An intricate reminder of the Book of Mormon's internal consistency involving names, from Helaman 5

When critics try to pass the Book of Mormon text off as "ordinary", I cringe a little.  Though dictated in a single draft by an uneducated 23 year-old farm boy, studying the text in depth reveals numerous examples of internal consistency, beyond the capacity of a single human mind to keep track of, in my opinion.

Here is perhaps the most intricate example of internal consistency regarding names in the Book of Mormon.  If one is not paying close attention, you find beautiful words of comfort and faith in this passage (see Helaman 5:12).  If you stop to consider the details embedded in the text, you also notice the following:

1. In verse 9, we read words that Mormon engraved on the plates, referencing the words of King Benjamin as quoted by Helaman (Grandson of Alma the Younger) to his sons Nephi and Lehi. That's a lot of detail to keep track of, especially when you consider that these words are found about 95 chapters after King Benjamin spoke them (see Mosiah 4:8).
2. In verse 6, Helaman tells his sons why he named them Nephi and Lehi. (Keep in mind 1 and 2 Nephi have not been dictated yet, at this point.)  Also note that one reason he gives as a reminder of the meaning of their name is so "ye may know how that it is said, and also written, that they were good." Keep in mind that Nephi as a name likely stems from the Egyptian root nfr meaning "good, fair."
3. Helaman happens to be the name of one of King Benjamin's sons. It is notable that Alma the Younger names one of his sons Helaman, too.

Subtle internal consistency found in names within the Book of Mormon

Some of the most remarkable internal consistency found in the Book of Mormon draws absolutely no attention to itself.  Consider the following:

1. Perhaps the most intricate example can be found in Helaman 5.  
2. Lehi has two sons born to him during the family's journey in the wilderness.  He names them Jacob and Joseph.  Interestingly, these two names come after Lehi obtains the brass plates and discovers his lineage through Manasseh (son of Joseph, who is the son of Jacob).
3. Benjamin names one of his sons Mosiah after his father.  We actually don't learn that Benjamin's father was named Mosiah until the book of Omni. Thus, a detail found in the very first dictated chapter is not explained until on of the very last chapters dictated.
4. Mormon clearly admired "Captain" Moroni, based on the description he gives in Alma 48, culminating in verse 17 (see below). Is it any wonder Mormon names his son Moroni?

17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.

Internal Consistency between Mosiah 1:12 and Mosiah 5:11

In Mosiah 1:12, King Benjamin speaks to his son Mosiah about his plans for his big speech to his people:

12 And I give unto them a name that never shall be blotted out, except it be through transgression.

At the end of his words, in Mosiah 5:11, he says:

11 And I would that ye should remember also, that this is the name that I said I should give unto you that never should be blotted out, except it be through transgression; therefore, take heed that ye do not transgress, that the name be not blotted out of your hearts.

Note he even mentions that he had already said he would give them a name.

A serialized response to John Hamer - Part 4

The arguments here are off the mark. No long rebuttal needed. In fact, the response to the argument is shorter than the argument!

Critical question: How illiterate was Joseph Smith Jr.?

Argument 1: For many Mormons, the 38 y. old Joseph Smith was a theological genius who perceived and articulated the Plan of Salvation in a way clearer than ever before

This is a straw-man. We claim that God is a theological genius and that Joseph Smith received revelations from Him.

Argument 2: Likewise, the 15-year old Joseph Smith talked directly to God and was able to perceive that all the world’s religions were in error

This has absolutely nothing to do with literacy

A serialized response to John Hamer - Part 3

Claim: "The text was/is replete with errors"

Argument 1: "The original text had thousands of grammar errors that were subsequentially corrected"

Since Hamer refers to Royal Skousen’s work during his presentation, this is also a strange argument. One of Skousen’s findings is that grammatically, the Book of Mormon text is an Early Modern English text, ca 17^th century. As such, the original language works well grammatically, perhaps apart from the Hebrew influenced syntax. But because both EModE and Hebrew grammar sounds strange or is plain wrong in 19^th century English, much of that was changed. If Joseph Smith knew he had inserted Hebrew syntax, why change it later instead of leaving it there as evidence? A reasonable answer: He didn’t know because the text was not from him.

So, the “grammar errors” seem to come from 17^th century English and Hebraisms rather than Joseph Smith’s rural dialect. See the following sources for more info:

·         https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/how-joseph-smiths-grammar-differed-from-book-of-mormon-grammar-evidence-from-the-1832-history/

·         https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/is-the-book-of-mormon-a-pseudo-archaic-text/

·         https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_do_%22if-and_conditionals%22_tell_us_about_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation%3F

If Hamer’s theory is that the Book of Mormon is an invention by Joseph Smith, this argument is really contradicting his view.

Argument 2: "The original included several substantive errors (e.g. saying Benjamin instead of Mosiah)"

He claims there are several but gives only one example. This is because there is only one example. Some critics would perhaps also argue that a few changes from “God” to “Son of God” in 1st Nephi count as substantive errors. I would argue against that, because the Son of God (Jesus Christ) is in fact a God, which is a title. Even today, we learn that Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament. These 1^st Nephi passages, both before and after the change, work and are consistent with the rest of the Book of Mormon text. All throughout the Book of Mormon, there are several examples of Jesus Christ being “the Son of God”, “the Father” and “God”. The Book of Mormon even explains at least three ways in which Christ can be labeled “the Father”.

That leaves us with exactly one substantive error, unless Hamer can provide more examples. Whether the error is by Mormon or Joseph Smith is unknown and is therefore useless as an argument to back up his claims.

Argument 3: "The entirety is anachronistic from animals, crops and metals to 19^th century Christian topics"

This is an old debate and I don’t want to go too much into detail here, because it has been discussed by people much more knowledgeable than me. To be honest, I don’t know what a 19^th century Christian topic is. But if this is used as an example of an anachronism, it’s not enough to find examples from 19^th century literature discussing a certain topic found in the Book of Mormon. One must also demonstrate that this is a new topic in the 19^th century or at least not discussed in Book of Mormon times. How do you do that? There is absolutely no way to demonstrate that a “19^th century Christian topic” is an anachronism or not.

As for animals, crops and metals, it is unreasonable to expect that the names of these things found somewhere on the American continent 2-3 millennia ago, should always have an English 19th century equivalent. It is reasonable to expect that common English words for many of those things didn't even exist. But in order to not have 'cureloms' and 'ziff' all over the book, English words like 'horse' and 'wheat' are used to reflect what those things were with varying degree of accuracy.

A serialized response to John Hamer - Part 2b

We are still dealing with Hamer's claim that:

"The Book of Mormon is far simpler than it first appears".

We will consider another argument he uses to back up that claim:

"Although the text includes many characters and places, the author 

only had to have a few of each in his mind at any given time as 

he tells individual stories"

If I understand his argument correctly, Hamer is saying that it really doesn’t matter that there are 200 personal names, 100 geographical names and other intricate details in the Book of Mormon, because the text only uses a few of them at a time and the stories are disjointed in a way that the author can forget about these details after one story is finished.

I have previously created a document listing examples of internal consistency in the Book of Mormon where we see one part of the text referring to another. If what John Hamer is saying is true, then we wouldn’t expect these references to be very far apart and primarily be kept within a single story. To test this, let us go to a certain point in Joseph Smith’s dictation and see what he needs to remember at this point to provide a consistent text. I.e. what details are included in the text before this snapshot in Joseph's dictation that are in onw way or another referred to at some later poin and needs remembering. For this purpose, we assume that Joseph Smith has just finished dictating Alma 54 and is about to start dictating Alma 55.

At the end of Alma 54 we are in the middle of a long war between the Nephites and Lamanites, initiated by Nephite dissenters. At this point in the dictation, Joseph Smith needs to remember names and details which have been introduced prior to chapter 55 and will be referenced from chapter 55 and on. This includes:

·         The Nephite chief captain is Moroni

·         Helaman is the ecclesiastical leader, but in these times of war has also taken command over an army in another part of the land

·         Two other Nephite captains in this war are Lehi and Teancum

·         The Lamanite chief captain is Ammaron

·         The former chief captain and Ammaron’s brother was Amalickiah. He died in chapter 51 but must still be remembered because he is referred to later, in Alma 62:35.

·         The chief judge is Pahoran. He was introduced in chapter 50 but must be kept in mind as he returns to the narrative at the end of the war in Alma.

Although these are strange and unusual names for someone in 19^th century New York, you could argue that remembering these few names and details is manageable even without notes. This is probably what John Hamer has in mind when he says: “Although the text includes many characters and places, the author only had to have a few of each in his mind at any given time as he tells individual stories”. But to the observant reader, there is more details to this story that Joseph Smith must keep in mind. He needs to remember the following:

·         Alma 51:26 lists several cities which the Lamanites conquer. Since the recapturing of all of these except for one are described specifically later in the text, Joseph Smith must remember which those are. For instance, Alma 55 describes the recapturing of Gid and preparations to recapture Morianton, both cities listed in Alma 51:26.

·         It is not enough to remember Helaman and the 2000 stripling warriors. The background is given in Alma 53:13-15 (Helaman fearing for the souls of the people of Ammon as they almost break their covenant and their sons stepping up to the challenge because they have not covenanted). These details must also be remembered because they are repeated in the letter from Helaman to Moroni in Alma 56:7-8.

·         In Alma 51:24, when the Lamanites conquer the land of Moroni, they flee to the city of Nephihah and the people in the city of Lehi also gather there. This detail must be remembered, including the names of the cities involved because Alma 59:5 reminds the reader that the people in Nephihah are gathered from Moroni and Lehi.

·         In Alma 51:19, the king-men (Amalickiah’s followers) are “taken and cast into prison”. These dissenters are the reason for the war in the first place. But they are not brought up again until Alma 62:9, which contains a very subtle reference to the “king-men who had been taken and cast into prison” even though the war is over.

·         In Alma 50:34, the land Desolation is located in the north by the narrow pass. This is something the author must keep in mind because it is consistent with Alma 63:5 and Mormon 3:5.

·         Alma 22:27 and Alma 17:1 indicates that Manti is close to Zarahemla. This is also the case when Joseph Smith later dictates Alma 58.

·         In Alma 45:21, after the previous war, Helaman proclaimed the word of God because it was expedient “that a regulation whould be made throughout the church.” In Alma 62:44, after this next period of war, Helaman proclaimed the word of God because “it had become expedient that a regulation should be made again in the church.” The “again” in Alma 62:44 clearly refers to Alma 45:21.

These are all details related to the ongoing war in Alma 54 that the casual reader might miss but that Joseph Smith needs to remember while trying to dictate a coherent text with his face in a hat. I don’t think this is a trivial task at all. By the time he gets to the chapters referring to previous details, he has already introduced new details which need remembering. The stories are intertwined, not disjointed. For instance, chapters 56-58 contain an epistle by Helaman in the southwestern part of the land before we return to Moroni and his men in the eastern parts again. In the letter, several cities that the Lamanites conquer are listed in Alma 56:14 and the recapturing described later for some of them, which means those city names must be remembered too and cannot be mixed up with the cities in the eastern parts. In addition, new people like Antipus, Gid and Teomner are introduced.

Even though this is already getting complex, there is much more. There is still a list of things Joseph Smith has dictated prior to this war, but still need to be remembered because they are referred to at some later point. The list is based on the assumed order of Joseph Smith’s dictation after the loss of the 116 pages, where he started from Mosiah, dictated to the end of Moroni and then 1^st nephi to Words of Mormon.

·         Mosiah 1:10: “the people of Mosiah”. This refers to Mosiah I, who we learn about in Omni 1:12-19. (Note the same reference to “the people of Mosiah” in Omni 1:17). But Omni had not been dictated yet. This means that Mosiah I and his people were briefly referred to in the beginning of the dictation and then described in more detail at the very end of the dictation.

·         Mosiah 25:2: Mulek is mentioned for the first time. There is no mention of him again until a reference later in Helaman 6:10

·         Mosiah 28:19: “And this account shall be written hereafter”. Refers to the account of the Jaredites which is not given until the Book of Ether.

·         Mosiah 29:46: “making in the whole, five hundred and nine years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem.” This is the start of the reign of the judges. But this little detail must be remembered because it is needed for 3^rd Nephi 1:1 to add up: “Now it came to pass that the ninety and first year [since the start of the reign of the judges] had passed away and it was six hundred years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem”. 509+91=600, which is also consistent with the 600-year prophecy given later when Joseph Smith dictated 1^st Nephi 10:4.

·         Alma 3:6 talks about Nephi, Sam, Jacob and Joseph, the righteous sons of Lehi. Only Nephi is mentioned again in the rest of the BoM. Keep in mind that Joseph Smith started dictating from Mosiah. When Sam, Jacob and Joseph are introduced later in 1^st Nephi, their names had been mentioned only once, more than 100 chapters ago, and had to match.

·         Alma 6:7 indicates that the cities of Zarahemla and Gideon are close to each other. Joseph Smith must remember this when he later dictates Alma 61:5 and Helaman 13:12-15.

·         Alma 33:15: The prophet Zenock is mentioned for the first time in the dictation. He must be ‘remembered’ at Helaman 8:20, which is the second time he is mentioned.

·         Alma 37:21: Alma is talking about the 24 plates that Limhi’s people found. This detail must be remembered later in Ether 1:2, because another reference is made to the number of plates there

·         Helaman 5:9 refers to something specific that King Benjamin said in Mosiah 3:17

·         Helaman 5:10 refers to something that occurred many chapters earlier in Alma 11:34. If Joseph Smith is inventing this, he must remember the names of those involved (Amulek and Zeezrom), where it occurred (the city of Ammonihah) and what was said (Christ would not save his people in their sins)

·         Helaman 5:21: “even in that same prison in which Ammon and his brethren were cast by the servants of Limhi”. This refers to an event in Mosiah 7.

·         Helaman 6:25: Mormon comments on one of Alma’s specific commandments to his son. This is a reference to Alma 37:21-29.

·         Helaman 14:12 contains a word for word quote of King Benjamin by Samuel the Lamanite: “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning” is the exact same wording as in Mosiah 3:8

·         3.Nephi 5:12 is referring to the land of Mormon, which has not been mentioned since Alma 21:1. We are used to this name of course, but at this point in the dictation, there has not been one instance of the personal name, Mormon yet. In this verse, Mormon who abridges the records, introduces himself for the first time and makes a reference to the land of Mormon by saying he is named after it.

·         3.Nephi 12:26: The English translation of the corresponding verse in Matthew 5:26 (Sermon on the Mount) is usually using penny, farthing or similar depending on the translation. In this verse, Jesus is using the Nephite currency, senine. This was introduced in Alma 11 and has only been used once since then, in Alma 30:33. As explained in Alma 11, a senine is the lowest value (smallest piece of gold) and it therefore makes sense as a Nephite substitute for “penny”.

·         Ether 1:3: The first part of the Jaredite record contains the creation account and the history from Adam to the tower of Babel. This detail was also described in Mosiah 28:17

·         Ether 12:13-17 refers to several previous people and events in the Book of Mormon, several of them prior to Alma 55 (the point in Joseph Smith dictation which is our starting point for this list)

·         Ether 15:33 talks about the people of Limhi finding the Jaredite records. This detail is found in Mosiah, but has not been mentioned since Mosiah 28:11

·         1.Nephi 1:8: Lehi sees “God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God”. Notice the exact same wording in Alma 36:22 when Alma says he saw the same as Lehi. Alma is of course the one referring to Lehi, but Joseph Smith first dictates the reference, then the original event that is referred to.

·         1.Nephi 4:35: Here we are introduced to Zoram. However, in the process of Joseph Smith’s dictation, this same Zoram has already been mentioned once in Alma 54:23. Hence, just like Nephi’s brothers, Zoram and the story of him coming along with Nephi out of Jerusalem must have been known about before Joseph Smith dictated this part.

·         1.Nephi 16:10: This is where Lehi finds Liahona outside his tent. Following Joseph Smith’s order of dictation, however, a reference to Liahona has already been made in Alma 37. Consequently, Joseph Smith dictates the Liahona story long after a reference to it.

·         1.Nephi 19:10-12: Nephi is quoting and paraphrasing the prophesies of Zenos about the natural disasters and darkness at the time of Christ’s crucifixion. This is consistent with 3.Nephi 10:14-16, which states that Zenos and Zenock in particular “spake concerning these things”.

·         Omni 1:28-30: This describes two groups from Zarahemla going to the land of Nephi. The first group was unsuccessful and returned to Zarahemla. As for the other group, nothing was heard of them again in that generation from the perspective of someone living in Zarahemla, like Amaleki. This is consistent with the information we get in Mosiah 9, where we can read a more detailed account.

·         Words of Mormon 1:12-13,18: Mormon talks about a period of contentions and wars in King Benjamin’s days, after which he manages to establish peace. This ties in neatly with Mosiah 1:1, a verse which Joseph Smith had dictated about 2.5 months earlier and completes the circle.

This is a pretty long list, and even though there are many more internal references in the Book of Mormon, this list is limited to what Joseph Smith needs to remember at the end of Alma 54, because he has already dictated these things and will later refer to them. The alternative is that Joseph Smith forgets about it and instead studies the half-finished manuscript to find these details and bring them up when he needs to refer to them. The problem with that argument is that many of these details don’t need reference, i.e. the natural progression of events does not force Joseph Smith to look these up at a certain point. Many of them are subtle details whose existence the casual reader has long forgotten. For instance, when Joseph Smith dictates Helaman 5:21, he doesn’t have to say that the prison Lehi and Nephi were cast into was the same prison that Ammon was cast into. Yet he does. So it is clear that this is a detail that the Book of Mormon author is already aware of.

My personal opinion is that those who think Joseph Smith made this up and kept all these details straight and even argue that it’s not that difficult, do not understand the complexity of the Book of Mormon and grossly underestimate the difficulty of dictating a book in one single draft. In fact, I highly doubt that John Hamer and those who agree with him are aware of all these details listed above. Consequently, if Joseph Smith made this up, he knew the Book of Mormon text much better than them already at the time when he first dictated it! How can that be?

Keep in mind that this is still just a snapshot of Joseph Smith’s dictation at the time he had just finished Alma 54. At another time, say 3^rd Nephi 19, the list would look different so he would have another set of details to remember, some overlapping with the Alma 54 list. One might argue that I chose Alma 54 because that is the most complex part resulting in the longest list of things to remember. I admit it might be one of the hardest ones because it is in the middle of a war with many city names etc to keep track of (I haven’t even listed all of them here), and I chose it to make a point of it. But I would argue that the most difficult part is not at this point in Alma but rather between Ether 1 and 6. Here Joseph Smith would need to remember the whole genealogy in Ether 1, that is 30 names, unfamiliar for the most part, in the right order, because he is telling the story of all these generations from Ether 6 and on and it is 100% consistent. Other details from the Book of Mormon dictated before Ether 6 and repeated after Ether 6 also come in addition, for instance several items from the list above would still apply.

In any case, it should be obvious that John Hamer’s claim that Joseph Smith would only need to have a few characters and places in his mind at any given time as he tells individual stories, does not hold up to scrutiny. In his presentation, this argument is made on the slide with the heading: “The Book of Mormon text is far simpler than it first appears.” Many of the items on my list of things Joseph Smith would need to keep track of, are definitely not something that easily “appear” upon the first reading. Hence, I would argue that it’s quite the opposite. The complexity of the Book of Mormon is there but you need to study it in-depth to see it. That’s why I would reverse John Hamer’s statement and argue that the Book of Mormon text is far more complex than it first appears.

The Remarkable Internal Consistency of the Book of Mormon -- a (Growing) List

Like the analogy of the flaxen cord, no single example of internal consistency in the text of the Book of Mormon is monumental.  However, if you take the time to add up the number of details the author of the text needs to keep track of throughout, this type of evidence is very compelling.

This (growing) list is a work in progress. I encourage you to take the time to look up each of these details and see them in the text for yourself. Then ask yourself these important question about who wrote the book and how they wrote it:

• Is it reasonable to conclude that one man spontaneously dictated this text in 3 months?
• Is it possible that a 23 year old uneducated day laborer with no significant writing experience crafted this text in a single draft?
• If Joseph Smith is not the author of the Book of Mormon, who wrote it and how?

Another note, this list relies partially on the very excellent work by Stisa, a contributor on this blog, and I include examples from his compilation with his permission. (Note that entries involving more than one book may show up at least twice on the list below.)

Examples from Mosiah

Internal Consistency between descriptions of Alma the Younger's conversion and his words to his fellow missionaries (Mosiah 27 and Alma 29/36).

Internal Consistency between Mosiah 27:16 and Alma 5/29/36 -- Alma's obedience to the Angel

Internal Consistency between Ether 11, Omni 1, Mosiah 21, and Alma 22 -- "Dry Bones"

Internal Consistency between Ether 4 and Mosiah 8 and Mosiah 28 -- The Jaredite records.

Examples from Alma

Internal Consistency between Mosiah 27:16 and Alma 5/29/36 -- Alma's obedience to the Angel
Internal Consistency between Alma 1 and Alma 15 -- "The profession of Nehor"

Lehi's Genealogy, 1 Nephi 5:14-16 (with Internal Consistency between Jacob 2:25 and Alma 10:3)

Internal Consistency between descriptions of Alma the Younger's conversion and his words to his fellow missionaries (Mosiah 27 and Alma 29/36).

Internal Consistency between Alma 36:22 and 1 Nephi 1:8 (Alma the Younger quotes Lehi)

Internal Consistency between 1 Nephi 16:29 and Alma 37

Internal Consistency between Mosiah 1 and Alma 37 -- Instructions from keepers of the records/artifacts

Internal Consistency between 1 Nephi 16:10 and Alma 37:43-46

Internal Consistency between Ether 11, Omni 1, Mosiah 21, and Alma 22 -- "Dry Bones"

Examples from Helaman

Examples from 3 Nephi

Internal consistency between 3 Nephi 28, 4 Nephi, and Mormon 8--descriptions of the three Nephites.

Examples from 4 Nephi

Internal consistency between 3 Nephi 28, 4 Nephi, and Mormon 8--descriptions of the three Nephites.

Examples from Mormon

Internal consistency between 3 Nephi 28, 4 Nephi, and Mormon 8--descriptions of the three Nephites.

Internal consistency between the writings of Moroni (Mormon 8) while finishing his father's record and the words of the Angel Moroni to Joseph Smith.

Examples from Ether

Internal Consistency between Ether 11, Omni 1, Mosiah 21, and Alma 22 -- "Dry Bones"

Internal Consistency throughout the Book of Ether

Internal Consistency between Ether 4 and Mosiah 8 and Mosiah 28 -- The Jaredite records.

Examples from Moroni

Examples from 1 Nephi

Internal Consistency between Alma 36:22 and 1 Nephi 1:8 (Alma the Younger quotes Lehi)

Internal Consistency between 1 Nephi 1:17 and 1 Nephi 10:1

Internal Consistency between 1 Nephi 2:20 and 1 Nephi 4:14

Internal Consistency between 1 Nephi 3:29 and 1 Nephi 7:10

Lehi's Genealogy, 1 Nephi 5:14-16 (with Internal Consistency between Jacob 2:25 and Alma 10:3)

Internal Consistency between 1 Nephi 16:29 and Alma 37

Internal Consistency between 1 Nephi 16:10 and Alma 37:43-46

Examples from 2 Nephi

Examples from Jacob

Lehi's Genealogy, 1 Nephi 5:14-16 (with Internal Consistency between Jacob 2:25 and Alma 10:3)

Examples from Enos, Jarom, Omni, and Words of Mormon

Internal Consistency between Ether 11, Omni 1, Mosiah 21, and Alma 22 -- "Dry Bones"

Internal Consistency between Mosiah 1 and Alma 37 -- Instructions from keepers of the records/artifacts

A note from u/under___where from r/latterdaysaints:

I noticed a connection between Mosiah 1:16-17 and Alma chapter 37.  Especially the description of the "ball or director" in Mosiah 1:16-17 with Alma 37:38-47.  The lessons are very similar, even though the wording is very different.  I see four distinct elements that are shared in the two passages. Below are the verses in Alma 37 that correspond to the shorter passage in Mosiah 1:

• v3 Plates of Brass
• v2 Plates of Nephi
• v38-47 The ball or director (4 shared elements):
• v38 "The Lord prepared it."
• v39 "it was prepared to show unto our fathers the course which they should travel in the wilderness."
• v40 "it did work for them according to their faith in God"
• v41-42 "They were slothful, and forgot to exercise their faith and diligence and then those marvelous works ceased, and they did not progress in their journey; Therefore, they tarried in the wilderness, or did not travel a direct course, and were afflicted with hunger and thirst."

These two passages are located ~66 chapters apart. And both involve the passing on of records and important artifacts.

A serialized response to John Hamer - Part 2a

John Hamer's claim number 2:

"Text is far simpler than it first appears"

Hamer gives three arguments. My response to the second is very long so we will save that for part 2b tomorrow and look at the first and third today.

First argument: "Characters are 1-dimensional and story plots are wooden"

This sounds more like personal opinion. I think the Book of Mormon stories are great and not wooden at all. Take Zeniff and his band for instance. He was initially a spy but was able to see the good in the Lamanites and wanted to negotiate with them. He was “over-zealous” to inherit the Land of Nephi, but was fooled by the Lamanite king. He expresses faith and is a peacemaker but he is not described as a prophet, he doesn’t give sermons and doesn’t even mention Christ (although I’m sure he believed in His coming). Despite his righteousness, he describes how his people have “suffered these many years in the land”. I don’t think his character is 1-dimensional, nor do I think this story and many other Book of Mormon stories are “wooden”. But that is a matter of subjective opinion and not very useful to debate.

With more than 200 people included in a 1000 year timespan over 600 pages, it is obvious that we can’t get into all the multi-dimensional aspects of most characters. “Understanding the Book of Mormon” by Grant Hardy is a great resource to get under the skin of the main Book of Mormon authors and understand their various facets.

Third argument: "Complex systems like currency are expounded and forgotten"

In his presentation, John Hamer makes this point by claiming that when Jesus comes, he doesn’t use the Nephite currency when repeating the Sermon of the Mount, but uses “sheckles, talents or whatever”. I don’t know why he would say that but it’s either very dishonest or very sloppy. This is simply false and very easy to fact-check. Jesus does indeed use the Nephite currency, Senine, in 3^rd Nephi 12:26, which was introduced in Alma 11.

Since he only uses this as example, I am not sure which other complex systems he refers to. But I would argue that all the different sets of plates, the timeline and geography are all quite complex and they are not "forgotten". For instance, much of the geography is expounded in Alma 22 and then referred to many times later.

Interesting detail in 1st Nephi 13

Compare verse 24

"Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord"

with verse 28

"Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book"

How can a book come from the mouth of a Jew? This is clearly an allusion to oral traditions which is the origin of the written bible. But the hands of the great and abominable church refers to writing and apparently changing the written words before it became the bible as we know it.