fun in threes, sometimes fours
general
From the Wall Street Journal:
Housing starts decreased 12% to a seasonally adjusted 947,000 annual rate, after falling 0.7% in February to 1.075 million, the Commerce Department said on Wednesday. Originally, Commerce reported February starts 0.6% lower, at 1.065 million. Building permits also dropped in March. (WSJ)
Twelve percent?!
Anyone really believe the housing slump is going to end any time soon?
The drama at the Yearning for Zion compound has a familiar ring to anyone raised in any kind of sect that preaches seclusion from the world. Different definitions of reality; different morality; different everything. The outside world is not to be trusted; the outside world is evil; our protective group is heaven.
ABC was recently allowed into the compound and interviewed some of the women, who have now been separated from their children.
Neil Karlinsky, the correspondent, asks a group of mothers who insist that children are not abused in the compound whether or not young girls are forced into marriage.
"We're talking about our children," is the reply to Karlinsky's repeated questioning.
That's the point -- so is Karlinsky, and so is the state. "We can't understand why the state took the children away from us," say the mothers. "Because we don't know what you're doing to your children," comes the reply.
Another woman, when asked if she shares a husband with other wives, says she cannot answer the question at this time.
"Why not?" Karlinsky presses.
"Because it's sacred to me," she replies.
"I take that to mean a yes," Karlinsky responds, reading viewers' minds.
Yet as a parent now, I cannot imagine what the parents of these children must be going through. Not only has Child Protective Services taken these children, but they've taken them into the wild of the world. For the parents, these children are at risk in every sense of the word. I imagine the opposite: my child taken from me and plopped down in Yearning for Zion, where everyone holds beliefs diametrically opposed to my own: I would fear for my daughter's safety in more ways than one.
Jeff Lindsay, at Mormanity, writes,
This case is not about the children. It's about the power of the State. No apologies. No backing down. No care for the children who are being traumatized and abused as they are torn from their mothers. It's all for their own good and protection, just like the Cultural Revolution. (Source)
It's abusive to rip them away from their mothers that way; it's abusive if young girls are being forced into marriages. Which abuse is worse?
I've decided to spin off the non-LMS content to a new site, "The Critical Edition." You can see new content through the RSS feed at right. Mostly, it's going to deal with religion, but I'll also include thoughts about politics from time to time. MTS will, in other words, become a strictly family blog.
My first long-term project will be blogging the Book of Mormon. I've never read it; I thought I would. I'm trying to read it objectively, but it's difficult...
A colleague once bemoaned the lack of solidarity concerning the war in Iraq compared to that in World War II.
There are a lot of differences, cultural and otherwise, and the cultural differences have a lot to do with what happened in Vietnam. Even without Vietnam, though, there are enough differences between the US of 1941 and the US of 2008 to explain compellingly why we were more united in the effort 60+ years ago than we are now -- and none of these reasons has anything to do directly with the war itself.
Certainly there are important differences regarding the nature of the wars: Hitler was not hiding his ambition to conquer Europe; Iraq was, at the very least, not being blatantly aggressive. But that is not the fundamental difference.
The main difference is economic.
The economic reason people were so united was that we had to pay for the war somehow -- then and there. We bought war bonds; we conserved; we preserved; women took men's jobs; we skipped vacations.
The Second World War was an expensive proposition. It was even more expensive considering the fact that America had just suffered the Great Depression. It was still more expensive considering the fact that America the dollar was still based on the gold standard, and all that money had to back by something other than loans and good intentions, as it is today. So when we built a plane or manufactured a round of ammunition, it ultimately had to be backed with gold. The government could not just print off money or get a loan. It had to pay for all the materials outright.
James McGovern explained it thusly in The Boston Globe
Currently, we are paying for the war in Iraq not through the normal budget process but by borrowing and increasing the national debt - by putting the costs onto the national credit card. Every morning, countries like China and India buy up this debt, further weakening our economy and our national security. (Globe)
Not so in 1941. If we went to war, we paid for it.
That's why World War II stimulated the American economy -- because real money, backed by gold -- was changing hands. The current war does nothing to stimulate the economy because we're only getting loans to pay for it.
The only way to change this is to get America back on the gold standard. However, this is all but impossible: most American's don't even know that we're no longer on the gold standard, and even if they did, most wouldn't want to return. "Why, we have enough to pay for with gas at $3.30 a gallon!"
As if three were not enough, we get eight more.
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.
Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith
Enough with the sales pitch!
There is a big difference, though, between these two testimonies. The Eight claim that they saw and handled the plates; the Three simply saw the plates. Additionally, they claim that Smith himself showed them the plates; the Three claimed that an angel had shown them the plates.
Far from putting me at ease, this makes me even more suspect. Not everyone has an experience of being shown something by an angel; everyone, though, has an experience of being shown something by a fellow human. And like Saint Thomas, the Eight are able to put their hands in the wound, so to speak.
It almost seems planned. And they all seem to eager to convince.
The list of signatories is also enlightening. A little research shows that in fact everyone on the list was either of Smith's family or the Whitmer family (early followers of Smith). Even "Joseph Smith, Sen." testified. Apparently, even father vouched for son. If what Joseph Smith claims to be true really happened, then why not? However, if this was a grand hoax, or a case of self-delusion, it's frightening that Smith Senior would assure us that there really were tablets, that his son was not lying when in fact he knew very well that he was.
Nonetheless, it's a little like putting your father's name down as a reference on your resume.
But all of this assumes that these people did see what they claim to have witnessed.
After the introduction, the Book of Mormon grows odd: "The Testimony of the Three Witnesses" immediately leaves me suspect. I get the feeling I'm talking to a used car salesman.
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.
Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris
"This is a good car. Really -- a good car. Hey, Tony, tell this guy how good this car is."
This race has been odd for the religious right. First, there was the issue of whether or not to support a Mormon -- a non-Christian in the eyes of many Evangelicals. Now comes the troubling Hagee endorsement of McCain.
Yet it's not only those on the left side of the spectrum that are troubled by this -- or at least, it shouldn't be. Those same Evangelical Christians who hesitated to support McCain should also be leery of Hagee and his less-than-orthodox theology, as seen below:
[Video removed from YouTube.]
The Book of Mormon begins,
Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the -Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile-Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation-Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed-To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof-Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile-The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.
An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven-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-And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.
TRANSLATED BY JOSEPH SMITH, Jun.
First English edition published in 1830
Immediately, we seem to be transported into a fantasy world, as when we read the first pages of Lord of the Rings. Questions abound: Who are these Nephi? What about the Lamanites? Are they more important than the Nephi? It seems logical, since this is both a record of the Lamanites and written to the Lamanites. And Moroni? Was he a Nephi (I’m sure that’s a plural form)? Was he a Lamanite? Neither one nor the other?
This is only the introduction, so it’s too much to ask who all these people are, but that leads to an obvious question: what Holy Book has an introduction?
The Hebrew Bible begins,
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
The Hebrew Bible jumps right into the thick of things, discussing the origins of life without any introduction or preface. It speaks with authority. This is how it was. There’s no justification: “This is the word of God, to those that eventually will become the Hebrews and later the Jews.”
The Koran begins,
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. The Beneficent, the Merciful. Master of the Day of Judgment. Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help. Keep us on the right path. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray.
Where the Hebrew Bible shows, the Koran tells: God is great and all powerful.
Only the New Testament begins similarly:
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Both the Book of Mormon and the Christian New Testament begin with a sense of an author trying to legitimize something. The difference is that the New Testament is trying to legitimize Jesus as the Christ, while the Book of Mormon seems to be legitimizing itself more than anything else. Of course in legitimizing Jesus as the Anointed, the Matthew’s gospel is legitimizing itself indirectly.
The Book of Mormon, though, starts off like a mystery, trying to hook us with the first line. Who are these Nephi and Lamanites?
The mystery is compounded when we read of things being sealed and shut up. It has notes of esoteric antiquity, long lost but discovered and delivered unto a thirsting, ignorant world. That, of course, is the whole premise behind the Book of Mormon, but I wasn’t expecting to find it in the opening lines.
Indeed, it all hints at there being so much more behind the veil: this is an abridgement (Why can’t we have the whole thing?) written to the Lamanites (Who could they be?) and sealed up by Moroni (He must be some supernatural being.) that is a gift of God.
It’s a bold way to begin.
We end with the of-God/of-man dichotomy. “If there are any mistakes in the text,” authors are fond of writing in their acknowledgements, “It lies with me, and not all these wonderful people who advised me.” Thus ends the introduction to the Book of Mormon: any mistakes in here are of human origin, not God. For good measure, we have a dash of submit-for-the-sake-of-your-eternal-life tossed in at the end.