Rhetoric: Korihor now presents a powerful argument. He knows that the doctrine of the need for an Atoning Messiah is related to the Fall. He focuses on that first cause for sin’s entrance into the world, claims that the Nephites believe in punishing the descendants of this far-distant father for his sins, and then argues that a child is not guilty because of its parents. We lack the details to know whether Korihor’s sketch accurately describes Nephite belief. Based on our modern understanding of the gospel, we would expect that the Nephites would subscribe to something like the second Article of Faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” However, given the communal nature of Nephite religion, the concept of inheriting sin through kin lines would not be unusual.
Korihor’s accusation might have been theologically inaccurate but sufficiently close to make his point—not individual culpability but against the need for an Atoning Messiah, a need created by the Fall. Korihor pulled the Fall from its original setting and put it in a different context, assuming that the Nephites believed that children would not be punished for their parents’ sins. Korihor has thus juxtaposed two Nephite beliefs, making them appear to be in conflict with each other.
This tactic is effective. It creates a question in the listener’s mind by creating an apparent contradiction between two concepts that the listener believes. The speaker can then point out that it is impossible to believe both simultaneously and accuse the religion of fundamental inconsistency for allowing such a contradiction. Obviously, however, Korihor does not understand that the Atoning Messiah’s mission was to create a condition where we were again accountable for our own sins. Since Korihor does not believe in, nor truly understand the atonement, he has drastically oversimplified the argument.