The children of Amulon and his brethren

I don't like to link to anti-church literature here, but suffice it to say that I read an article on one of the more well-known anti-church websites claiming that the Book of Mormon "text is filled with inconsistencies". Having written so much about the numerous examples of internal consistency, I become curious when such a claim is made. Not unexpectedly, the article fails completely to give these examples and it is tempting to write a full rebuttal, but I will not waste my time. But I just want to give one example of the failed critical argument here, because it demonstrates the complexity of the Book of Mormon and provides an example of an apparent weakness turning into a strength.

The article quotes Mosiah 25:12

those who were the children of Amulon and his brethren, who had taken to wife the daughters of the Lamanites, were displeased with the conduct of their fathers, and they would no longer be called by the names of their fathers, therefore they took upon themselves the name of Nephi, that they might be called the children of Nephi and be numbered among those who were called Nephites.

For those who don't remember, Amulon was the leader of the wicked priests of King Noah. They fled the land at King Noah's death and ruled over the people of Alma in the land Helam for a while. Like the verse says, they also kidnapped and married some of the daughters of the Lamanites.

The article comments:

The text does not say that the priests [Amulon and his brethren] had any children when they journeyed to Helam, but by the time Alma escaped, the priests not only had children, but they were apparently mature enough to decide that they wanted to join Alma's group in fleeing to Zarahemla

It also argues that the prophecies of Abinadi about the seed of the priests could not possibly be fulfilled since their children had joined the Nephites in Zarahemla as explained in Mosiah 25:12.

On the surface, it seems that the author has a valid point. But it is based on lack of detailed knowledge of the Book of Mormon text. The author assumes that the children of Amulon and his brethren that we read about in Mosiah 25:12, are children from the marriage with the daughters of the Lamanites. This is not the case. King Noah's priests already had wives and children (and concubines) before they fled the land and captured the Lamanite women. In Mosiah 19:11, we learn that when the Lamanites attacked, King Noah "commanded them that all the men should leave their wives and their children, and flee before the Lamanites". In verse 21 we learn that his priests were among them that had left their families and fled. 

Consequently, the children of Amulon and his brethren were among the people of Limhi, Noahs son, separated from their fathers. They were among the people who were slaves to the Lamanites and finally managed to escape and get back to Zarahemla. In the meantime, Amulon and his brethren, took the Lamanite's daughters as wives and presumably had new children. Abinadi's prophecies about the seed of the priests of Noah was of course directed at them.

Confused yet? Let's try to make an overview:

1. King Noah and his priests rule in wickedness
2. The Lamanites attack and the king and his priests leave their families and flee
3. King Noah's son, Limhi, rules as a tributary monarch in Lamanite captivity
4. The priests (Amulon and his brethren) kidnap some of the daughters of the Lamanites, marry them and probably have kids
5. Not long after, they find the people of Alma in the land of Helam and bring them into bondage
6. The people of Limhi manage to escape and flee to Zarahemla
7. Alma and his people manage to escape and flee to Zarahemla
8. In Zarahemla, the children of Amulon and his brethren want to be Nephites and not Amulonites

The critic misses the detail in #2 and assumes the kids from #4 end up in Zarahemla (#8), which admittedly would be strange, but certainly is not the case.

Conclusion: The Book of Mormon is complex! There are numerous such details in the text and it's hard to get a grip on those before you have read it a few dozen times and paid attention. This critic (who seems to be an ex-member) probably spent his youth in Sunday School, Seminary and Institute and had read the Book of Mormon multiple times, but still missed this detail. I don't think that is uncommon. What is uncommon, even remarkable, is that the 23 year old farmer with very little education dictated this text with all these details in essentially one draft without notes or manuscript. He apparently had full control over the details that the critic struggled with, even though the critic had the luxury of actually having the Book of Mormon text in front of them. Of course, I don't believe that Joseph Smith knew these details, I think the text was revealed to him and that the original author, Mormon, in this case, knew the details. But for the critics, this was Joseph Smith's invention, and the criticism backfires when it turns out that the ridiculed young farmer dictates a text so complex that the critics cannot keep track of the details.