Have you ever heard of the Second Law of…?

The second law does not debunk evolution. sorry.

A quick thought

Given the many duties on my plate as dean of a large university, I have only had time to come up with a quick thought to share this week. In volume 21 of the Review, Steven L. Olsen explores the death of Laban using tools of literary criticism. Consistent with other efforts we’ve examined in The Peer Review, Olsen’s approach draws from the recent fad of dark sci fi and mature police drama to emphasize the brutality and edginess of the BoM,

The image that Nephi paints in his brief description of the nighttime scene is tragic and gruesome: he finds Laban drunken and lying unconscious and then leaves him in a pool of his own blood after cutting off his head with his own sword (1 Nephi 4:7, 18–19). Taken out of context, this description might give the impression that Nephi took morbid pleasure in the details of this tragedy.

I do not wish to extensively analyze Olsen’s commentary but I will draw attention to one key observation he makes as his concluding remark,

These examples illustrate how the fine crafting of Nephi’s narrative of Laban’s death deepens and layers that event with significance within the sacred record and the context of the covenantal identity of ancient Israel. While it is possible that these connections are imposed on the text by the modern reader and were not consciously intended by Nephi, it is more likely that Nephi’s artistry and spiritual focus were responsible for the finely crafted text, whose meaning, in some measure, is dependent upon its literary sophistication.

Indeed, it is possible that all the supposed complexity of the BoM is imposed on the text by the modern reader. It’s a very, very good possibility, isn’t it? I have to wonder: on what basis he concludes that it’s “more likely” the literary difficulty comes from Nephi?

The Axe Boasts against him who Heweth

Special Report

The apologists have long blown off The Firm Foundation as irrelevant to serious discussions regarding the Book of Mormon. Now their very own weapon forged by Mopologetic blacksmiths to battle critics, narrative interpretation, turns against them; not by the hand of their adversaries, but wielded by their very own supposed scholarly allies.

Many times as I’ve sat listening to my chamber music during the cool of the evening, I’ve caught myself wondering: what narrative conflict best describes the story of Mopologetics? Given the many battles with critics, one might argue the plight of the apologist is best categorized as “man vs. man.” Yet some may argue the struggle of the apologist to subdue his culture with intellectualism strongly points to a theme of “man vs. society.” I, however, find myself most attracted to the theme known as “man vs. technology,” even though it isn’t obvious in what way the apologists battle technology. To my mind, technology is a metaphor for the creations of man and in this theme, man battles the unforeseen consequences of his attempts to control the world. From what some might call a postmodern angle, knowledge, rather than being an analog of reality such as the grooves in my vinyl record are the imprints of the works of Beethoven, becomes a tool man has created to control a discourse, a history, or a text. The tools man creates, as we typically learn from the narrative conflict “man vs. technology,” however, cannot be controlled by their creator and will turn on him in unpredictable ways.

FARMS review volume 21 dwells on the non-historical approach to the BoM featuring essays by Louis Midgley, Allan Goff, and an esteemed outsider, Martin Marty. Midgley outlines the strategy for volume 21 in his essay: ape some subjectivist argumentation to get historicity off center stage, use literary criticism to show how complex the BoM is, and then end the discussion by forcing the critics to explain away the “richness of the literary BoM” and when they can’t because it’s such a subjective call, the BoM stands as true.

The newest Mopologetic argument: the apologists understand Moby Dick, therefore the Church is true.

To secure credibility for their new narrative approach to the BoM, an essay by Martin Marty questioning the validity of historical investigations into religion is printed alongside the apologetic works which build on this premise. No longer will the apologists have to worry about whether the foundational events and scriptures of Mormonism are objectively true, but whether they are interesting and meaningful to the Mormon community. Marty’s exposition boils down to this:

Fundamentalists may not like the dynamism and flow of history, but they find their fundamentals in the past.

(fundamentalism is bad. Those who judge religion by the standard of historical truth are fundamentalists)

Dynamic and fluid interpretations motivate revolutions inspired by religious communities.

(Those who bracket history and build an adaptive community through metaphorical interpretations of scripture and tradition are good)

The apologists, of course, see themselves as the progressive intellectuals deserving a pat on the back from liberal religious scholars like Marty. Midgley takes the microphone from Marty after Marty’s introduction to the narrative interpretation of religion and announces,

…none of these authors [in this volume of the review] see themselves as proving the Book of Mormon, something both unnecessary and impossible. Instead, the authors seek to uncover and examine what they consider to be the unusually complex and subtle message embedded in the text.

The apologists are the intellectually superior protagonists, pitted against the critics and the “folk” membership within the story of Mopologetics, but their position isn’t so secure when the text is read closely. Pay attention to the reading of Ph.D. candidate from none other than the Martin Marty Center as he discusses the challenge by The Firm Foundation to the central dogma of Mopologetics, the Mesoamerican theory of the BoM. Perry writes:

For some time, conventional wisdom has identified that area as Mesoamerica, stretching from modern-day central Mexico to Honduras. Mesoamerica hosted advanced pre-Columbian civilizations, the thinking goes, and the land forms fit, to a certain eye. The LDS Church has no official stance on the matter, but it has tacitly endorsed this view.

But watch out,

There is a swelling movement within the Church, though, that prefers to believe that the story took place in Illinois, among other North American locales. Bruce Porter and Rod Meldrum’s Prophecies and Promises: The Book of Mormon and the United States of America is the latest salvo in this argument.

.

Indeed, how can it be that a lone, amateur researcher could pose such a challenge to the intellectually imposing Maxwell Institute? Perry writes,

Scholars have long wondered how Mormonism’s American character affects its overseas growth, asking whether Mormonism can take authentic root in places where the American Constitution and apple pie are unknown. The Heartland Model, though, signals the need to wonder about the other side of the equation – how is international growth affecting Mormonism at home?

Whatever else it is, the Heartland movement looks like a ripple of nativism, a twitch of insecurity among Americans in a globalizing faith. Mormons are increasingly identified with conservative politics, and in its very name the “Heartland Model” conjures the right’s renewed rhetoric of American exceptionalism.

Perry’s insights are telling for a variety of reasons. On a superficial level, what we have is a representative of the MI’s own courted Martin Marty Center declaring outright that the apologists are wrong, that Rodney Meldrum’s movement is significant and a force to be reckoned with. The MI will ignore FIRM to its own peril. Most interesting to me though is Perry’s a-scientific interpretation of the battle for Book of Mormon geography. Book of Mormon geography, according to this expert in religious studies and narrative, has less to do with geography and archeology than it does politics and agendas, and when the situation is analyzed by the narrative tools the MI is currently promoting to dampen the blows of critics, the many years of fevered digging by apologists searching for Zerahemla is for nothing; BoM geography is mainly determined by the unconscious fears and desires of the members promoting the various theories.

Indeed, the situation the apologists find themselves in is dire. The route of narrative interpretation makes sense given the extraordinarily problematic stance of the BoM and BoA as real history not to mention the shady character of Joseph Smith and early church leaders, but the price is high, all the MI’s boasted archeological discoveries can’t easily be held over the heads of fellow members with competing theories; sure, FARMS can tout degrees and question the rigor of Meldrum’s methods, but then, as champions of the official Church geography — official, per Perry — they become fundamentalists hell bent on historicity, their winnings paltry in the eyes of the scholarly religious studies community they are trying to impress. In one way or another, the Mesoamerican theory they worked so hard to create and that has defined the core of Mopologetics for decades will be destroyed by their own latest weapon, narrative theology. In the worst of these scenarios for FARMS, the FIRM foundation will stand confident before God over the corpse of the Mesoamerican LTG like David after just having slain Goliath.

A New Facility Erected

I’m proud to announce a new building on campus, the E. D. Howe Center for Mopologetic Research.  Doctor Scratch and several other faculty members will be moving into their new offices within this building over the next few weeks.  This new facility features state-of the-art technology and amenities hiding beneath an exterior that mimics an ancient ruin.  Visit our new building and enjoy three libraries, two gourmet cafeterias, silent elevators, a swimming pool, racquet ball courts, and a stunning conference center. You may also enjoy miniature recreations of several important archeological sites such as the Roman version of the City of Zarahemla. If your love is Egypt, then pack your bags! We have recreations of catacombs to wander, we’ve got mummies and scrolls, and we have inscriptions everywhere in several dialects of the Egyptian language including Hieroglyphics, Hieratics, Demotic, Reformed, Schryver-Lo:L, and Puppet-2010.  Care to test your translation skills?

E.D. Howe Center for Mopologetic Research

Now I have to ask: is anyone jealous of our new ziggurat? For long ago, the building of another ziggurat was in the works but it never got past the discussions and imaginations of the apologists who had dreamed it up. Journey with me back to 1995 and allow Doctor Scratch to guide our tour through this fascinating, multi-million dollar proposal.

According to Doctor Scratch, FARMS had been growing at an alarming rate around the year 1995 and had implemented massive fund-raising efforts to expand their empire,

An early notice of FARMS’ plans for exponential growth appeared in a 1995 issue of Church News:

“Groundbreaking for a new 25,000-square-foot building for The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies is tentatively scheduled for next April, according to Brent Hall, FARMS director of development and operations. Construction of the building will take approximately 18 months to complete, he said.
….

The design of the new building suggests elements of the world of the Bible – a dome, arches and pyramid – and the world of the Book of Mormon – stone work reminiscent of Meso-American pyramids and other structures.”

This massive edifice to apologetics would have been like recreating a structure out of Zarahemla, and it would have stood as a powerful symbol of Mopologetics’ accomplishments and power. But there were problems. Some time near the announcement of the building, the following letter, dated 20 November 1995, was sent out to FARMS supporters:

“In the last newsletter we announced the campaign to raise the funds to build the Book of Mormon Research Center…. Your help is needed. Many of you have already responded with generous contributions for which we are grateful, but more is needed. Local building costs are escalating rapidly. Presently the architects estimate the project will cost some seven million dollars…. We invite those of you who have abundant means to be very generous…. Please don’t delay.”

Was this referring to the same building? Given FARMS’s status as a purely volunteer effort, one would have to assume so. But other troubles were brewing.

It is worth back-tracking at this point in order to reflect on what was happening in the world of Mormonism during this time period. The 1980s had seen the Mark Hoffman scandals, along with the rise of the Tanners, and, in 1993, the very public troubles with the September 6. Moreover, a very important new development called the Internet was beginning to spread across the world. Could it be that the Brethren had at last begun to see the need for a Church-financed, Church-supported apologetic effort?

Doctor Scratch explains that the threatening posture of FARMS’s expansion effort could have alarmed the Brethren who then quickly called for the integration of FARMS into direct church oversight at BYU under the umbrella of the Maxwell Institute.   Interestingly enough, as Doctor Scratch has explained recently, the Church is carefully molding the MI into its own image, slowly erasing the individuality of the various apologists it governs. Though Mormon Scholars Testify, one of the newest projects of apologetics, takes a hostile stance against Chapel Mormonism by way of carefully selecting content, it also represents the Brethren’s influence to tone down apologetic invective. And we’ve seen some key figures in apologetics keeping a low profile lately, likely out of fear of retribution from the Brethren.

At any rate, I invite the reader to imagine an Apologist’s empire that escaped the GA “buyout” of the mid 90’s, built the massive ziggurat fortification, and continued on in the vein of the  attack-oriented spirit of SHIELDS-influenced repay-the-enemy-with-vinegar Mopologetics.

From Moroni With Blood

A just-so story might tell of a strong and brave yet gentle fireman who while journeying through city streets stops his firetruck as a distraught woman stands crying at the base of a tree. The strong fireman exits his vehicle, grabs a ladder, and climbs up to a limb where a cat is perched, stubbornly refusing to come down. The ground is not flat and the ladder wobbles, but the fireman skillfully balances himself and just as it seems the ladder is doomed to tip over, the fireman acrobatically whisks the cat by the nap of the neck and lowers purring kitty to a grateful owner. A crowd that has drawn around the scene gasps and then claps and our hero is off in his truck to spend another day as the bravest man in the city. Like our fireman, Moroni from the Book of Mormon is a predictable hero and fortunately so, for do we not live in times when the role models of the world will falter? Should not the Lord’s heroes provide contrast to worldly vanity, standing steadfast and never wavering? Here’s an example of how the Church portrays Moroni:

Moroni had the pure love of Christ….

Suffereth long: Moroni lived alone for over thirty-six years patiently keeping the records. (Mormon 8:5.)

Kind: Moroni prayed for us, and he loved his brethren. (Ether 12:36, 38.)

Envieth not: Moroni saw our day and counseled us to not be envious or proud. (Mormon 8:35–37.)

Not puffed up: Moroni was humble because of his weakness in writing. (Ether 12:23–25.)

Seeketh not her own: Moroni unselfishly worked and prayed for us that we would have a knowledge of Jesus Christ. (Mormon 9:36; Ether 12:41.)

Not easily provoked: Moroni forgave his enemies and worked hard to write things that he hoped would be of worth to them. (Moroni 1:4.)

Thinketh no evil: Moroni exhorted us to hold to good and touch not evil. (Moroni 10:30.)

Rejoiceth in truth: Moroni was honest. (Moroni 10:27.)

Beareth all things: Because Moroni would not deny Jesus Christ, he had to wander alone for his safety. (Moroni 1:2–3.)

Believeth all things: Moroni encouraged us to believe in Jesus Christ. (Mormon 9:21.) So great was Moroni’s faith that he was able to see Christ face to face. (Ether 12:39.)
Hopeth all things: Moroni understood the importance of hope. (Ether 12:32.)

Endureth all things: Moroni was faithful to the end. (Moroni 10:34.)

5. Moroni received a letter from his father when Moroni was first called to the ministry. As part of the letter Mormon expressed his love, appreciation, and concern for his son (see Moroni 8:2–3). Before class have a parent, or an adult relative or friend, of each of the children in your class write a letter of love and appreciation. Give these letters to the children as you explain the love that Mormon had for his son, Moroni. Point out that Moroni valued this letter; he carried it with him as he fled from his enemies. Suggest that the children save their letters as a reminder to continue to do good things which will please their parents and the Lord.

Even though Moroni is painted rather straightforwardly as a hero in the Book of Mormon as is our fireman in my hypothetical story above, we must not necessarily feel bound to read the text in a straightforward way, if it pleases us, we may read any story against the grain. For instance, we might question the fireman’s motives; the woman who lost her cat could be attractive, and it could be the fireman is pulling the stunt for show out of sexual interest in the woman. We might question the duty of the fireman who is wasting city tax money, time, and taking unnecessary risks for a pet implied by the text to be capable of getting down on its own anyway; what would happen if our fireman would have fallen and injured himself while balancing the ladder as a serious fire broke out?

Typically, we would read a text against the grain if we’re looking to find fault with the intentions of the author. Naturally, if one were to read the Book of Mormon against the grain, we’d suppose the person to be critical or antagonistic toward the Mormon scriptures. Interestingly enough, however, it turns out that there is a new generation of faithful intellectuals and apologists who read the Book of Mormon against the grain not to criticize, but to vindicate the book.

Robert C. from Feast Upon the Word summarizes Grant Hardy’s “realistic” portrait of Moroni.

Hardy describes Captain Moroni as having a “blunt manner, quick temper, aggressive posture, and hasty suspicions,” traits that “would have made him a poor missionary,” although these qualities “serve him well on the battlefield” (177). Elsewhere, Hardy writes that “his negotiating skills are a bit weak” and that “his temper gets the better of him in the end [in his letter to Ammaron]”

According to Robert C., Hardy asks questions like, why is Mormon so complimentary of Moroni — is there something to hide? (Is Mormon trying to cover Moroni’s screw-ups and raging temper?) Well, Moroni is probably a noble-chinned knight because the creator of the Moroni character wanted a noble-chinned knight in his story but there is no doubt that a thoroughly Freudian line of inquiry will reveal hairline cracks throughout his statue. Yet Hardy’s crticisms are restrained when compared with John C’s analysis on By Common Consent who takes on Moroni, the “war criminal”. Contrast these virtues with the ones from the LDS magazine:

-Captain Moroni convinced the nation to give him the power to force people to go to wars. The alternatives were imprisonment and execution…
-Another example is Captain Moroni’s administering of possibly poisoned food and drink to his prisoners of war….
-Moroni’s tendency to insist on unconditional surrender and treaty acceptance seems to prolong the war. Much like Germany after World War I, the Lamanites, when they lose, must always accept complete defeat…
-…Perhaps Zarahemnah and Ammoron would have responded better to Nephite peace overtures if Moroni hadn’t insisted on implying they were the children of hell

The new Moroni: A rage-fueled, religiously intolerant and racist military hardliner who takes no mercy on his adversaries — marshal law, the abolition of civil liberties, and the torturing or execution of his captives; these are a few of the things that make Captain Moroni smile. And this is not, mind you, a villain Moroni the Critics have conjured up, but rather, a “flawed” Moroni the TBMs are promoting. But to what end?

The end obviously isn’t a hero for the youth of the church to emulate, but to create interesting characters that can hold their own among the negative or flawed heroes of 21st century television. Compare Colonel Saul Tigh from the new Battlestar Galactica with Moroni.

Tigh is “gruff and unlikable” a “hard ass” military man who has a low view of civilians. He hates his enemies and generally refuses compromise. He is fanatically devoted to the cause of his army and poisons his wife when he learns of her dealings with Cylons. He’s a devoted friend and brave soldier, the kind of guy you want on your side, but it’s hard to imagine encouraging one’s children to grow up to be like him. Tigh is written as a complex character, however, while Moroni is written as a shallow character who can be made more interesting by subversive readings.

Hollywood has popularized the dark, gritty hero with flaws and re-imaging Book of Mormon characters to be edgy and controversial strikes me as a desperate move to make the Book of Mormon seem difficult and conflicted, at home in this trend; I don’t see these new portraits of Book of Mormon characters as honest attempts to own up to the reality of the text. The reality of the text is that Moroni is a stereotypical squeaky-clean soldier in the service of God, country, and virtue, and it takes a strained, subversive stance to mold him into anything else.

I imagine this reality galls the apologists, who more than anything want the Book of Mormon to be a scholarly book and respected by the wise and learned professors of the world.