using brief descriptions instead of Korihor’s name in order to permit his readers to see that the story of Korihor could apply to more than just the historical figure of Korihor. Alma 30:6 introduces an unnamed person whom Mormon called “Anti-Christ.” After detailing Korihor’s death, Mormon summarizes, “And thus we see the end of him who perverteth the ways of the Lord” (v. 60). While both verses 6 and 60 refer to Korihor, by explicitly using a brief description instead of Korihor’s name, Mormon appears to invite his readers to see that the story of Korihor is a lesson and warning that anyone who acts like Korihor is in danger of becoming an “Anti-Christ . . . who perverteth the ways of the Lord.”

Though truly converted Christians rarely have to worry about overtly denying Christ or seeking to replace Jesus, those were not the only actions of Korihor that earned him the title anti-Christ. Mormon also details how Korihor aggressively mocked the religious beliefs of others, which simultaneously led to a diminishment of peace and encapsulated his fight with the church of Christ. Thus, we should ask ourselves how we treat other people. Do we, like Korihor, belittle the beliefs of people of religious persuasions different from our own? Do we, like Korihor, interrupt people’s religious rejoicings and thereby decrease their joy? Do we, like Korihor, ever seek to cause people to doubt their faith? Do we ever roll our eyes or mouth “Wow!” when we hear about another person’s beliefs? Do we ever laugh, chuckle, snort, or otherwise ridicule as people share their beliefs? Do we ever exclaim, “How can you believe in [insert doctrine or practice here]?!” Though we may never explicitly call another’s belief “foolish,” many of the above questions or actions will send that very signal.

Even some Latter-day Saint foundational truth claims are not beyond self-reflective analysis in how we use them. An experience shared by Robert Millet, an emeritus BYU professor of ancient scripture, demonstrates the seriousness with which we should consider the impact of how we speak to others. Several years ago, he recounted a friendly conversation he had with two Protestant ministers. During their discussion, one of the ministers asked how much it bothers Millet when people suggest that Latter-day Saints are not Christian. Millet responded, “It doesn’t just bother me. It hurts me, for I know how deeply as a Latter-day Saint I love the Lord and how completely I trust in Him.”[17] Note the use of the word hurt and how much more pain it connotes than does bother.

Millet’s minister friend then asked him, “How do you think it makes us feel when we know of your belief” that your church is “the only true and living church upon the face of whole earth” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:30)?[18] The essence of the minister’s question was that Latter-day Saints who vocalize such sentiments regarding other Christian denominations do not simply bother their Christian brothers and sisters, but hurt them just like Millet was hurt whenever someone suggested he is not a Christian. While we must not deny what we know to be true,[19] President Gordon B. Hinckley taught that “we don’t need to exploit the Lord’s words to Joseph. We just need to be kind and good and gracious people to others, showing by our example the great truth of that which we believe.” [20]

One key to avoid becoming a religious bully to any degree is to learn to find value in other people’s religious traditions. The late Krister Stendahl, a Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm and a professor at Harvard Divinity School, famously propounded the concept of “holy envy.” Holy envy entails a willingness to recognize elements in other peoples’ religious traditions that one wishes to emulate and adopt into their own faith practices.[21] The concept of holy envy is connected to meekness as defined by Elder David A. Bednar. “A distinguishing characteristic of meekness is a particular spiritual receptivity to learning both from the Holy Ghost and from people who may seem less capable, experienced, or educated, who may not hold important positions, or who otherwise may not appear to have much to contribute.” [22] An attitude of meekness and holy envy will keep a person humble and teachable and prevent any feelings of religious superiority. Such a person will not call another’s beliefs foolish, but rather will search those beliefs for divine truths and goodness to add to his or her own life.

Faithful Latter-day Saints should be neither fearful nor hesitant to engage in holy envy because prophets have never claimed that Latter-day Saints have a monopoly on truth or revelation. Joseph Smith taught in 1843 that “one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”[23] Similarly, in 1928 (and reiterated in 1972 and 2008), Elder Orson F. Whitney observed, “God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of his great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous, for any one people.” [24] Furthermore, in 2 Nephi 29:10–13 the Lord revealed to Nephi that He speaks to all nations of the earth and commands them to write his words so that one day all people will have everyone else’s account of the Lord’s dealings with them. Therefore, the gospel of Jesus Christ embraces all truth and good things, including those found among other religions, because all truth and good ultimately originate from God (see Moroni 7:12; Ether 4:12; James 1:17).[25]

A second key to forestalling any development into a religious bully is to recognize the second great commandment for what it truly is: the essence of the gospel (see 1 John 4:20–21; Matthew 22:37–40; 25:40; Mosiah 2:17; Doctrine and Covenants 42:38).[26] As President Dallin H. Oaks taught, “The commandment to love one another surely includes love and respect across religious lines and also across racial, cultural, and economic lines. We challenge all youth to avoid bullying, insults, or language and practices that deliberately inflict pain on others. All of these violate the Savior’s command to love one another.” [27] Even when we must stand tall against falsehoods, “Our obligation to tolerance means that . . . [no] deviations from the truth—should ever cause us to react with hateful communications or unkind words.”[28] In other words, under no circumstances should we stoop to Korihor’s level of aggressive and disparaging language. Love and kindness should garnish all our interpersonal and interreligious interactions.

The third key to avoid becoming a religious bully is to recognize people for who they really are. Irrespective of our differences, we are all children of God, made in his image, siblings to one another.[29] However, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel insightfully noted that each human life is a little more than just a child of God: “He is all of humanity in one, and whenever one man is hurt we are all injured. The human is a disclosure of the divine, and all men are one in God’s care for man. Many things on earth are precious, some are holy, humanity is holy of holies. To meet a human being is an opportunity to sense the image of God, the presence of God.”[30] Therefore, to belittle a person is to belittle God. To mock a person is to mock God. To bully a person is to bully God. If we find ourselves guilty of these clear breaches in Christian conduct, we are essentially moving in Korihor’s direction, taking on some of the contemptible qualities that marked his estrangement from God as he became the Book of Mormon’s quintessential anti-Christ.

Notes

[1] Dale G. Renlund, “Our Good Shepherd,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2017, 32; emphasis added.

[2] Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Perfect Love Casteth Out Fear,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2017, 105.

[3] Neil L. Andersen, “Spiritual Whirlwinds,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2014, 20.

[4] See, for example, W. Y. Alice Chan and Catherine Stapleton, “Religious-Based Bullying: International Perspectives on What It Is and How to Address It,” in The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Bullying: A Comprehensive and International Review of Research and Intervention, ed. Peter K. Smith and James O’Higgins Norman (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2021), 323; and W. Y. Alice Chan, Teaching Religious Literacy to Combat Religious Bullying: Insights from North American Secondary Schools (New York: Routledge, 2021), 38–40.

[5] See Lisa Hellström, Robert Thornberg, and Dorothy L. Espelage, “Definitions of Bullying,” in Smith and Norman, Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Bullying, 5; Chan and Stapleton, “Religious-Based Bullying,” 321; and Chan, Teaching Religious Literacy, 34–35.

[6] Chan, Teaching Religious Literacy, 34.

[7] Hellström, Thornberg, and Espelage, “Definitions of Bullying,” 12.

[8] Since B. H. Roberts described Nehor and Sherem as anti-Christ alongside Korihor, Latter-day Saints frequently have treated them together. For a detailed comparison of these three figures, see John W. Welch, The Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2008), 301–9.

[9] See Bible Dictionary, “Antichrist.”

[10] Korihor believed that Christianity required belief that contradicted knowledge gained from experience. Latter-day Saint philosopher Mark Wrathall identified how Alma’s sermon to the Zoramites in Alma 32 was focused on showing how knowledge through faith is a legitimate source of knowledge, in direct response to the arguments made by Korihor and his successors. See Mark A. Wrathall, Alma 30–63: A Brief Theological Introduction (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2020), 12–68.

[11] Daniel Belnap, “‘And he was Anti-Christ’: The Significance of the Eighteenth Year of the Reign of the Judges, Part 2,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 28, no. 1 (2019): 120.

[12] See Belnap, “And he was Anti-Christ,” 93; see also 120–21.

[13] However, as Daniel Belnap noted, Korihor’s conception of individual freedom would have permitted people “to perform spectacularly heinous acts” if they had the skill and will to do so. Belnap, “And he was Anti-Christ,” 105.

[14] Brant A. Gardner, “Mormon’s Editorial Method and Meta-Message,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011 21, no. 1 (2009): 95.

[15] Mormon clearly indicates the causative link between the Nephites’ obedience to the Lord’s commandments (see Alma 30:3) and continual peace throughout the sixteenth year by prefacing his statement of peace with “And thus the people did have no disturbance” (v. 4).

[16] Daniel Belnap suggested that Korihor may have physically interrupted an actual religious service of some kind. Such an interruption would have given the Gideonites legal grounds to arrest Korihor and remove him from their lands. See Belnap, “And he was Anti-Christ,” 113–14.

[17] Robert L. Millet, “Joseph Smith and ‘The Only True and Living Church,’” in A Witness for the Restoration: Essays in Honor of Robert J. Matthews, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Andrew C. Skinner (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2007), 201; emphasis in original.

[18] Millet, “Only True and Living Church,” 201–2. I have shortened the pastor’s question that originally included the apostasy and what the Lord said to Joseph during the First Vision (see Joseph Smith—History 1:19).

[19] Robert Millet discusses what the phrase “the only true and living church” does and does not mean in his article by the same name. See the article at https://rsc.byu.edu/witness-restoration/joseph-smith-only-true-living-church.

[20] Gordon B. Hinckley, “Inspirational Thoughts,” Ensign, June 2004, 3. Quoted in Millet, “Only True and Living Church,” 227–28.

[21] See “Respect for Diversity of Faiths,” LDS Newsroom, April 18, 2008, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-diversity-of-faiths.

[22] David A. Bednar, “Meek and Lowly of Heart,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2018, 32.

[23] Journal, December 1842–June 1844; Book 2, 10 March 1843–14 July 1843, p. [302], The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843/310. Numerous prophets have taught this same principle since then. For additional prophetic quotes, see Millet, “Only True and Living Church,” 203–7.

[24] Quoted in “Respect for Diversity of Faiths”; see Ezra Taft Benson, “Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints,” Ensign, July 1972.

[25] See Russell M. Nelson, “What Is True?,” Liahona, November 2022.

[26] See Thomas S. Monson, “Love—the Essence of the Gospel,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2014, 91–94.

[27] Dallin H. Oaks, “Loving Others and Living with Differences,” Ensign, November 2014, 27.

[28] Dallin H. Oaks, “Truth and Tolerance,” CES Fireside, 11 September 2011, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/-truth-and-tolerance-elder-dallin-h-oaks.

[29] See President Russell M. Nelson’s recent prophetic declarations on the importance of never allowing another title, identifier, or label to supplant our identity as children of God. “Choices for Eternity,” Worldwide Devotional for Young Adults, May 15, 2022, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/broadcasts/worldwide-devotional-for-young-adults/2022/05/12nelson.

[30] Abraham Joshua Heschel, “No Religion Is an Island,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 21, no. 2 (1966): 121, emphasis in original.