Oh, FairMormon...Never Change

Because of some crazy masochistic compulsion, I decided to spend a little time browsing FairMormon's website.

Mistake.

I wasted way too much time perusing their rebuttals to the CES Letter.  While plenty of their points are reasonable, too many of them are annoyingly obtuse.  For example, in the section addressing the problematic presence of chariots in the Book of Mormon, Fair's response makes this statement:  "Conspicuously absent is any role of the chariot in the many journeys recorded in the Book of Mormon."  But if you scroll up about half an inch, you'll see that, in the summary of every mention of chariots, in Alma 20, a "Lamanite king uses horses and chariot for visit to neighboring kingdom."  That's not a journey in which chariots were used to transport either goods or passengers?  And even if chariots aren't connected with travelling in the Book of Mormon, that doesn't address the central issue, which is that chariots (and draft animals to pull them) did not exist in America during Book of Mormon times.

Surely it's this kind of flawless reasoning and impeccable scholarship that give FAIR its reputation for integrity.


The argument against anachronistic references to steel is mind-blowing in its ability to ignore the crux of the issue:

Jeremy Runnells says that ancient America didn't have steel and Fair says he's made a mistake because...wait for it...places that weren't America had steel at around the same time.  This, of course, still ignores the central problem that, even if Old Worlders were making steel, there's still zero evidence that it was available to the civilizations depicted in the Book of Mormon.  And zero evidence seems like a pretty big deal considering the millions of Jaredites who killed each other with their steel swords.


But when it comes to addressing the Limited Geography model, Fair outdoes itself:

So when Mr. Runnells discusses where the events of the Book of Mormon might have taken place, what does Fair do?  They zero in on what they apparently perceive as an offensive verb tense and throw multiple detailed resources at us only to make the point that the Limited Geography Model is not a new concept.

First of all, Runnells used the present progressive tense, which doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks the Limited Geography Model is new.  It just means he considers it to be currently developing, which is completely true.

Secondly, Fair does nothing to address the final sentence of Runnells's quote:  "This is in direct contradiction to what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught."  Remember that time Joseph Smith came across some bones in Illinois and declared them to be from a Lamanite warrior named Zelph?  This is the kind of thing Runnells was talking about.  So while Fair zeroes in on the wording and proclaims Runnells to be disseminating false information, the Zelph thing goes totally unaddressed.


The biggest problem with FAIR's rebuttals is that a lot of them rely on compartmentalizing the arguments.  For example, when Runnells suggests that the direct quotes from the Bible in the independently translated Book of Mormon constitute evidence that Joseph Smith was copying from one book of scripture to create a new one, FAIR says that none of the scribes ever mentioned him having a KJV Bible during the translation process and scoffs at the possibility of memorization.  But when the presence of the italicized words from the KJV in corresponding sections of 2nd Nephi and 3rd Nephi, FAIR claims that whether Smith consulted a Bible "isn't really relevant."  These arguments are reasonable on their own but don't jive with each other.

When FAIR swats down the statement that sheep, though mentioned in the Book of Mormon, were not native to the Americas by providing the example of Bighorn Sheep, they seem to contradict another one of their arguments.  In a different section, FAIR uses a quote from Daniel Peterson to support the Limited Geography Model, but the problem is that Bighorn Sheep only live in the mountainous regions of western North America.  Each argument is reasonable on its own but they don't jive with each other.  If the Limited Geography Model is correct, there should not have been sheep in the Book of Mormon.  If there were sheep in the Book of Mormon, the Limited Geography Model is unlikely.

Compartmentalizing the arguments is kind of missing the point of the CES Letter.  The CES Letter's strength is the sheer tonnage of individual problems coming at the reader all at the same time.  As church members, we tend to notice these things one at a time.  It's easier to dismiss problems or take things we don't understand on faith when we're presented with them in small doses.  But the CES Letter brings so many contradictions and errors to light simultaneously that it becomes much harder to brush them off.  I'm badly paraphrasing Runnells when I say that not any individual argument in the CES Letter should be the nail in the coffin for anyone's testimony, but collectively they can crush the illusions.  When FAIR goes through and tries to argue against it line by line, they've demonstrated a remarkable ability to miss the point on a broad, conceptual level.

Helaman 3: Logistical Issues

After all this war and chaos and civil unrest and political upheaval, things were just peachy for the Nephites for the next few years.  But only three.  Because if enough bad stuff isn't happening to these guys that we can't glean some kind of twisted spiritual morality lesson from all this, then what's the point of the Book of Mormon in the first place, right?


The Timelines Don't Match Up
Apparently, following these three years of "continual peace," a lot of the Nephites had some kind of unspecified beef with the other Nephites and it was serious enough that one group decided to get the hell out of Dodge (by which I of course mean Zarahemla) and move north.  What a surprise.  Another schism.  Color me shocked.

What I find interesting is that, when these adventurers hit an area that sounds suspiciously like the Great Lakes region and get settled, there are some problems with wood shortages (verses 5 and 6):

Yea, and even they did spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatever parts it had not been rendered desolate and without timber, because of the many inhabitants who had before inherited the land.

And now no part of the land was desolate, save it were for timber; but because of the greatness of the destruction of the people who had before inhabited the land it was called desolate. 

This is a weird passage.  It seems to me that it's talking about the Jaredites, considering the Jaredites numbered in the millions ("many inhabitants"), would have needed a lot of building materials ("without timber"), no longer lived there ("before inhabited the land"), and wiped themselves out in a truly epic fashion ("greatness of the destruction of the people").  But thanks to this church-produced reference card that I and countless others were given in Seminary class, it seems safe to say that, at this point in the narrative, it's been a few hundred years since the Jaredites were kicking it in the land northward.

I'd say five centuries is plenty of time for some of the trees to grow back.  So either this isn't talking about the Jaredites and there was some other massive, hungrily deforesting civilization running around ancient America that God didn't think it was important to discuss or maybe somebody made all these stories up and failed to keep the chronologies straight.


Pre-Columbian Logging, Manufacturing and Trucking
Sadly lacking in the timber department, the locals got smart and started building their towns out of cement.  And in verse 9, they decided to stop cutting down any trees they did find so that eventually a forest would pop up and they'd be able to build with wood again.  Although I'm not sure what they're holding their breath for, because if five hundred years isn't enough time, their great-grandchildren might still be putting up cement huts.  But for those extra special times when they really needed a good old-fashioned wooden edifice, here's what they did (verses 10 and 11):

And it came to pass as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping.

And thus they did enable the people in the land northward that they might build many cities, both of wood and of cement. 

I'd like to know how a lucrative shipping industry sprang up among the Nephites without much in the way of wheels or domesticated pack animals.  The quantities of timber this chapter is describing would be, you know, kinda heavy.  And therefore very difficult to transport over great distances.

My theory here is that Joseph Smith may have misjudged how much a civilization who wasn't finishing up a huge industrial revolution would be able to accomplish.  Getting a metric buttload of raw materials across the country isn't that big of a deal in the modern age and there were certainly ways of getting it done in the early nineteenth century, but that kind of thing would have been a monumental group effort in the late BC days.

Unless they used boats.  In which case, it's still a matter of overwhelming quantity, because as far as I know there isn't much evidence to support the existence of ancient Native American ships large enough to haul an amount of building materials sufficient to make a single trip worthwhile.


Thus We May See Jack Squat
Verse 27 begins a bizarre riff:

Thus we may see that the Lord is merciful unto all who will, in the sincerity of their hearts, call upon his holy name.

Okay, first of all, no.  God is not merciful unto all who sincerely call upon his name.  I haven't let you forget about all the righteous people in Ammonihah who God allowed to be roasted alive for some idiotically flimsy reason, have I?

And secondly, we do not thusly see any of this, because the preceding verses were talking about how tons and tons of Nephites were getting baptized lately.  No evidence of God's mercy was shown.  This verse could have said "thus we may see that laughter causes lung cancer" and it would have made exactly the same amount of sense.

Yea, thus we see that the gate of heaven is open unto all, even to those who will believe on the name of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.

This reminds me of a former employee of mine.  When you ask him if he accomplished a task, he will tell you that it's completely finished.  If you ask him in more detail, he will explain the one or two things he didn't finish until it becomes apparent that he's finished less than half of it.  Why lie when you know you're going to have to immediately amend your statement?

See the similarities between that guy and the above verse?  The gate of heaven is open to everybody!  Well...everybody who believes in Jesus Christ.  And honestly there's a little bit more to it than that, but in a nutshell, that's basically how it works...most of the time, anyway.

Why claim it's open to everybody when it really isn't?  Now the Book of Mormon just looks dishonest and we can't trust it to do its job anymore.

Yea, we see that whosoever will may lay hold upon the word of God...And land their souls, yea, their immortal souls, at the right hand of God in the kingdom of heaven....

Yeah, you weren't talking about that either.  You haven't told any stories recently that support your conclusion.  You were just talking about how so many people were getting baptized.  That was it.

Okay, there was that vague offhand line about "blessings," but that's not even close to being the same subject as sitting at the right hand of God in the kingdom of heaven.

Helaman 2: The Rise of Gadianton

Although the Lamanite threat is seemingly neutralized for the time being, the Nephites now face some internal problems in the form of Kishkumen and his new friend, the infamous Gadianton

How Does This Plan Work?
Gadianton's namesake, the Gadianton Robbers, are basically a pre-Columbian mafia gang illuminati terrorist organization.  In this chapter, their first big move since becoming associated with the name Gadianton is to murder Helaman Junior because he's recently been elected to the position of chief judge.

Kishkumen is given the impression that, if he commits this murder, he will be given Helaman's job.  I have no idea why anybody thinks that this is a realistic possibility.  Kishkumen's already murdered one chief judge, and all that happened was another election.  Why is there any reason to think that things will happen differently the second time around?  And why is there any chance that Kishkumen will be elected and/or installed as chief judge?

So basically none of this makes any sense.  As usual.

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Laws
Verse 6 begins a little story about a servant of Helaman who has previously disguised himself and infiltrated Gadianton's band. This verse uses the word "as" to imply that something else was taking place while Kishkumen was sneaking in to carry out the murder, but gets so caught up in explaining, mid-sentence, the backstory of this servant of Helaman that it never gets around to specifying the second of the two concurrent events.

But worse than this book's grasp of narrative fluidity and proper grammar is the servant's actions.  Instead of alerting the guards that there was a plot to kill Helaman prior to the assassin's entrance into the building and instead of telling Helaman to flee the judgment seat and instead of calling the guards while Kishkumen was already inside and instead of doing any number of other smarter, safer, and more practical things, this servant takes it upon himself to use the secret methods of communications he's learned from his infiltration efforts to give Kishkumen a false sense of security before stabbing him in the heart.

What.

So much for the rule of law and due process and all of that bullhockey.  While I realize that this servant was trying to accomplish something good by saving the leader of his people, he still murdered someone.  There were plenty of other ways for him to try to save Helaman that wouldn't involve him taking the law into his own hands or stabbing anyone in the heart.

What's even more shocking is Helaman's reaction.  When his servant bursts in and explains all the awful, illegal and violent stuff he just did, Helaman immediately sends his troops out to catch Gadianton and his cronies "that they might be executed according to the law."  No mention of what Helaman decided to do with his servant.

If sending a bunch of guys out to capture Gadianton's Robbers was an option, why didn't the servant tell Helaman about this sooner, while he was sneaking into the group and learning their plans and their secrets?  So much of his behavior is completely unacceptable.  Why is there no discussion of the servant's execution?  Surely if a group of people who conspired to murder someone are presumed guilty on the word of one man and sentenced to execution, then a man who confesses to committing murder himself should have a similar fate.

God is a Bad Editor

The last two verses of the chapter make me chuckle:

And behold, in the end of this book ye shall see that this Gadianton did prove the overthrow, yea, almost the entire destruction of the people of Nephi.

Behold I do not mean the end of the book of Helaman, but I mean the end of the book of Nephi, from which I have taken all the account which I have written. 

That reaaaaally sounds like someone dictated it on the fly.  If those prophets were really that inspired as they were writing all this down and if Joseph Smith were really that inspired when he translated it, you'd think this could have been dropped neatly into one sentence without the instant correction.  Instead of "this book" it could have just read "the book of Nephi."  Problem solved.  14th verse unnecessary.

Unless someone was making this up as he went along, of course.

Trouble Brews in a Long-Term Relationship

The Boy Scouts of America has decided to allow openly gay men to serve as leaders within its organization.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "deeply troubled" and has announced that it needs to take some time apart to clear its head and decide if their relationship has a future or not.  According to President Newsroom:

In spite of a request to delay the vote, it was scheduled at a time in July when members of the Church's governing councils are out of their offices and do not meet.  When the leadership of the Church resumes its regular schedule of meetings in August, the century-long association with Scouting will need to be examined.  The Church has always welcomed all boys to its Scouting units regardless of sexual orientation.  However, the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church and what have traditionally been the values of the Boy Scouts of America.

Sigh...okay, a few jumbled thoughts:

1.  So much for trying to soften your approach to gays, guys.  I thought giving members permission to support gay marriage on social media and holding a press conference condemning housing discrimination based on sexual orientation was supposed to be preparing for the inevitable so that when homosexuality no longer has a social stigma you can say you always loved the gays.  Throwing a tantrum when the BSA allows gay leaders but still gives religious troops the right to choose their own leaders as they see fit is not going to assist you in creating the future illusion that you were always on the right side of history.

2.  Also, way to whine about the timing of the vote.  Sure, there are a lot of LDS Boy Scouts. but the church makes up less than 20% of the BSA rolls.  The vote passed 45-12, so even if the Mormons had been represented according to their numbers, they still wouldn't have gotten their way.  So what's the point in complaining about the timing?  Basically, this is the equivalent of telling your wife that she was never good in bed after she's already explained to you that she doesn't love you anymore.  You're still losing the relationship, only now you look more petulant and the two of you will probably not be able to remain friends.  So good job there.

3.  "The Church has always welcomed all boys to its Scouting units regardless of sexual orientation."  Is it just me, or does this sound reminiscent of the Church's approach to the priesthood ban?  The church has always welcomed gay scouts but God forbid they should ever want to become leaders!  The church has always welcomed black members but God forbid they should ever want the priesthood!  If a scout grows up and wants to continue with the organization as an adult by providing leadership to the youth, but that leadership is conditional upon the person maintaining a heterosexual persona, can that really count as "welcoming?"  Basically, it means that once the kid hits eighteen, he can no longer participate in scouting because he's gay.  That's not very welcoming.  Although I suppose it is encouraging closeted gay scouts to continue, you know...lying to everybody about who they are.  Which is fantastic, obviously.

4.  I would like to know how, exactly, openly gay Boy Scout leaders are against the church's doctrine.  Because the church's whole deal lately has been "hate the sin, love the sinner" and "it's okay as long as you don't act on it."  So what's the problem with an openly gay leader?  He could be married to a woman with plenty of kids and simply honest with everyone about his struggle with same-sex attraction.  That is completely in accordance with LDS policies and teachings.  So why should this disqualify him from the opportunity to serve in the scouting program?

5.  Once again, guys, as a religious organization, the BSA is still allowing you to choose your leaders according to your own criteria and you can be just as bigoted as you want within your own walls.  So quit yer bitchin'.

6.  I think a few openly gay leaders in the LDS Boy Scout organization would actually be a good thing.  It could give some gay or curious youth a role model.  Maybe having someone openly gay to look up to would help them cope with their confusing, embattled situations.  Maybe this could help prevent a few more suicides.  Not that this is likely to become a reality.  But still, it could do some good.

It looks to me like the church is probably going to attempt to set up its own spiritual version of Boy Scouts, like scouting and the Duty to God program all rolled into one. I think they're hoping their threat is going to change minds, but that also seems unlikely.  Regardless, it will be interesting to watch how the situation plays out.

Helaman 1: More Bad Stuff Happens

Now that all our heroes from the Book of Alma are dead, the Nephites begin to have "a serious difficulty," in stark contrast to all the peaceful, easy, non-violent times they've had up until this point.


That's a Bad Mission Statement
The header to the Book of Helaman begins:

An account of the Nephites. Their wars and contentions, and their dissensions. And also the prophecies of many holy prophets, before the coming of Christ...

Contrast this with the mission statement of the Book of Mormon from its title page:

...Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—

So the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to teach us about the history between God and the ancient peoples, to allow us to learn and take advantage of covenants, and to convince everyone of the Jesusness of Jesus.  So what is the Book of Helaman going to be about?  Wars and political upheavals of the Nephites.  And also, by the way...religious stuff, prophecies, Christ, you know.


One Big Happy Family
In the wake of chief judge Pahoran's death, the voice of the people decide to democratically vote on his replacement from the confines of his lineage.  His sons Pahoran, Paanchi and Pacumeni are the frontrunners.  Pahoran junior wins the election, class act Pacumeni throws his support behind his victorious brother, and super-villain Paanchi smolders in jealousy.  Eventually Paanchi tries to convince his followers to overthrow Pahoran, but in an act of precognitive crimefighting that both Tom Cruise and Philip K. Dick would have been proud of, the government catches him before he can go through with it, puts him on trial, and sentences him to death.

Damn.  Harsh.  One brother down.

Paanchi's gang, incensed by these events, send in Kishkumen, who murders Pahoran on the judgment seat in plain view like an idiot, but somehow manages to escape capture.

Ouch.  Brutal.  Two brothers down.

Then, suddenly, Lamanites attack, led by a brilliant and imposing man named Coriantumr, who is, unsurprisingly, a disgruntled Nephite.  Coriantumr blazes straight through to Zarahemla, conquers and ransacks the city, and then chases down Pacumeni and slams him against the outer wall of the city, killing him.

Yeesh.  Bloody.  Three brothers down.

Does this actually feel like the way things happen in real life?  Doesn't this seem like contrived, dramatic storytelling?  I mean, a brother sentencing his own brother to death for treason is then murdered on his throne by one of his deceased brother's disciples?  Murdered on the throne?  Because sneaking into his house at night or gunning him down in the street (with a sling, not a gun) would be too risky?  And then, to top it off, when the big bad guy invades suddenly out of nowhere, it's he, personally, who kills the reigning political power of the land?  Out of all the people in that army, Coriantumr is the one who confronts Pacumeni?  Come on.

I mean, it's an exciting story and it would make one hell of a movie, but don't try and tell me it reads like legitimate history.


How Thick Can You Get?
Why does Zarahemla fall to the invaders?  Verse 18 explains:

And it came to pass that because of so much contention and so much difficulty in the government, that they had not kept sufficient guards in the land of Zarahemla; for they had supposed that the Lamanites durst not come into the heart of their lands to attack that great city of Zarahemla.

Well, if it's a great city, doesn't that make it kind of a logical target for attack?  Especially considering it's the freaking national capital?  Have they not met the Lamanites?  They love attacking the Nephites and starting wars!  They've been doing it for the last five hundred years!  Since the two societies live so close to each other and hate each other's guts, how stupid would one of them have to be to leave its capital so poorly defended in the years immediately following a long and bloody conflict?

And who is in charge of the Nephite armed forces?  None other than Moronihah, son of the famed and lauded Captain Moroni.  I guess the apple falls very far from the tree.  Or maybe it's just that Moroni always fought incompetent generals and Coriantumr doesn't seem to be an idiot.  So maybe it's apples and oranges.

Although, once Moronihah defeats Coriantumr and his army (by surrounding them, probably a page from daddy's old playbook), he demonstrates that he's not much of a chip off the old block at all.  Moroni would have given his prisoners an ultimatum, forcing them to swear an oath of peace and loyalty on pain of death.  Moronihah just lets them all go back home.

What's this?  A Nephite general exhibiting mercy? It's like the world has turned upside down.