Rhetorical: Korihor now presents a powerful argument. He knows that the doctrine of the need for an Atoning Messiah is related to the Fall of Adam. He focuses on that first cause of the entrance of sin into the world and focuses on that. He suggests that the Nephites believe that man may be punished for the sins of this long distant father. He then suggests that a child is not guilty because of its parents. This argument is not sufficiently developed in the Book of Mormon that we can be certain of whether or not this is an accurate description of Nephite belief. We would expect that it is not, as our modern understanding should not be so different in this point. The second Article of Faith indicates: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”
Korihor’s accusation would have been theologically inaccurate, but sufficiently close that he could make his point. Korihor was not arguing for individual culpability, but specifically for the need for an Atoning Messiah, a need created by the Fall in the Garden. For Korihor’s argument, he focuses on that defining situation, then pulls that particular event out of the original context and places it into a different context. The reason for this particular argument would precisely be that the Nephites would believe the concept that children would not be punished for the sins of the parents. What Korihor has done is take an idea that the Nephites believe, and made it appear that it is in conflict with another idea that they believe.
This is a remarkable tactic that is still used in anti-Mormon literature today. The intent of the technique is to create a question in the mind of the listener by creating an apparent contradiction between two concepts that the listener holds to be true. The speaker may then suggest that it is impossible to believe both simultaneously, and therefore accuse the religion of fundamental inconsistency for allowing such a contradiction. Most of the contradictions are as simplistic as the one Korihor presents. While it sounds contradictory on the surface, it relies on its superficiality. In this particular case, Korihor does not understand that the mission of the Savior was to create a condition where the power of the Atonement would create a situation where we were again accountable for our own sins. Since Korihor does not believe in, nor truly understand the Atonement, he creates this argument by oversimplifying his subject.