Abstract: A brief outline of the saga of Korihor, the Anti-Christ, is provided along with a discussion of his affinities with other Book of Mormon anti-Christs, including those in the order of Nehors. Literary allusions suggesting Korihor as a foil to the king of the Lamanites are examined. Evidence of a schism among the order of Nehors leading to violence is discussed. Korihor’s unusual death is examined within the context of the theme of crushing the serpent from the stories of Adam, Eve, and Cain.

The brash materialism of Korihor during his trial as he argues against the existence of prophecy, sin, and even basic morality mark him as one of the most modern-sounding antagonists in the Book of Mormon. His arguments that “every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime” and “that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof” (Alma 30:17–18) would be at home on many college campuses worldwide. Like many of the other antagonists in the Book of Mormon, his origins, motivations, and purposes are all rather murky. John Welch notes:

The text gives no indication whatever of his ethnic or tribal origin, his city or land of residence, or his religious or political affiliations. All these omissions cannot be accidental. Indeed, the text wants readers to see Korihor as an isolated individual defying the foundation of collective responsibility that undergirded the concepts of justice, ethics, prosperity, and well-being in Nephite and Israelite societies. In the Book [Page 224]of Mormon array of typologies, Korihor represents the radical individual thinker, detached from community and unconcerned about the consequences of his ideas, who is bound and determined above all to speak his mind. Speech was his stock-in-trade.¹

Korihor challenges the basis of legitimacy of both the Nephite legal system and the Christian church, but his swift rise in the text is followed by an equally swift fall. The end of Korihor has provoked much speculation, for it is difficult to understand what circumstances might have led to him getting trampled “until he was dead” (Alma 30:59). After a brief discussion of some of the information that can be gleaned about Korihor, we will see that Korihor was viewed by the authors of the Book of Mormon as a villain stamped in the mold of Cain, and that his eventual end is as predictable as that of any of the biblical antagonists who hearken to the whisperings of that old serpent, the devil.

The Mission and Life of Korihor

In his efforts to undermine the foundations of the Nephite government and religion, Korihor seems to be attempting to advance the agenda of either the Nehors or the Zoramites. The text tells us that Nehor was executed based on the logic that, “were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction” (Alma 1:12). Amlici, a follower of Nehor, later alarmed the Christian Nephites because “it was his intent to destroy the church of God” (Alma 2:4), and “the Nephites greatly feared that the Zoramites would enter into a correspondence with the Lamanites, and that it would be the means of great loss on the part of the Nephites” (Alma 31:4). These warnings suggest that the religious and political turmoil swirling through the Nephite polity during the timeframe in question were of a sort that could bring about their entire destruction. Korihor seems, in turn, to have been actively promoting the very ideas that the Christian Nephite leaders feared. Alma had seen firsthand what could happen when the ideas propounded by the Nehors propagated freely among his people, which is perhaps why later on he worked so hard and enlisted some of the most powerful missionaries of his generation to try to stem the threat of similar philosophies espoused by the Zoramites.

[Page 225]Where does Korihor fit on the spectrum of philosophies discussed in the book of Alma? Welch is in favor of classifying Korihor as a Nehorite, suggesting that:

He may, however, have been associated with people in Ammonihah, since some of his arguments seem to build upon those of the radical Nehorites of that city as well as upon the teachings of Nehor that were still being promoted by the Amulonites.²

Ellis proposes that Korihor may have been sent from Antionum, by Zoram, the leader of the Zoramites, as an agent to sow both religious and political discord: “Although his disruption was intellectual and doctrinal rather than military, it was just as destructive as any war. Worse, it threatened eternal consequences for those led astray.”³

Others have proposed that Korihor’s position represents what we would call in modern terminology an atheist or agnostic.⁴ After all, when asked by Alma if he believed there is a God, Korihor answered “Nay” (Alma 30:37–38). One commentator suggests that Korihor may have been a “practical” atheist, and he meant “that specifically the Nephite God, Jehovah, with his strict commandments, laws, ordinances, and statutes did not exist.”⁵ Gardner says:

Modern readers should not understand Korihor’s answer as a declaration of atheism. People at that time lived in a world defined by its gods and their control of the elements. Events occur because of the gods. Korihor is not a secularist. Alma is not asking him if he believes in any god, but rather if he believes in the Nephite God. The plate text may well have contained a more specific designation than simply “God,” perhaps using whatever form “Yahweh” took in their language. Although our long history with Christian and Jewish [Page 226]monotheism has shaped our interpretation of “Do you believe that there is a God?” in the ancient world it would be better rendered, “Do you believe that Yahweh exists?”⁶

Gardner’s view makes sense, as Korihor’s later explanation of his beliefs seems nonsensical if he is to be taken as an atheist with no belief in a divinity of any sort, for he told Alma that the devil appeared to him in the form of an angel and deceived him (Alma 30:53). The number of scriptural accounts of the devil appearing to someone and suggesting a course of action are quite limited. Ellis gives evidence that Korihor may have been referring to a mortal agent suggesting a diabolical course of action,⁷ but if the diabolical angel was in fact the devil himself, then Korihor’s experience mirrors that of early biblical characters. In a couple of early accounts, the devil’s modus operandi consists of giving suggestions or commandments that appear on the face of it to aid in fulfilling the commandments of God. To Eve, he suggested eating the fruit because “In the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Moses 4:11). And to Cain, Satan’s commandment was “Make an offering unto the Lord” (Moses 5:18). The same sort of seemingly pro-religious commandment is given to Korihor: “Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God” (Alma 30:53).

Korihor’s reception of commands from Satan may be an intentional literary allusion, as we will see below. First, however, let us consider Korihor from the point of view that he himself seems to have wanted to portray: that of a zealous missionary seeking to reclaim lost souls.

Gardner likes the symmetry of Korihor as a Nehor missionary. He suggests that “Mormon shows Alma, the descendant of a converted priest of Noah, confronting Korihor, the descendant of an unconverted priest of Noah.”⁸

Reading the narrative of Korihor in the context of a missionary effort with symmetry to other missionary efforts may lead us to recognize that only a year or two earlier Ammon and his brethren had brought massive numbers of converts from among the Lamanites to the Christian Nephite religion. The conversion of the Lamanites wreaked havoc with the Lamanite political structure and led to civil war (Alma 24:2). The order of the Nehors was extremely hostile to the idea of Lamanite [Page 227]conversion (Alma 25:7), but they may not have been opposed to evangelizing for their own purposes. For example, might Alma and the sons of Mosiah have been specifically targeted for conversion by an earlier forerunner to the order of Nehors? Certainly, some form of conversion must have occurred, for as young men they were of a different religious persuasion than their parents (Mosiah 27:8).

Based on verbal allusion, and parallel story structures, there is some evidence that we ought to interpret the story of Korihor in terms of a missionary milieu: a comparison of Alma 22 and 30 yields the impression that Korihor is meant as a literary foil to contrast with the Lamanite king, for there are several verbal and thematic parallels in the passage of Aaron preaching to the Lamanite king that are reflected in the negative by Korihor. The following definition of a literary foil character may aid in understanding the contrast between the two stories:

A foil is a character that contrasts with another character, usually the protagonist, and so highlights various facets of the main character’s personality. A foil usually has some important characteristics in common with the other character, such as, frequently, superficial traits or personal history. The author may use the foil to throw the character of the protagonist into sharper relief.⁹

There appear to be verbal parallels at key points in the narratives of both Aaron and Korihor that seem designed to echo the opposite counterpart. Additionally, there are a couple of brief phrases repeated verbatim in the two accounts (see the bold words in table 1). Table 1 illustrates the verbal, thematic, and structural parallels. McGuire discusses these three types of literary allusion in the Book of Mormon and notes that:

Structural parallels [exist] when material in the local text and material in the source text occur in the same order. I would add that structural parallels are also seen in poetic structures and in narrative dialogue. This evidence becomes stronger as the structure is extended over a larger body of text, and generally functions as a more effective indicator than thematic or verbal parallels.¹⁰

[Page 228]Table 1. Parallels in the accounts of Korihor and Aaron

This contrast between the story of Korihor’s confrontation with Alma and the story of Aaron preaching to the Lamanite king seems to be intentional, as Mormon placed parallel narratives in his record that allow for learning through comparison and contrast. As Larsen puts it, [Page 229]“Since his history is so brief, Mormon has the option—and has exercised it—of selecting material that is aesthetically unified, that can be arranged to feature narrative parallels and contrasts that anticipate, echo, and amplify.”¹¹

One point that Mormon may be attempting to convey with this juxtaposition of the story of Aaron and the story of Korihor is the contrast between those who accept the gospel message and those who reject it. In the two parallel stories, Alma and Aaron present the same basic information and invite the hearer to accept their message. The Lamanite king is open to Aaron’s presentation based on his previous interaction with Ammon (Alma 20:27), but while Korihor has also interacted with Ammon previously (Alma 30:20), his expulsion from the land of Jershon suggests that his interaction was negative, and therefore he is much less predisposed to accept the message than the Lamanite king.

Mormon’s parallels between the two stories seem designed to invite us to reflect upon the outcomes to be expected for those who accept the gospel and those who reject it, especially in terms of curses and blessings. We are told that in the case of the converted Lamanites “the curse of God did no more follow them” (Alma 23:18) while in the case of Korihor, his refusal to accept the gospel results in a great curse falling upon him (Alma 30:53). This outcome, we are told, is to be expected for any who come out in open rebellion against God (Alma 3:18), and the case of Korihor only serves to reinforce the point made so forcefully throughout the entire chapter of Alma 3. Indeed, the contrast between those who rebel against God and those who repent and accept the gospel is strengthened by Alma a few chapters later as he relates the story of his own conversion to his son, Helaman. Just like Korihor, Alma went about seeking to destroy the children of God (Alma 36:14), and just like Korihor he was struck dumb because of his rebellion (v. 10). However, unlike Korihor, but similar to the king of the Lamanites, while in a physically unresponsive state Alma experiences a mighty change of heart, and he repents and is born again as a follower of Christ.

The parallel between the story of Korihor and the teachings of Aaron is interesting in its own right, but it also fits as part of a larger perspective in which the teachings of Korihor are explored in detail and [Page 230]rebutted throughout at least eleven chapters of the Book of Mormon. This vast amount of attention in a book whose authors consistently mention the difficulty of engraving and the limited space available (for example, Jacob 4:1) suggests that we are dealing with a topic of great importance. Regarding the pervasiveness of the doctrines of Korihor and the need to rebut those doctrines, James Faulconer suggests reading the story of Korihor in a broader context based on the original chapter structure of the Book of Mormon. He explains that in Alma 30:1–35:16 the teachings of Alma and Amulek to the Zoramites constitute a rebuttal of the doctrines of Korihor. He notes that:

The original chapter of the Book of Mormon presents Alma’s sermon as a response to Korihor’s accusation that religion is false consciousness and that we ought to serve only ourselves.¹²

In addition to the extensive discussion of Korihor’s doctrines and the rebuttals given by Alma and Amulek in Alma 30–35, Alma devotes four more chapters to an in-depth discussion of the doctrines taught by Korihor while attempting to correct the misapprehensions of his son, Corianton.¹³ When we include Mormon’s careful structuring of the story of Aaron to mirror the story of Korihor, we see that the tally of teachings meant to counter the philosophies of Korihor is quite extensive. Perhaps this indicates just how important Mormon felt it was that his audience understand and reject the doctrines of Korihor.

The Origin of Korihor

The story of Korihor begins and ends with him wandering from city to city. This wandering near the end of his life was a direct result of the curse that came upon him (Alma 30:56), but what led Korihor to travel from city to city in the first place? One possibility is that Korihor [Page 231]had been a victim of the social turmoil of the time that led to war and destruction among the Nephites. Welch suggests that:

Since Ammonihah had been left desolate by the war that had ended only a few years before Korihor entered the land of Zarahemla (Alma 16:9–11), his base of operation or closest allies may well have been destroyed by the Lamanite invasion that left Ammonihah in ruins.¹⁴

If Korihor had been rendered bereft of allies, support, and family, it makes sense that he might seek to re-establish a Nehor community, but in that case, why not join the Nehors who were active among the Lamanites? A close reading of the text uncovers the insight that the order of the Nehors consisted of at least two factions and that one faction annihilated the other.

The two groups of Nehors in the land in the early years of the reign of the judges consisted of the people of Ammonihah (Alma 15:15) and the Amulonites and Amalekites (Alma 24:28). A third, earlier, group of Nehors bridges these two sets of people: the Amlicite Nehors who began as Nephites and ended up as refugees among the Lamanites after Amlici’s failed coup.

It may have been Amlicite Nehors who brought Nehorism to the Amulonites. The events recounted in Alma 2, when compared with the information in chapters 8 through 14, reveal an apparent schism in the order of the Nehors; the Amlicite Nehors fought in the civil war against the Christian Nephites led by Alma while those in the city of Ammonihah apparently remained loyal to the Nephite government. There may have been many reasons why the people of Ammonihah declined to participate in the rebellion; perhaps they thought that open war was too risky, or perhaps they felt that their city was more likely to experience negative consequences due to its proximity to the Nephite heartland. Whatever the reason, the people of Ammonihah did not break with the Nephite leadership at the time the Amlicite Nehors rebelled.

It would be reasonable to conclude that a great deal of hostility would have accompanied such a political schism among the Nehors. Consistent with this theory is the idea that a great degree of festering resentment remained after the resolution of the Amlicite rebellion. This idea is reinforced by the actions of the Amulonite and Amalekite Nehors who “took their armies and went over into the borders of the [Page 232]land of Zarahemla, and fell upon the people who were in the land of Ammonihah and destroyed them” (Alma 25:2).

The nickname given to Ammonihah at this time, “The desolation of the Nehors,” (Alma 16:11) seems doubly significant once we recognize that the city of nominally Nephite Nehors may have been destroyed by Lamanite Nehors.

One group of Lamanite Nehors did not outlast the Nephite Nehors by very long, for in a clear thematic parallel pointed out by Mormon, as soon as they burned the Christian converts that began to appear among them (as the people of Ammonihah had done), they destroyed the Amulonite Nehors, just as they had destroyed the people of Ammonihah (Alma 25:5–12).

The foregoing conclusions depend on the timing of the events presented allowing for the rise of Nehorism and its spread to Ammonihah. As a border town, Ammonihah may not have been as involved in the cultural and religious happenings in Zarahemla as other areas, and so Nehorism may not have spread there as early as it did elsewhere.

Of course, if there were animosity between the Amulonite and Amalekite Nehors and the Nehors of Ammonihah, Korihor would not have been inclined to seek asylum among them, assuming he was associated with the Nehors of Ammonihah. With some of the Nehor strongholds gone, it may have made sense for Korihor to seek out allies elsewhere. To this end he may have scoured the land for some remnant of the order so that he might build it up again, or he may have gone first to Antionum, where he was taken in by Zoram based on the similarity of the religious philosophies between the Zoramites and the Nehors.¹⁵ Ellis notes at least eleven close correlations between the philosophies taught by Korihor and those espoused by the Zoramites,¹⁶ while Welch suggests that Nehor, Zeezrom, and Korihor all make similar arguments because they had the same religious training.¹⁷

We don’t know if Korihor was from Antionum, hailed originally from Ammonihah and was later taken in by Zoram, or was acting entirely independently. He starts by preaching in Zarahemla, where the order [Page 233]of Nehor had previously been popular. Encouraged by his success in Zarahemla, he then travels to Jershon and preaches to the former Lamanites (among whom the Nehor faith had been previously preached). When he is rejected there, he moves on to Gideon and preaches among the former inhabitants of Noah’s kingdom (to whom Nehorism may have once been appealing judging by the way in which Amulon and the other priests of Noah had embraced it). In both cases his failure may well have been due to the fact that these peoples had become less likely to respond to his message, having seen the damage that Nehorite or Nehorite-like beliefs could wreak.

Of course, Korihor’s efforts to revive the faith of the Nehors, or raise up a philosophically compatible faith based on the Zoramite model (if such was his aim) ultimately failed, but there is another lesson to be found in the manner of his death. After he was struck dumb in response to his demand for a sign, he went among the Zoramites where he was “run upon and trodden down, even until he was dead” (Alma 30:59). Now, it is possible he may have been unlucky enough to get caught up in a stampede or other accident, as suggested by Thompson,¹⁸ but based on the events recounted in several different Book of Mormon narratives in which those with divergent religious views were killed, it seems more likely that his death was an execution rather than an accident. Indeed, the treatment of Alma, Amulek, and their converts would argue rather strongly for this possibility. Ellis suggests that Korihor was executed in Antionum as punishment for a failed mission as a Zoramite agent.¹⁹

Korihor, the Amlicite Nehors, and Cain

In the story of Cain and Abel recounted in Moses 5, Satan comes among the descendants of Adam and commands them not to believe in the gospel (Moses 5:13). Because of Cain’s intention to ignore the commandments of God and instead follow the commandments of Satan, he is warned “thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition” (Moses 5:24). Despite a very explicit warning from God about the consequence of his actions, Cain ignores the warning and is cursed (Moses 5:36).

There are a number of striking similarities in the story of Korihor [Page 234]to the story of Cain. Satan appears to Korihor and gives him commands (Alma 30:53), Alma says that Korihor is possessed of a lying spirit (v. 42), and Korihor appears to have been given the appellation of Anti-Christ, similar to how Cain was given the appellation of Perdition. Alma warns Korihor what will happen to him if he persists in his lying words, but Korihor ignores the warning and brings a great curse upon himself (v. 53).

Interestingly, the story of the Amlicite Nehors also has potential literary allusions to the story of Cain. After the great battle with the Nehors recounted in Alma 2, there is an extensive discussion of both the mark that the Amlicites bore and of the curse associated with the mark, which was based on the spirit they listened to and obeyed:

Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads. Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them. And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also. And again: I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed. And again, I say he that departeth from thee shall no more be called thy seed; and I will bless thee, and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth and forever; and these were the promises of the Lord unto Nephi and to his seed. Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them. Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation . . . according to the spirit which they listed to obey, whether it be a good spirit or a bad one. For every man receiveth wages of him whom he listeth to obey. (Alma 3:13–19, 26–27)

[Page 235]Of course, Cain’s rebellion and curse also have associations with a mark, which came about because he listened to and obeyed Satan. The biblical motif that deals with Satan inciting rebellion against God and the curse associated with that rebellion is first seen in the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Biblical scholars have pointed out that the story of Cain follows the same motif as the Garden of Eden theme, and they refer to the conflict embodied in the theme as the conflict between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman.²⁰ The name of this theme is in reference to the curse given to the serpent:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel (Genesis 3:15).

This curse of the serpent is relevant to the story of Korihor and, in particular, to the curious way in which his death is described. Recall that Korihor “was run upon and trodden down, even until he was dead.” On the face of it, this manner of death has nothing at all to link it with either the story of Cain or the conflict with the seed of the serpent just mentioned. However, a familiarity with the nature of the seed of the serpent theme in the Bible might provide an explanation for why the odd detail of Korihor’s death was described in this way. James Hamilton, commenting on the seed of the serpent motif in the Bible, says:

The damage done to the head of the serpent and the damage done to the heel of the seed of the woman in Gen 3:15 both seem to be interpreted in later biblical texts as resulting from the stomping of the serpent. The seed of the woman tramples on the head of the serpent, crushing the serpent’s head and incurring damage to his own heel. This reality lends significance to references to the enemies of the people of God being “trodden down” or “placed underfoot.” When Joshua leads Israel to victory, their triumph over [Page 236]their enemies is celebrated by the placement of their feet on the necks of the defeated kings (Josh 10:24). The seed of the serpent is under the foot of the seed of the woman. Similarly, David proclaims that his enemies fell under his feet (2 Sam 22:39/Ps 18:39), and the conquering warrior in Isa 63 boasts of the way that he has “trodden (dārak) the winepress alone” (63:3a). It is clarified that there were not grapes but rebellious people in the winepress: “I trod (dārak) them in my anger, and I trampled them down (rāmas) in my fury; and their blood spattered on my garments.”²¹

This unique description of the manner of Korihor’s death adds another allusion to the details given above linking Korihor’s story to that of Cain. However, a possible objection to identifying the manner of Korihor’s death with Hamilton’s examples from the Bible of the seed of the serpent getting trampled is based on who does the trampling; in the cases noted above, it is generally clear that the one doing the trampling is a member of the collective “seed of the woman.” In the story of Korihor it would be difficult to make that case. However, this difference in who does the trampling may be a result of a unique point of view of the Book of Mormon that is clearly articulated by Mormon. He says:

But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed. (Mormon 4:5)

The specific manner of Korihor’s death (or execution) may be noteworthy because it strengthens the literary allusions to the story of Cain. Likewise, the link between the story of the Amlicites and the story of Cain may suggest that Korihor shares a connection with the Nehors, as Welch proposed. Welch also noted the relationship between the names Korihor and Nehor in the book of Alma and the names Corihor and Nehor in the book of Ether, providing yet another possible link between Korihor and the order of Nehors,²² a link that Ellis and others have also noted and remarked upon.²³

[Page 237]The Captivity of the Devil

There is yet another set of intertextual links that deals with a theme also found in the story of Cain, but dealt with in much greater detail in the Book of Mormon, the theme of the captivity of the devil. The concept of captivity is explored in great detail in the story of Korihor, including through the use of intertextual linkages based on short phrases. Elliott Jolley notes that Korihor alludes to Zeniff when he is accusing Alma and the priests of the Nephites of exploiting the people.²⁴ Korihor says:

And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges. (Alma 30:27)

Compare Korihor’s accusation to what Zeniff says of the Lamanites:

Now they were a lazy and an idolatrous people; therefore they were desirous to bring us into bondage, that they might glut themselves with the labors of our hands; yea, that they might feast themselves upon the flocks of our fields. (Mosiah 9:12)

Korihor’s words seem designed to elicit a strong emotional response from his audience. People who have been in slavery would not soon forget their experience, nor would they want to repeat it. Therefore, when Korihor says that the people are in bondage, he is doing his best to stir them up in anger. His words also appear to be part of a memorized speech that he tries out on various different audiences; he appears to have said essentially the same thing to both Giddonah in Gideon and to Alma in Zarahemla (note how Alma’s response in Alma 30:32 addresses what Korihor said in Gideon in v. 27).

Korihor uses imagery evocative of binding or yoking six times,²⁵ and he is bound himself as he is carried before various magistrates and high priests three separate times (Ammon, Giddonah, and Alma), and he flatly asserts that “Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage” (Alma 30:24). Clearly bondage is a major [Page 238]theme of the Korihor story, and it was a topic that would have been of immediate concern to all the major groups involved in this story: the people of Ammon, the people of Limhi, and the people of Helam. Indeed, what Korihor is suggesting (that the people are in bondage) is a situation that was twice suggested when, in bondage themselves or under immediate threat of death, Limhi and Anti-Nephi-Lehi proposed they would take their people into bondage in the land of Zarahemla. Limhi said:

And now, behold, our brethren will deliver us out of our bondage, or out of the hands of the Lamanites, and we will be their slaves; for it is better that we be slaves to the Nephites than to pay tribute to the king of the Lamanites. (Mosiah 7:15)

While Anti-Nephi-Lehi said:

Yea, if the Lord saith unto us go, we will go down unto our brethren, and we will be their slaves until we repair unto them the many murders and sins which we have committed against them. (Alma 27:8)

Korihor’s assertion, then, is that the different groups of people to whom he is preaching have not escaped from bondage at all but that they have merely traded one type of servitude for another. Obviously, this idea would be very inflammatory among groups of people who had been in captivity for years, and they seem designed to incite rebellion.

However, there is yet another unique phrase in this story that creates intertextual linkages to a theme that deals with captivity of another kind and that reveals that Korihor’s apparent concern with physical captivity is part of an elaborate ruse designed to lead the people into spiritual captivity. Korihor alludes to this phrase as he claims that the aim of the priestly leaders of the Nephites is to: “lead you away into a belief of things which are not so” (Alma 30:16), and again when he asserts that : “ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage” (v. 27). Alma reveals that despite Korihor’s apparent preoccupation with the theme of captivity, his true plan all along has been to “lead away the hearts of this people” (v. 55).

Variants of this particular phrase are used to refer to Satan’s subtle plans to bring the people into spiritual bondage so he can exercise his dominion over them. He frequently does this by getting the people to focus on material wealth in a way that leads them to neglect their [Page 239]spiritual well-being. John Tvedtnes identifies this plan of the devil as part of a larger theme of captivity and deliverance that runs throughout the Book of Mormon, and he cites the teaching of Alma to his son Corianton, cautioning him to “suffer not the devil to lead away your heart” (Alma 39:11).²⁶

Nephi₃ could be alluding to the teachings of Korihor when he notes that the people began to disbelieve the signs and wonders given before the coming of Christ, explaining that they were:

Imagining up some vain thing in their hearts, that it was wrought by men and by the power of the devil, to lead away and deceive the hearts of the people; and thus did Satan get possession of the hearts of the people again, insomuch that he did blind their eyes and lead them away to believe that the doctrine of Christ was a foolish and a vain thing. (3 Nephi 2:2)

Later on, when the church was broken up and the majority of the Nephites associated themselves with the Gadianton robbers, the catastrophe is explained as follows:

Now the cause of this iniquity of the people was this—Satan had great power, unto the stirring up of the people to do all manner of iniquity, and to the puffing them up with pride, tempting them to seek for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the world. And thus Satan did lead away the hearts of the people to do all manner of iniquity. (3 Nephi 6:15–16)

Various anti-Christs and other antagonists in the Book of Mormon are also described as aiding Satan in his purpose by leading away the hearts of the people. Sherem, a man described as using “much flattery, and much power of speech, according to the power of the devil” (Jacob 7:4), used his skills “that he might lead away the hearts of the people, insomuch that he did lead away many hearts” (Jacob 7:3). The king-men who overthrew the freedom of Zarahemla “used great flattery, and they have led away the hearts of many people” (Alma 61:4), and while he does not use the exact phrase, Jesus Christ [Page 240]encapsulates the concept of the captivity of the devil in his teachings to the Nephites when he says: “they are led away captive by him even as was the son of perdition; for they will sell me for silver and for gold, and for that which moth doth corrupt and which thieves can break through and steal” (3 Nephi 27:32).

The irony of the captivity of the devil is that those who grant him dominion, binding themselves as his slaves, always seem to be able to deceive themselves into believing that they are somehow making themselves free. This was clearly the attitude of Korihor, who explained to Giddonah that his preachings were meant to liberate the people from the bondage of their traditions, their priests, and their ignorance (Alma 30:23). Perhaps the most ironic statement ever made on this topic was uttered by Cain as recorded in Moses 5:33 after he killed Abel and boasted “I am free; surely the flocks of my brother falleth into my hands.”

Conclusion

The doctrines taught by Korihor show up in multiple different locations in the Book of Mormon and are similar to some of the sophistries that are used to argue against the doctrine of Christ even to this day. Some of the modes of thinking that Korihor demonstrates are so seductive that even Alma’s own son, Corianton, while serving as a missionary among the Zoramites, seems to have been led away by the ideas that Korihor describes as being “pleasing unto the carnal mind” (Alma 30:53), a situation that Alma felt obliged to correct in great detail.

Understanding the allure of these doctrines and how to respond to them in light of the doctrine of Christ is as important now as it was in the days of Alma.

Employing the lens of literary allusion in examining the story of Korihor can lead to several new insights that may help us to correctly perceive the inevitable outcome that awaits those who, like Korihor, come out in open rebellion against God. Conversely, these insights may also aid in recognizing the blessings that await those who repent of their sins and receive a new birth in Christ. The insights examined include the recognition that Korihor might be meant to serve as a foil to the king of the Lamanites; how the use of thematic parallels in the case of the Nehors give the impression of poetic justice in the manner in which certain groups of Nehors were destroyed; a possible allusion to the story of Cain and how that allusion strengthens the possibility of [Page 241]a connection to the Nehors of Ammonihah; and a possible connection between Korihor’s death and the “seed of the serpent” motif.

All of these literary connections in the Book of Mormon help the reader to appreciate the interplay between the different stories and draw new conclusions that add to the richness of the book.

[Author’s Note: I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editorial staff of Interpreter for all their excellent suggestions and recommended changes. This article is much better than it otherwise would have been due to their influence. I would especially like to thank Godfrey Ellis, my Executive Editor, whose enthusiasm, encouragement, and guidance were instrumental in leading to the publication of this article.]