Informed by the comments, some revisions have been made to the original post.
This post begins my series-long critique of the Book of Mormon. And to kick-off the series, I’m going to focus on what I consider to be the most problematic part of the Book of Mormon: Third Nephi, chapters 8 and 9. These chapters record the events that immediately followed the crucifixion of Christ.
And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month, there arose a great storm, such an one as never had been known in all the land. And there was also a great and terrible tempest; and there was terrible thunder, insomuch that it did shake the whole earth as if it was about to divide asunder. And there were exceedingly sharp lightnings, such as never had been known in all the land. (3 Nephi 8: 5-7)
Whirlwinds, three days of darkness, and the wholesale destruction of many ancient American cities are described in 3 Nephi 8 as well. Amidst this chaos, the Nephites and Lamanites might well have asked, “Where is our god?” Well, we find out in 3 Nephi 9 that god was behind it all. Indeed, he seems to boast about it:
And it came to pass that there was a voice [later identified to be Christ's] heard among all the inhabitants of the earth, upon all the face of this land, crying: Wo, wo, wo unto this people; wo unto the inhabitants of the whole earth except they shall repent; for the devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice, because of the slain of the fair sons and daughters of my people; and it is because of their iniquity and abominations that they are fallen!
Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof. And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned. And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof …
And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth; Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof …
And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk … and the inhabitants thereof have I buried up in the depths of the earth …
And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness … And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof …
And because they did cast them all out, that there were none righteous among them, I did send down fire and destroy them, that their wickedness and abominations might be hid from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints whom I sent among them might not cry unto me from the ground against them.
And many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and their abominations. (3 Nephi 9: 1-12)
It is often said by Mormons that people apostatize because they were offended. And you know what, I was offended. I was offended that the LDS Church would have me worship a god who perpetrated the above mass murder. And not just any god, but Christ—the Prince of Peace. On the cross, Christ pled with the Father to forgive his killers (Luke 23:34). Are we to honestly believe that this same Christ, just moments later, would burn, bury, and drown 16 cities and their inhabitants? That doesn’t sound like a loving and merciful god. That sounds like Godzilla.
Granted, Jehovah, who Mormons believe was the premortal Christ, committed similar atrocities throughout the Old Testament. And sure, the Jesus of the New Testament promised a violent apocalypse in the end times. But if the destruction in Third Nephi is in fact consistent with Christ’s character, then all the more reason to deny his omnibenevolence.
I anticipate that some will justify the death and destruction in Third Nephi on account of the peoples’ unrighteousness. Still, Christ’s response is wildly disproportionate. What sins could possibly warrant the destruction of 16 cities and every inhabitant (including children below the “age of accountability”)?
Chapters 8 and 9 in Third Nephi also have implications for the Book of Mormon’s historicity. If the remarkable phenomena they detail really happened, why is ancient history totally silent about them? A booming voice from heaven, three days of darkness, and the destruction of 16 cities wouldn’t escape attention. We should expect the Maya and other ancient American peoples (among whom the Nephites and Lamanites would have lived) to have mentioned these events in either their writings or oral traditions, but—as far as we can tell—they didn’t.
The absence of these events in any historical record is perhaps less important than their absence in the archeological record. Sixteen cities don’t simply disappear without a trace. In 79 AD, the Roman town Pompeii was completely buried in ash after Mount Vesuvius erupted. It was later rediscovered in 1599. Pompeii was just one town, found without the aid of modern technology. And yet we can’t find any of the 16 cities that Third Nephi claims were destroyed.
In light of this dearth of both historical and archeological evidence, I think we can reject Third Nephi as an accurate history. And Mormons should welcome this conclusion, because otherwise their savior is a sadist and not worthy of worship.
I wonder if it makes sense to view this as a personnel placement issue in some sense.
Mormon thought views there as being a set quantity of spirit beings up there waiting for somewhere to end up. And God has to place these beings as best he can.
And you’ve got two competing issues you have to deal with:
1. You want to place them in an optimal sort of place, but
2. You have to back off and allow the kids to create the sort of places they choose to create – even if those places are pretty bad.
Now, how on earth you balance that properly, I don’t know. But it would suggest an explanation of the occasional bit of housecleaning. Basically, it’s not just the people in the city who are in the equation. It’s everyone else waiting who is going to get dumped on in that city in the future.
If God is so constrained that he can’t do it a better way than killing thousands of innocents, then it makes him less worthy of faith. From the lectures on faith:
“An acquaintance with these attributes in the divine character, is essentially necessary, in order that the faith of any rational being can center in Him for life and salvation. For if he did not, in the first instance, believe Him to be God, that is, the Creator and upholder of all things, he could not center his faith in Him for life and salvation, for fear there should be greater than He who would thwart all His plans, and He, like the Gods of the heathen, would be unable to fulfill His promises; but seeing He is God over all, from everlasting to everlasting, the Creator and upholder of all things, no such fear can exist in the minds of those who put their trust in Him, so that in this respect their faith can be without wavering.”
If God is not sufficiently omnipotent, then he may be unable to fulfill his promises because some outside condition would thwart him.
You seem to say that God must settle for some optimal but less than satisfactory outcomes (e.g. the death of innocent children). The 3 Nephi 8-9 story makes him subject to factors beyond his control (assuming that he would have preferred to avoid killing babies). If there are things outside of his control, why should I have faith that such a god would be capable of fulfilling his promises to me?
Who said they were all innocent Craig?
I thought we were agreeing that only a portion of the city would have been innocent.
I certainly didn’t. I do agree with that.
By the way, don’t think I’m claiming a solution here. I don’t have a solution to the problem of evil.
Well written blog. I’m glad that I could find more info on this.Thanks
Interesting perspective, but very limiting. I stumbled accross your post looking for answers as to why God is sometimes so destructive or vengeful in the Old Testament. The answers are hard to come by it seems. But if you are going to reject the Book of Mormon for the destruction that it records at his death in the new world, you will need to reject the Bible for the destruction the Christ himself foretells at his second coming. You just can’t have it both ways.
I’m an atheist, so I of course reject both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
…you can’t be serious, Jon. And to think I looked up to you.
Jon, this is not meant to be an attacking question, you know me I’m just blunt. What do you accept as history and/or scripture? I mean anyone can argue that after even just 100 years history can be changed or altered by the people who write it down and by word of mouth. A lot of truth can be lost in the transfer. Not to mention you have translation errors and just human fault. Also everyone has their own perception of truth I.e. Their perspective. So what is acceptable as truth and what as fiction?
I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if I find any scriptures to be true? If so, the answer would be no. I don’t believe any verses of any book to be of god, because I don’t believe in gods.
You may instead be asking how I “know” what is historical and what is fiction. The short answer would be evidence.
Andrew, I don’t know you but why would you look down on jon for having different views than your own. I still look up to jon. He’s a great guy who is actually very intelligent and I actually like his constructive criticism because it makes me remember the reasons for believing how I do. Rethink what you just said
lol.
.
.
.
i was joking.
Haha now I feel dumb. I retract my previous statement
Nah, don’t feel dumb. I appreciated your coming to my defense, whether it was needed or not ha ha. That was very cool of you.
Strange, but I have this book to be the most exciting thing that I have come across in the whole book of Mormon. What you might be concerned about is that God has already wiped out mankind in the days of Noah and promised to do it again. If you don’t think that people have become really evil, you are living under a box. It is not God that is the problem, it is the people.
I don’t doubt that some people have become really evil. But it strains credulity to suggest that EVERYONE in these BoM cities were evil. I mean, what about the little children?
Trying to convince atheists of the truthfulness of your faerie tales by referencing an even older faerie tale isn’t really the best strategy.
Also, the “don’t be wicked or my god will commit genocide again”, is a poor motivator for good behaviour. Especially when there’s no evidence for your claims that your god did anything of the sort, ever.
If Mormonism’s god was a human he would be diagnosed with ADHD for tantrums like this. Or he’d at least be heavily medicated for his psychosis.
Not just Mormonism’s god. Almost every Christian, Jewish, and Muslim version of god is capricious, cruel, jealous, vindictive, genocidal, petulant, manipulative, and barbaric. Mormonism isn’t really very special in this regard.
People who bemoan those destroyed by a God of both love and justice should remember that in his second coming, he will come with a sword, and with fire. What’s the difference here? The people who were destroyed, unlike the Romans, had ample opportunity to listen to the prophets and to get their lives in order. Just 33 years earlier, they’d received an unmistakable sign when there were three days of light. Yet they soon forgot this event and continued their iniquity, going so far as to kill the prophets.
If you want to live a selfish life devoid of serving God, that’s your choice; but to kill the prophets and to cause others to lose their faith, you can always blame the god of global warming and chalk it all up to bovine gas emissions.
People with your outlooks and beliefs shake their fist at the heavens, curse God and die; and so it’s been for generations. And you treat the loss of life as being the end of existence, which it isn’t. Being destroyed by the Lord only changes your location. It doesn’t destroy anyone’s existence. There’s nothing cruel about the righteous judgment of God. Before we came to this world we acquiesced our will to His will. We agreed to abide by His judgment. No one held a gun to our heads.
God’s judgments are righteous, and eventually ever knee shall bend and every tongue confess Christ. The day may come when you will be swept clean by the besom of righteousness, as prophesied by the prophets; but when that happens, you cannot say you weren’t warned. You can continue in your rebellion, you can notch your ears, lips, nose and tongue — and you can rail against heaven, just as the ancient Nephites and Lamanites, and live lives dedicated to your own physical enjoyments. Satan stands against God as an accuser, and so you, too, stand as accusers — and in so doing you temp God.
Nephi and other prophets said that no people have ever been destroyed by God, save they were first warned by the prophets. Those killed in the destructions continue to exist today, and to think and act. Their minds were not destroyed, their minds were not obliterated, they were simply (as one of our writers put it) moved to a penalty box for their actions.
You, alone, are responsible for your thoughts and actions. And this has been the Gospel message since the beginning.
Mr. Adams,
I find your arguments illogical on the basis of the following:
1. Your argument, as I understand it, is two fold and can be summed up as follows: 1) A believer’s view of God/Jesus (in particular the belief that he is omnibenevolent) is inconsistent with His behavior in Third Nephi. The destruction of entire cities, some of which probably included good people or, at least, children (who cannot sin) is not a benevolent act. and 2) The destruction of 16 cities should be evidenced in some way archelogically or in oral tradition of the assumed descendants and is not, therefore it didn’t occur, which is inconsistent with a Believer’s beliefs.
2. Your second argument is the easiest to dispense with. Your argument is “There is no evidence of P, therefore Not P” which is a fallacy. Your second argument is just rhetoric intended to mask the fact that P could be true.
3. As for your first argument, I think a Believers understanding of the purpose of this life and the afterlife explains the inconsistencies easily and I’m not sure why it escaped you.
3a. First, in regards to “children” (and by that I shall refer to those below the age of accountability), you suggest that terminating the lives of the children in those cities was an act of cruelity. What is cruel about removing a spirit from its imperfect body and its presence in a corrupt world and placing it into the rest and solace of God and, eventually, providing it with a perfect body, a fullness of joy, and Eternal Life? From the viewpoint of a Believer that is what happened, so you can, of course, see that such, if true, is not a cruel act by any stretch of the imagination and in complete comformity with God’s omnibenevolence.
3b. As for any non-children “righteous” people in the city, (3a) applies to them as well, and therefore is also a benevolent act.
3c. As for the unrighteous people in the city, what is cruel about removing a spirit from its imperfect body into a similar world (absence the body), give them many more chances to repent, and eventually receive a more perfect body and some level of glory greater than anything they could obtain during their life on earth? This is obviously another benevolent act.
Please do not make the mistake of reading more into my response than is there. All I have done is indicate the numerous irrationalities of your argument, which is premised on the beliefs of a Believer. If you choose to believe that the circumstances of 3a, 3b, and 3c (namely the eventual salvation and, possibly, exaltation of all of God’s children) is not true then of course the desctruction of those cities appears cruel, but only if you can explain the following:
4. To claim that killing (which we understand as an act that transitions Person X from Circumstance A (life) to Circumstance B (afterlife, if any)) all of the individuals in those cities was a cruel act, you must claim that Circumstance A was “better” than the combination of the “goodness” or “badness” of the act of killing Person X and Circumstance B. This is because if killing Person X was very beneficial to Person X, then its not cruel at all. Therefore, you have an implicit premise as to the quality of life of the afterlife (if any). Please explain what that is as that is inherent to your arguments soundness. If you cannot, then I guess you don’t have an argument at all. If you can explain the quality of life of the afterlife, i’d be very interested in hearing your proof of such.
Regardless of (4), the point remains that the act of destroying those 16 cities is not, given a Believer’s beliefs, cruel.
Thank you for the time you took to read this comment. I’d be delighted to hear your educated response.
Thanks for the comment, Hegji.
I appreciate your criticisms, but I have addressed them all, in one form or another, earlier in the thread. So forgive this response for being short.
“Your argument [regarding the dearth of archeological evidence] is “There is no evidence of P, therefore Not P” which is a fallacy.”
Nowhere did I argue that it was logically impossibility for the event in question (the sinking of 16 large cities) to have occurred. But sometimes the absence of evidence is evidence (though of course not proof) of absence. One must admit that it is at least very curious that we haven’t discovered these 16 buried cities and that our only record of this event is the Book of Mormon.
“What is cruel about removing a spirit from its imperfect body and its presence in a corrupt world and placing it into the rest and solace of God and, eventually, providing it with a perfect body, a fullness of joy, and Eternal Life?”
If you’re doing someone a favor by removing their spirit from their imperfect body and a corrupt world, then why don’t you go around killing children? Sure, you’re commanded not to, but you’d just be sacrificing your salvation to guarantee theirs. Sounds like a moral and selfless thing to do, given your devaluation of this life.
This just all sounds too much like divine command theory to me. Sure, from god’s perspective, maybe it’s not wrong to kill people (as death isn’t the end). But if this is so, on what grounds can you disagree with Islamist terrorists? Under their religious paradigm, what they are doing isn’t wrong–they are merely obeying god’s commandments and ensuring their and their family’s salvation.
When you totally divorce morality from this real world context and instead tether it to theological abstractions (divine command theory, in other words), I cannot take your morality any more seriously than, say, a religious terrorists’. (This isn’t really as inflammatory as it sounds; I explain this point elsewhere in the thread.)
Thank you for your response. I feel that you got off point and I’m not sure why. Let me explain:
1. Your posts says: “In light of this dearth of both historical and archeological evidence, I think we can reject Third Nephi as an accurate history. And Mormons should welcome this conclusion, because otherwise their savior is a sadist and not worthy of worship.” I pointed out that this is a fallacy. Your response was to reiterate the fallacy. I’m not sure you understand what a fallacy is. Let me explain:
a. A fallacy is incorrect reasoning. It says nothing about the conclusion, only that it’s not the result of sound reason. By stating that a line of argument is fallacious is not to claim that its conclusion is logically possible. That has nothing to do with it, which is why I’m surprised you thought that’s what I meant.
b. Please consider the following illustration: I could argue “George, the Vice President of my local bank, said the monetary system will not fail tomorrow, therefore the monetary system will not fail tomorrow.” This is another fallacy. Notice that the conclusion “the monetary system will not fail tomorrow,” may yet be true and there may be a way of showing that it is true through non-fallacious reasoning.
c. As you can see, you are still fallacious when you say: “sometimes the absence of evidence is evidence (though of course not proof) of absence.” You would have been correct if you said “sometimes the absence of evidence is evidence” and left it at that, because any fact can be evidence. But to claim that it is evidence of a conclusion is to say that it is rationally connected to the conclusion. Hence, to claim “the absence of evidence is evidence…of absence” is the same as “there is no evidence of P, therefore Not P.” I illustrate this further in the next point.
2. You attempt to draw a non-fallacious rational connection as follows: There is no archeological evidence of P, if P did occur, there would be archeological evidence of P, therefore Not P. The trouble with this argument is the second premise (which is why it’s often left out, making the argument fallacious). The second premise is outrageous, making the whole argument unsound (not fallacious).
a. Consider: If the second premise is true, then the archeological record must contain evidence of all events sufficiently similar to P. Does the record of any nation or people contain a historicity of every major natural disaster? Every recollection of every supposed visit from deity? Every war, struggle, massive death and destruction? By your logic, in 1598 I could have said “There is no evidence of the destruction of the city of Pompeii which is evidence that the city of Pompeii was never destroyed” and be considered rational. I hope this illustrates the absurdity of your reasoning.
b. Please also notice that the destruction of those 16 cities IS evidenced by the historical record (The Book of Mormon) yet you choose to reject the record because it’s not evidenced by another record. This is an illogical position because if each record requires substantiation by another record this will continue ad infinitum and no record will ever be substantiated.
3. Your response went further, as follows: “[a]If you’re doing someone a favor by removing their spirit from their imperfect body and a corrupt world,[b] then why don’t you go around killing children? [c]Sure, you’re commanded not to, but you’d just be [d]sacrificing your salvation to guarantee theirs. [e]Sounds like a moral and selfless thing to do, given your [f]devaluation of this life.” This paragraph is full of six misunderstandings of both my comments and Mormon doctrine, which I have identified and will consider briefly in turn.
a. I am not doing anything. The account of Third Nephi in question regards God’s actions, not mine or any one else’s. Furthermore, I argued AGAINST the position that it was a cruel act – not that it was a favorable act.
b. Because I lack the authority to take life.
c. Also a good reason not to kill children.
d. The worth of souls is great in the eyes of God. He’d rather see two saved than one saved and the other damned. It’s worth the chance.
e. Killing all children so as to “guarantee” their salvation is actually very immoral and similar to the Adversary’s plan, in which free will is removed but, allegedly, everybody is saved.
f. I hope you don’t do me the injustice of suggesting that I think life is without value. All life is valuable.
4. Divine Command Theory, as I understand it (please correct me if I’m wrong) semantically connects moral positions with God’s attitude. In practice, the theory is as follows: “Death is good” is the same thing as “God commands death;” and “Death is bad,” is the same thing as “God prohibits death,” and so on and so forth. If you feel that my argument amounted to: “Well God killed those people, so it was good,” again, you misunderstand my argument. I argued that God’s actions were not cruel. Accordingly, I have no response to your final two paragraphs, which are an attack on a position I did not take and, therefore, have no interest in defending.
5. In sum, if you would be so kind, please address the following points I’ve made which have not received an adequate response:
a. Do you agree or disagree that given a Believer’s beliefs and perspective, as described in 3a-3c, the acts in question are not cruel?
b. Do you agree or disagree that “There is no evidence of P, therefore Not P” is a fallacy?
i. If you agree, do you agree that your argument adopts this fallacious style? If not, please explain.
c. Do you have a theory and proof as the circumstances of the afterlife, if any? (I found it odd you failed to address this point, as it bears far greater weight to the validity of your argument than any of the others you chose to address.)
d. Do you still feel that my argument is asserting Divine Command Theory, and if so, please explain?
I enjoy receiving your thoughts. Have a nice day.
“I’m not sure you understand what a fallacy is.”
No need to be pretentious and condescending.
“Hence, to claim “the absence of evidence is evidence…of absence” is the same as “there is no evidence of P, therefore Not P.” I illustrate this further in the next point.”
“If the second premise is true, then the archeological record must contain evidence of all events sufficiently similar to P. Does the record of any nation or people contain a historicity of every major natural disaster? Every recollection of every supposed visit from deity? Every war, struggle, massive death and destruction?”
The operative phrase: “sufficiently similar.” Not every natural disaster, war, or supposed divine manifestation is sufficiently similar to the wholesale destruction of 16 majors cities.
“By your logic, in 1598 I could have said “There is no evidence of the destruction of the city of Pompeii which is evidence that the city of Pompeii was never destroyed” and be considered rational. I hope this illustrates the absurdity of your reasoning.”
I don’t think this example serves you well. First, that statement would be true IF there was no evidence of the destruction of Pompeii, but there was…namely the fact that a mountain of ash now covered where there once was a city.
“Please also notice that the destruction of those 16 cities IS evidenced by the historical record (The Book of Mormon) yet you choose to reject the record because it’s not evidenced by another record. This is an illogical position because if each record requires substantiation by another record this will continue ad infinitum and no record will ever be substantiated.”
Nope. It doesn’t require corroboration ad infinitum. Just the more witnesses, the stronger the testimony. I’m not denying the BoM as potential evidence; rather, I am saying it is far from sufficient. We have contemporary reports from people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. If only one testimony is sufficient, do you believe all their stories without further evidence?
In response to the 5 questions you ask at the end:
a. Yes. But this is irrelevant. Bin Laden doesn’t think his actions are cruel, but it doesn’t follow from his belief that his actions are not in fact cruel.
b. Yes, but you mischaracterize my point. Again, my formulation of the argument is “There is no (or insufficient) evidence of P, there not likely P.
c. No.
d. At times you flirt with it. Your argument is that god defines good so much as it is that god better understands good. But in practice, this is effectively the same as divine voluntarism, because you will always defer to god’s judgment as his was are supposedly higher than ours. I am just concerned about when we divorce morality from it’s real-world context. At the point at which god can get away with killing children and destroying countless cities and still be called good, then the word “good” just looses its descriptive value to me. When I think of a good and loving god, I don’t think of the one portrayed in Third Nephi. If your faith allows you to reconcile your idea of goodness with such a god, that’s fine. But it’s by that same kind of faith that terrorists to call their god good also.
“No need to be pretentious and condescending.”
I apologize if you felt belittled, as that was not my intention.
I agree the operative phrase is sufficiently similar. I also agree that not every natural disaster, war or supposed divine manifestation is sufficiently similar to the events contained in Third Nephi. But I assume the reason why you failed to dispute the point of that paragraph is that it practically goes without saying: every culture has gaps in its oral and archeological record.
“I don’t think this example serves you well.”
I’m not sure why? As you indicated, Pompeii was not discovered until 1599. In 1598, there was no evidence of the destruction of Pompeii – but there was undiscovered evidence. This is exactly my point, which the example illustrates perfectly. To ever think “There is no evidence of P, therefore Not P” is absurd because the evidentiary door is not closed.
“I’m not denying the BoM as potential evidence; rather, I am saying it is far from sufficient.”
My response to this quote is two others from your original post: “The absence of these events in any historical record,” and “we can reject Third Nephi as an accurate history.”
“It doesn’t require corroboration ad infinitum.”
I agree. I also didn’t argue that it does.
And in response to your responses to the 5 questions:
a. How is it irrelevant? The title of your post is “Why Mormons should be thankful Third Nephi is not history.” A “yes” answer to (a), as you’ve given, indicates that Mormons have every reason to be thankful that Third Nephi IS history.
b. As indicated earlier in this comment, “There is no (or insufficient) evidence of P, there[fore] Not (likely) P” commits the same absurdity of thinking the evidentiary door is closed. The rational response to the question “P, or not P” when you have no evidence (or insufficient evidence) is “I don’t know;” its not “Not P.”
c. Then you lack a fully explained theory as to why the events of Third Nephi were cruel.
d. What “descriptive value” does “good” have to you? Upon what basis does that rest? Also, I’m not sure what you are attempting to do other than another fallacy. If I eat hummus, and a terrorist eats hummus, that doesn’t make me as evil as a terrorist.
Pingback: Link bomb #5 | Main Street Plaza
One viewpoint that I have yet to see in this discussion is that maybe death isn’t necessarily a punishment. Like you say, many that were killed were innocent or not accountable yet…therefore, according to Mormon doctrine, they would receive equal and just recompense for their deeds here on earth……so if they were innocent, death wouldn’t be a punishment. But if you have the idea that this life is all we have, death would seem to be a punishment for wrong doing. But for some life and death were just pivotal stepping stones in an eternal journey.
That viewpoint, while not discussed directly in my post, was addressed multiple times in the comments.
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Independence Day Edition! | Main Street Plaza