Answers from the Mormons, Part 1

Jeannette and I met with the Mormons on Sunday night, and had some of the questions we had answered, and about half unanswered. We'll have the rest answered on Thursday.

Questions:

From 2 Nephi:

2:5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.

Is the reference to 'men' here to mean mankind, or just men?

A: Men here refers to mankind, not just men.

2:11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

Does all life need need a balance of good and bad?

A: Yes, life needs good and bad. When Adam fell, he gave humankind joy, for without suffering, you can't know joy. While this may be true, to a point, some degrees of suffering are unnecessary. I don't need to loose my arms to appreciate them, for example. I wouldn't gain any joy by getting my arms cut off, even if they magically grew back.

2:21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.

Do we have to pay for the sins of our parents?

A: One of the core beliefs of Mormonism, is that you are responsible for your own stewardships, and nothing else. If you are a parent, you are responsible for your children, but your sins don't pass onto them. However, we are all fallen because of Adam. While the answer skirts around the issue, the scripture seems clear, we are lost because of the transgression of our parents. What this seems like to me, is a call to become Mormon, even if your parents raised you incorrectly.

3:7 Yea, Joseph truly said: Thus saith the Lord unto me: A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins. And unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren, which shall be of great worth unto them, even to the bringing of them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers.

How can Joseph Smith be from the fruit of Joseph's loins if all of Joseph's decedents died, according to Mormon 6?

A: He is the fruit of Joseph of Egypt's loins, not Joseph who lived in America's loins. But it could mean that his lineage is from Joseph, which is a ritual Mormons have, where a priest will tell you what your lineage is. This gets recorded down, and can be played back if anyone wanted to know what lineage they are. I think there are too many Joseph's in this book, and using last names, or son of's would have helped.

5:12 And I, Nephi, had also brought the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass; and also the ball, or compass, which was prepared for my father by the hand of the Lord, according to that which is written.

The earliest record of people using a compass is 1100 CE in China, then 1200 CE for Arabians and Western Europeans, and in 1300 CE for Scandinavians. How could Nephi have a compass in 590 BCE? And why had no one copied the compass earlier?

A: The compass, was actually a golden ball where writing would appear, and there would be two pointers on it. No one could replicate it, because God made it. This refers to the Liahona, which is a magic ball with writing on it which God places there according to the faith of the user. If the user's faith is correct, it will lead you to where you are searching, if incorrect, it will lead you astray. The Liahona is rumored to be on a purple pillow in the office of the prophet.

5:14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

Why isn't there any evidence of swords in pre-Columbian America?

A: We don't know. We know the Book of Mormon said there were many swords, and one sword was made of fine steel, but swords could have meant weapons, like spears. This is an example of the trouble with translation. If Joseph Smith were translating reformed Egyptian via seer stones, there would be no way this could be incorrect. There would be no swords of steel if God had not intended for it to be written, so there must be a sword of steel, and as long as there was one, there should be many. One of the Mormons mentioned Damascus steel, and how the Nephites could have made a sword in the same manner. I did some research of Damascus steel, and it wasn't used for sword making until 1100 CE. Wootz steel, from Sri Lanka, was a high carbon steel making process from 300 BCE, which is how Damascus steel was made, but that date places it far too late for the immigrants from Israel in 590 BCE to be making such fine steel.

5:15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

How could a handful of immigrants from the Ancient Near East have the skills necessary to work with such metals, especially in 590 BCE?

A: Nephi's father was a merchant, so it isn't unreasonable to assume that his children would have learned a trade. Nephi could have been a metallurgist.

5:16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

Verse 15 and 16 contradict each other. Were there many precious things to be found, or not? The Temple of Solomon took 150,000 men seven years to build, according to 2 Chronicles, chapter 2 verse 2, how could Nephi's dozen men build a similar temple with so few people?

A: When Nephi landed, there were people already in America. They were drawn to the Nephites, because they had language, scripture, and Nephi was a prophet. Because of this, they helped build the temple.

5:21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

This verse seems racist, being interpreted by a modern person. These people, who were from Israel were called white, and God caused a curse to be placed on them, making their skin black, and making them "loathsome" to his people. If I read this now, it sounds like black people, or the decedents of Indians as this would refer to, are ancestors of the Lamanites, a cursed people by God.

A: While the verse seems racist, it's the word of God. Either you believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God or not. If you believe it is the word of God, then yes, God cursed the Indians by giving them black skin. However, the church is not racist, and provides for education for Lamanites, or Native American's throughout America. There are scholarships available to Lamanites to go to BYU, as well as other opportunities in Latin and South America. You should look at the works of the church, not just it's writings, to determine whether Mormon's are racist or not. While this may by true, that Mormons are helping the less fortunate in poorer countries with education, it does not erase the racism of Joseph Smith, and the early church. Blacks could not hold the priesthood until 1978. One of the Mormons mentioned the Curse of Ham, how that was used to justify the treatment of Blacks, including the prohibition of Blacks, and their descendants from the priesthood.

Brigham Young, from the "Journal of Discourses:"

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants;' and they will be, until that curse is removed."

In 1954, Mormon elder Mark E. Peterson discussed blacks and the priesthood in an address to a Convention of Teachers of Religion at the College Level at Brigham Young University. He said:

"The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. 'No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood' (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a 'Nation of Priesthood holders'...."

The LDS Church changed its policy after a revelation in 1978 led them to make a statement was all men, regardless of race or color could join the priesthood. This came after the IRS threatened to remove their not for profit status, sports teams were boycotting events with BYU, and it became too difficult to determine the race of people in South America, and Australia, and many people who had descendants from Africa were already in the priesthood. While the current actions of the church are noble, this is something the Mormons have not been able to sweep under the rug. The current stance on the passage is that, it's the word of God, not Joseph Smith being racist.

5:23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

This verse forbids intermarriage between the whites and Indians, otherwise, the curse will be passed on to the children, their skin will be darker. Why do you think God would do such a thing?

A: God doesn't forbid intermarriage between whites and Indians, or Lamanites, but your children will have the curse, which is dark skin. We can see this happens, so it's true, and that's all the curse means, is a mark from God. I had trouble with this passage, and the concept that we do not suffer for the sins of our parents. If you make the curse as insignificant as just having dark skin, then it isn't so bad, but last I checked, it wasn't a good thing to have a curse.

6:12 And blessed are the Gentiles, they of whom the prophet has written; for behold, if it so be that they shall repent and fight not against Zion, and do not unite themselves to that great and abominable church, they shall be saved; for the Lord God will fulfill his covenants which he has made unto his children; and for this cause the prophet has written these things.

What is the great and abominable church?

A: Any church which isn't the LDS. From the reading I have done on the history of Mormonism, this is interpreted to specifically refer to the Catholic church.

6:15 And they that believe not in him shall be destroyed, both by fire, and by tempest, and by earthquakes, and by bloodsheds, and by pestilence, and by famine. And they shall know that the Lord is God, the Holy One of Israel.

Is this literal, or allegorical? If there is no fiery hell which people go to when dead, how can unbelievers be destroyed by storms, fire, famine and such?

A: This refers to the end times, not Hell, or an afterlife. So, because I don't believe in Jesus, or the God of Israel, the best proof God can provide for his existence, is by destroying me by storms, fire, and famine?

We meet again with the Mormons on Thursday. Hopefully I'll get to the parts of 2 Nephi which I thought promoted equality, and even a passage which is considered anti-war.

Questions for the Mormons

We've been meeting with Mormons just about every week for a month. Each time they come, we usually have a list of questions to be answered which we have chosen from reading the Book of Mormon, or more general questions. A few questions have been left unanswered, or a guess was made. For example:

If I choose to sin tomorrow, does that increase the suffering Jesus endured? If so, wouldn't God already know everything which is going to happen, and I don't have free will any longer, my fate has already been determined? And, if it does not increase suffering, then what is the penalty, or guilt for sinning tomorrow?

Where did the brass plates come from which Nephi had? Was it common to write family histories and the Torah on brass plates in 590 BCE? (The answer to this question was, well, if Nephi had them, and he was a normal guy, then of course it was common.)

The other questions we've had, like how Mormons view the afterlife, and why they perform certain rituals, like baptism for the dead, have been answered, but I'd like to put down more questions, so I'll be adding my own questions here. Feel free to add your questions in the comments, and I'll post their answers.

Questions:

From 2 Nephi:

2:5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.

Is the reference to 'men' here to mean mankind, or just men?

2:11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

Does all life need need a balance of good and bad?

2:21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.

Do we have to pay for the sins of our parents?

3:7 Yea, Joseph truly said: Thus saith the Lord unto me: A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins. And unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren, which shall be of great worth unto them, even to the bringing of them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers.

How can Joseph Smith be from the fruit of Joseph's loins if all of Joseph's decedents died, according to Mormon 6?

5:12 And I, Nephi, had also brought the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass; and also the ball, or compass, which was prepared for my father by the hand of the Lord, according to that which is written.

The earliest record of people using a compass is 1100 CE in China, then 1200 CE for Arabians and Western Europeans, and in 1300 CE for Scandinavians. How could Nephi have a compass in 590 BCE? And why had no one copied the compass earlier?

5:14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

Why isn't there any evidence of swords in pre-Columbian America?

5:15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

How could a handful of immigrants from the Ancient Near East have the skills necessary to work with such metals, especially in 590 BCE?

5:16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

Verse 15 and 16 contradict each other. Were there many precious things to be found, or not? The Temple of Solomon took 150,000 men seven years to build, according to 2 Chronicles, chapter 2 verse 2, how could Nephi's dozen men build a similar temple with so few people?

5:21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

This verse seems racist, being interpreted by a modern person. These people, who were from Israel were called white, and God caused a curse to be placed on them, making their skin black, and making them "loathsome" to his people. If I read this now, it sounds like black people, or the decedents of Indians as this would refer to, are ancestors of the Lamanites, a cursed people by God.

5:23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

This verse forbids intermarriage between the whites and Indians, otherwise, the curse will be passed on to the children, their skin will be darker. Why do you think God would do such a thing?

6:12 And blessed are the Gentiles, they of whom the prophet has written; for behold, if it so be that they shall repent and fight not against Zion, and do not unite themselves to that great and abominable church, they shall be saved; for the Lord God will fulfill his covenants which he has made unto his children; and for this cause the prophet has written these things.

What is the great and abominable church?

6:15 And they that believe not in him shall be destroyed, both by fire, and by tempest, and by earthquakes, and by bloodsheds, and by pestilence, and by famine. And they shall know that the Lord is God, the Holy One of Israel.

Is this literal, or allegorical? If there is no fiery hell which people go to when dead, how can unbelievers be destroyed by storms, fire, famine and such?

6:18 And I will feed them that oppress thee, with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood as with sweet wine; and all flesh shall know that I the Lord am thy Savior and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.

Again, is this literal? Why would God make people eat themselves, and drink their own blood just so they would believe in him?

8:9 Awake, awake! Put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake as in the ancient days. Art thou not he that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?

Was God asleep for some time? Why would God need to convince people to action by reminding them that he was the one that cut Rahab, the sea monster into pieces, and he was the one who wounded a dragon? Why couldn't he just say, it's me, God, creator of everything?

9:16 And assuredly, as the Lord liveth, for the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire; prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.

Is this allegory? How can there be a fire which has no end? How is one considered 'filthy?'

9:19 O the greatness of the mercy of our God, the Holy One of Israel! For he delivereth his saints from that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment.

This seems to contradict the current view of the afterlife by the Mormons, who don't preach fire and brimstone, just stagnation and regret.

10:2 For behold, the promises which we have obtained are promises unto us according to the flesh; wherefore, as it has been shown unto me that many of our children shall perish in the flesh because of unbelief, nevertheless, God will be merciful unto many; and our children shall be restored, that they may come to that which will give them the true knowledge of their Redeemer.

Is God killing unbelieving children?

10:3 Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ -- for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name -- should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him -- for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.

Why are the Jews depicted as wicked Christ killers? Does this view hold today with Mormons?

10:6 Wherefore, because of their iniquities, destructions, famines, pestilences, and bloodshed shall come upon them; and they who shall not be destroyed shall be scattered among all nations.

This seems to be foretelling the Diaspora, but why couldn't God kill all of the Jews if they were wicked?

10:16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

This seems like strong language to assert that you are either for Mormonism, or against God. Has this been reconciled within the church, or do Mormons still hold this belief?

Why does Joseph Smith include 18 chapters of Isaiah in 2 Nephi? I thought the Nephites already had the words of Isaiah?

25:2 For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; for their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations.

Are their any examples of works of darkness and doings of abominations by the Jews? Or is it just assumed these are the most wicked of all peoples?

26:4 Wherefore, all those who are proud, and that do wickedly, the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, for they shall be as stubble.

Is this allegory, or are proud, wicked people going to literally be burned as stubble?

26:5 And they that kill the prophets, and the saints, the depths of the earth shall swallow them up, saith the Lord of Hosts; and mountains shall cover them, and whirlwinds shall carry them away, and buildings shall fall upon them and crush them to pieces and grind them to powder.

26:6 And they shall be visited with thunderings, and lightnings, and earthquakes, and all manner of destructions, for the fire of the anger of the Lord shall be kindled against them, and they shall be as stubble, and the day that cometh shall consume them, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Is this literal, or another warning not to kill the prophets, or saints?

26:15 After my seed and the seed of my brethren shall have dwindled in unbelief, and shall have been smitten by the Gentiles; yea, after the Lord God shall have camped against them round about, and shall have laid siege against them with a mount, and raised forts against them; and after they shall have been brought down low in the dust, even that they are not, yet the words of the righteous shall be written, and the prayers of the faithful shall be heard, and all those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not be forgotten.

26:19 And it shall come to pass, that those who have dwindled in unbelief shall be smitten by the hand of the Gentiles.

Is this a warning against doubting God, is it such a sin to question that just to dwindle in unbelief is cause to be smitten?

26:21 And there are many churches built up which cause envyings, and strifes, and malice.

Does this refer to any non-LDS church?

26:33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

This verse speaks of equality, no one is restricted from partaking of God's goodness. Has this been used to support equality within the LDS church?

How Important is Religious Literacy

In response to a blog post by the Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta, regarding the importance of religious literacy, I picked up a copy of Stephen Prothero's Religious Literacy.

Having not read the book yet, I can't offer a review, but one suggestion by Dr. Prothero may be controversial. The comments on Hemant's site represent the controversy. Dr. Prothero proposes making a class on the Bible and a class on world religions mandatory for high school students. Considering Hemant's site is for atheists and theists, it is interesting to hear the opinions of both sides. Most atheists on the site agree that there should be greater religious literacy, but express concern over how that should be done, and when. High school students, to some, are deemed too immature to deal with theology or serious religious study. I would say some people are never mature enough to deal with serious study of anything, much less religion. However, everyone has to go to high school, so everyone would be forced to go through the classes.

There is concern that, if schools are forced to teach a course on the Bible, it would be used as an opportunity to proselytize. The Texas Freedom Network looked into 20 schools in Texas who were teaching the Bible in schools, only four of which were treating the book as literature.

From taking New Testament studies courses, and other religious studies courses in college, I can say that my experience has been positive. The classes I've taken have been full of believers, most of which wanted to deepen their faith, or understanding of their own religion by critically analyzing scripture. No one expressed a concern over treating the Bible as a man made creation, written by men, over many years, with different authors, even within the same book. This more mature attitude may be a result of taking classes at Metro State University, and not the U of MN, or another school where the age of students is, on average, younger.

I don't think studying the Bible in school is bad, however, it does pose that problem of giving a teacher, if they wish, the opportunity to preach, and it may make students feel uncomfortable, if a work of scripture is criticized. Just as a Christian can push for the legitimacy of scripture, so can an atheist teacher attempt to turn students to disbelief. What is the solution then? Should we have atheist teachers teach the Bible, and Christian teachers teach philosophy, critical thinking, and the history of atheism?

The other problem arises by giving the Bible it's own course, and everything else grouped into another. While this may make sense, considering the majority of people in this country consider themselves Christian, or at least raised that way, and the Bible is so prevalent that you can't go into a hotel room without finding a copy next to the phone book. There is an attitude that Christianity is the right religion, should be studied apart from the rest of the world religions. Certainly, only one course on all major world religions is not enough. Perhaps, picking out the three major monotheistic religions of the Abrahamic god, and separating those makes sense, because the origins are similar.

Jeannette has taken religious studies courses at the U of MN. The first course she took was Jesus in History. Students in this class were upset by the treatment of Jesus as human. If the miracles were explained in less then a miraculous way, like walking on water, or whether Lazarus was in a coma, students would get upset. Students were more upset when speculation of Jesus having brothers and sisters, or if he was married to Mary Magdalene. I can imagine this being worse in high school, parents complaining about teaching, or proposing things to their child about things they may find offensive.

The second class she tool was on early Roman Christianity, which included paganism as well. What was interesting about this class, was that no one found anything offensive. Perhaps because it was a different history, distanced from the story of Jesus which made it less controversial. However, there were some students upset when the speculation came up about Romans not really believing in Christianity, but using it for political control. Also, during this class, the Gospel of Judas was published, and some students didn't like the discussion about that work, however, this wasn't really part of the class.

Kabbalah, the last religious studies course Jeannette took, appeared filled with students who wanted to be Kabbalahists, but were too skittish to go to the temple. Students in this class were too wide eyed, and interested in the religion itself, to criticize, or find offense. Some people were offended by the concept of having a union with God while having sex, but that was all that made people blush. There were mostly older people in this class, which may have something to do with the maturity of response. There was one student who wanted to find out, "what the Jews had done to the Bible." Jeannette said, taking a class with her was difficult, because the professor would mention an element of Kabbalah which appeared in the Bible, and she would deny that it was there, when it was.

Jeannette and I have been reading the Book of Mormon, and are critical of most of it. There is a lot that stands in the face of reason, and we have presented these criticisms and questions to the Mormons. What is interesting, is that they themselves haven't take the time to criticize the Book of Mormon, or reason that which seems impossible. There is a reason for this, however. In order to be a Mormon, you must believe that the Book of Mormon is true. You don't even need to read it to have God tell you it's true. Then you're free of doubt. Are American Indians really a lost tribe of Israel? Of course, the Book of Mormon says so, so it must be so. You can't disregard any of the book, can't take your highlighter out, and say, nope, this stuff is bad, cut it out. As one missionary told us, it's black and white, either its a lie, or it's the word of God. How do you tell the difference? If you pray to God to tell you whether it's true, and you have to really want to believe that it is true, and get a good feeling, then it's true.

Wireless Minneapolis

Minneapolis is going wireless. This came as a surprise to me, because government moves slowly, and I remember reading about this project in 2004, and thought we'd all have hover boards before municipal wireless would get off the ground. It's a good thing, for a few reasons:

The Good
- Lowers the cost of communication, if it works reliably, for the city. For example, cop cars, which are online all the time, don't have to use expensive cell phones to hook into the network.
- At $19.95 a month, a rate set in a 10 year stone, it's cheaper then broadband.
- $500,000 will be spent to provide low cost hardware, internet, and training for low income residents. This is the digital gap which separates someone from getting a $10 an hour entry office job, and someone working at KFC for $6 an hour. OK, it's not the simple, but I would like to see kids on poor homes have access to the internet, a good working computer, and training for the family.

The Strangely Optomistic
- As part of the marketing the city used to justify wireless city wide, was the image of firefighters heading to a fire, looking up the floor plans for the building on the way to the fire over wifi. Neato. But, I don't know how realistic that scenario is, or how common that would be.
- The massive security camera network the police would have access to instantly. This is another pie in the sky dreams of the city. Tie all the public and private security cameras into the network, so the cops can view security camera footage in the car on their way to a scene. Great, but how common would that be?

The Bad
- $19.95, while cheaper then my bill currently, is still high for a lot of people. And, USI has to charge enough money to make a profit. Because the city doesn't own the network, USI must charge enough to make money. They are projecting $12 million in losses in the first year, out of a $27 million total operating cost.
- While there is a contract in place, if USI ever had to pull out, the city would be screwed. Sure, the city would buy out the contract, but would they be able to manage the services they didn't have to touch before?
- It's not free, and it should be. While there is a cost to provide internet service, it's something that should be funded through taxes, and given free to everyone. Their current model charges everyone, even visitors, except in certain areas, like plazas, or parks, and there is free access, but it's in a "walled garden" of city specific sites, I'm sure with advertising.

Bill Bryson's "The Thunderbolt Kid"

If you've ever wanted to step into the fascinating world of the 50's, pick up Bill Bryson's memoir, "The Thunderbolt Kid." There isn't anything too exciting about the book, he leads you around his life growing up in the 50's, a world of enormous wealth and prosperity for American's, considering the other industrial nations were busy rebuilding after the war. People were excited about atomic weapons, and space. Food was changing dramatically, with new flavors, and new chemicals to make the food better. Appliances were popping into kitchens at a quick pace. When a family would buy a refrigerator, it would be treated like they just bought a new car, the neighbors would stop by for a cold glass of ice tea. No wonder there was so much optimism in the 50's, so many new things were being created. From reading this book, I can't believe we don't all have gyro copters to fly to work in. There was an interesting anecdote in the book which stuck out, Rocket Mail. The USPS spent money developing a rocket which could deliver mail. It was not a practical idea, but we did it because, if we ever wanted to deliver mail via rocket, we could.

To check out more about Rocket Mail, follow this wiki link. I recommend this book to anyone seeking a break from philosophy texts, or anything from Joseph Smith.

Massivly Mormon and Day of Reason

Jeannette and I spent a hour and a half with the Mormons tonight. We asked questions about the first book of Nephi, like was it common to write your genealogy onto brass plates, and include the Torah with the genealogy. Why did God order Nephi to kill the guy who had the plates in the first place? And, why couldn't someone just make a copy of the brass plates? I had a big problem with the racism in the Book of Mormon, and kind of went off on them about it. I think it wouldn't be as controversial in 1830, but they have even changed some parts of the Book to be less offensive today. We also asked about Nephi getting special powers from God, like if anyone would touch him, they'd turn as dry as a reed and die. They believe that literally. We had a good dialog back and forth. I hope they understand a little about us, and we understand more about how they justify some parts of the Book of Mormon which seem offensive, or crazy to us. It might be nit picking to question certain lines out of the Book of Mormon, but these guys are missionaries, and should have answers to these questions. I think it's good for them to hear these questions, because, I feel that if I were Mormon, I wouldn't be questioning the scripture so closely. If I ever wondered why something was so, the answer would be, because God wanted it that way. I think it's good to understand how Mormons reason their faith, so we have a better understanding of each other. Although, I don't think I'll be Mormon any time soon. I just can't buy that American Indians are really a tribe of Israel.

The Day of Reason went well, and I ran the camera for the event. Jeannette and I had never been to the capitol before, so that was a good experience. Check out the Pioneer Press slide show for the Day of Prayer and Day of Reason. Sunday is the May Day Parade in Minneapolis, and we'll be there marching with the atheists.

More Mormonism

While Jeannette and I have been reading up on the Book of Mormon, we caught parts of a show on PBS which was all about Mormons! While I don't believe in the divinity of the Book of Mormon, or that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and I'm not going to be a convert anytime soon, I did walk away with a better understanding of Mormons. Jeannette and I have always felt kind of bad for Mormons because we're sure people don't treat them well when they are out on their missions. Now, I can understand why they do what they do. Why would anyone want to walk around and bother people on the street? Because God wants you to. So, you don't like to bother people on the street? Get over it, God has a mission for you. It's hard to imagine the pressures on a young Mormon to step in line and follow the church's dogma. It's difficult to challenge authority in any religion, and in Mormonism, that is the case. If you doubt the legitimacy of the Book of Mormon, or challenge the core beliefs of Mormonism, you can be excommunicated. And that is serious to Mormons. Not only does it distance you from your family, which is most important on Earth, you are damned to hell, and are unable to reunite with your family in heaven. Relationships on earth, to the Mormons, are eternal. Marriage is eternal, families are eternal. This gives a lot of comfort to families, especially when a child is close to death, or dies suddenly. The family members have comfort that they will see their child again. So, how much pressure is on a young man or woman to continue the lineage, the belief in Mormonism? Lots of pressure. This can cause problems for women who don't marry, or who are unable to have children, or for people who are gay and won't have children. The Mormon position on homosexuality is, pray and cure yourself of your sin, or be celibate.

While I won't be a Mormon any time soon, I have a new respect for them. I can understand the pressures to continue to follow beliefs which may seem oppressive, sexist, racist, ridiculous, but to do so because this is what God commands of you, and your family is depending on you, forever.