The Anti-Christs of the Book of Mormon — A Warning for Our Day
Sherem, Nehor, Korihor — three distinct false doctrines that mirror modern secular philosophy
The Book of Mormon is frequently accused of being a nineteenth-century document written by a nineteenth-century man. If that were true, you would expect its villains to reflect the threats Joseph Smith's contemporaries faced: irreligion, perhaps, or Calvinist predestination, or the excesses of frontier revivalism.
Instead, the Book of Mormon's anti-Christs argue like twenty-first century secularists. Korihor, who appears in Alma 30, sounds like he stepped off a modern philosophy faculty. Nehor, who appears in Alma 1, preaches a version of prosperity theology and religious professionalism that is entirely at home in contemporary American Christianity. Sherem, in Jacob 7, makes the biblical-traditionalist case against innovation in religion that you can hear in any conservative evangelical critique of the LDS Church today.
These characters are not Joseph Smith's contemporaries dressed in ancient costume. They are timeless archetypes — the patterns of error that recur in every age. The Book of Mormon named them and answered them centuries before they appeared in the modern world.
What Is an Anti-Christ?
The term "anti-Christ" in popular usage conjures a specific end-times figure: a world leader who opposes God. The scriptural use is more precise. John defines it clearly: "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22). An anti-Christ is anyone who specifically denies the divine identity of Christ.
The Book of Mormon's three anti-Christs fit this definition but do so in different ways. Sherem denies a future Christ. Nehor replaces Christ's atonement with universalism and priestly professionalism. Korihor denies Christ entirely and attacks the epistemological basis of religious belief. Each targets a different aspect of the testimony of Christ — and each is answered differently.
What is remarkable is that the Book of Mormon does not merely condemn them. It preserves their arguments in detail — and then answers each one. This is not the behavior of a document afraid of serious challenge. It is the behavior of a document that expects its readers to encounter these arguments and wants to arm them.
Sherem — "No Christ to Come"
Sherem appears in Jacob 7. He is educated, eloquent, and biblically literate. He comes to Jacob making an argument that is internally coherent: the law of Moses is sufficient, the scriptures given to us do not prophecy of a Christ to come, and teaching the people to look forward to a future Messiah is perverting the right way of God. He is not irreligious — he is a scriptural traditionalist.
Jacob 7:7
“And ye have led away much of this people that they pervert the right way of God, and keep not the law of Moses which is the right way; and convert the law of Moses into the worship of a being which ye say shall come many hundred years hence.”
Jacob's response is immediate and devastating: "Ye have not applied your hearts to the scriptures." The problem with Sherem is not lack of knowledge but selective reading. If you read all of the scriptures, the coming Christ is everywhere. Sherem had read them but refused to see.
The modern version of Sherem is the traditionalist who uses the authority of existing religion to resist the Restoration. "We have the Bible. We have the creeds. We don't need new revelation." The argument pattern is identical. The answer Jacob gives still stands: you have not applied your hearts to what the scriptures actually say.
Nehor — Priestcraft and Flattering Doctrine
Nehor appears in Alma 1. He is a preacher of natural talent who teaches that all people will be saved — that God has redeemed everyone regardless of their choices — and that priests and teachers ought to be supported by the people in material comfort. He establishes a church. He becomes popular. And he kills a faithful man who argues with him.
Alma 1:3–4
“And he had gone about among the people, preaching to them that which he termed to be the word of God, bearing down against the church; declaring unto the people that every priest and teacher ought to become popular; and they ought not to labor with their hands, but that they ought to be supported by the people. And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day.”
The word the Book of Mormon uses for Nehor's approach is "priestcraft" — defined precisely as preaching for personal gain and popularity, not for the benefit of the people (2 Nephi 26:29). Nehor's doctrine is popular because it requires nothing. If everyone is saved regardless, then sin has no real consequence, righteousness has no real reward, and the audience can feel good about themselves without changing.
Nehorism never died. The modern version fills megachurches. A prosperity gospel that says God wants you to be comfortable. A therapeutic gospel that says God accepts you exactly as you are without repentance. A universalism that says all roads lead to the same heaven. The pattern — flattering doctrine for profit — is ancient and contemporary simultaneously.
Korihor — The Secular Humanist
Korihor is the most sophisticated of the three. He appears in Alma 30 and makes arguments that are philosophically rigorous by any standard. He does not merely deny Christ — he attacks the epistemological foundation of all religious belief. His arguments deserve to be taken seriously, because they are the arguments of today.
Alma 30:13–15
“O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come. Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers. … And ye also say that Christ shall come. But behold, I say that ye do not know that there shall be a Christ.”
Korihor's argument: prophecy is impossible, scripture is tradition, religious leaders manipulate their people for power, and there is no afterlife — only this world, only this life, only what can be empirically verified. He is a thoroughgoing naturalist writing in approximately 74 BC. His arguments are indistinguishable from those of contemporary secular humanism.
Korihor's Arguments Are the Arguments of Today
Korihor argues that religious belief is the result of psychological manipulation and social conditioning. "Ye are brought down by the cunning plans of the priests, to keep you in ignorance" (Alma 30:23). This is precisely the argument of the social-scientific critics of religion who explain belief as the product of childhood indoctrination and institutional power.
He argues that moral accountability without empirical grounding is irrational: "Every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime" (Alma 30:17). This is naturalistic moral relativism — the same position held by many contemporary philosophers who deny the existence of objective moral facts.
Alma's response is also modern in its precision. He does not simply assert scripture. He asks Korihor for the basis of his own certainty: "What evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ shall not come?" (Alma 30:40). You cannot prove a universal negative. Korihor's confidence is not empiricism — it is a faith claim in the other direction. Alma identifies this clearly.
Alma's Evidence for God — Alma 30:44
- The testimony of all things — "All things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator"
- The epistemological challenge — Alma demands evidence for Korihor's certainty; Korihor has none; his certainty is also a faith position
What Happens to All Three
The Book of Mormon does not let the anti-Christs off easily, and its narrative resolutions are deliberately instructive. Sherem is struck down, confesses he was deceived by Satan, and dies having publicly acknowledged the truth. His deathbed confession is recorded in detail — the man who argued most skillfully against Christ died knowing he was wrong.
Nehor is tried for the murder of Gideon, found guilty, and executed. He acknowledges that what he taught was contrary to the word of God as he dies. His death does not stop Nehorism, which continues to spread — demonstrating that false doctrine outlives its originators.
Korihor is struck dumb by God when he demands a sign. He then confesses that he knew the truth all along — that the devil had appeared to him as an angel and taught him what to say, and that he had taught it "because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind." He begs to have his speech restored. Alma refuses, explaining that if Korihor's speech were restored he would simply deceive more people.
Korihor's end is the most striking: cast out and reduced to begging, he is finally trampled to death by the very people he had taught. The narrative is not triumphalist. It is sobering. The cost of false doctrine is paid not only by the teacher but by those who believed him.
The Pattern We Can Recognize
The three anti-Christs teach something important about the nature of opposition to the gospel. Their arguments are not random. They target specific pillars: prophecy (Sherem), the atonement and accountability (Nehor), and the epistemological basis of faith (Korihor). Between them they cover the main categories of attack that the gospel faces in any generation.
That the Book of Mormon presents all three with their arguments intact, allows the believers to respond directly, and then shows the outcomes — including the confessions of the anti-Christs themselves — is one of its most compelling features as scripture. This is not a document that avoids difficult questions. It anticipates them, names them, and answers them.
The test for the reader is the same test that Jacob, Alma, and Amulek faced: will you recognize the pattern when you encounter it outside the Book of Mormon? The arguments have not changed. Only the names have.