Posted on

Idle speculation

So, now that Bannergate is over (and really, what more is there to say after this), let’s move on to outing the other spectacular anonymous star of the bloggernacle: The Bloggernacle Snarker! (sorry, anonymoose and A.Nonny.Mouse).

The Snarker is harder to track down than the BoH people in part because the Snarker only rarely comments on other blogs. In fact, the only time that I know of is when the Snarker emphatically denied being Kurt (after Kurt emphatically denied being the Snarker(or did he)).

Due to Kurt’s obsession with Steve’s honesty (or, I should say, lack thereof), I will take him at his word (for now, at least). I have an idea as to who the Snarker could be, but I think that I will stick my speculations in the comments.

Okay, Bloggernacle, since we must not have secrets, who is the Snarker?

Posted on

A notion

Of late, I have begun to believe that, although the church is interested in orthodoxy, it is far more interested in orthopraxy. That is to say, the truly important things that were restored were the ordinances and the priesthood authorizing some to perform them. In part, I have come to this notion due to the general lack of official response to the whole issue of inactivity and the issue of how we count membership. I think we would rather have people baptized than going to church (although we would obviously prefer both).

What think ye?

Posted on

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Cross Dispensational Apostolic Inspiration edition!

First of all, sorry for the spotty posting of late. Second, it appears that the last Smackdown ended in a tie. I don’t quite know how to respond to that, but since Joseph Smith’s polygamy is more personally disturbing to me, I’ll declare him the winner (the priviliges of the FPR elite, dontchaknow).

Onward and upward,
This weeks topic of contention:
Which early Christian apostle provides a better set of parameters by which to examine the presidency of Brigham Young:
Peter or Paul?

Peter: the rock upon whom the apostolic church was built; authorized the spreading of the word to the Gentiles; the “president” of the quorum of the twelve; apparently irritated by the meanings some people gave to Paul

Paul: mission-oriented; known for giving long speeches that resulted in death; if not a doctrinal innovator, at least someone whose doctrines were taken in new directions; the “least” of the apostles; unafraid to correct senior apostles if he thought that they were wrong

There you go, Happy Halloween. Vote away and comment below.

Posted on

False Doctrine being taught at BYU?

It is possible that I accidentally taught false doctrine to my students at BYU yesterday, so I am going to put what I said before you, my discerning audience, and allow you to help me decide if a retraction, a clarification, or an affirmation is in order. It made sense at the time, but I was speaking off the cuff and further research has cast some doubt. I have given my students an assignment wherein they are to explain how Christ is both the Father and the Son. We talked about this a bit and then I made the following statement, relying, primarily, on Hebrews 10.

We mortals had no direct access to God, the Father, prior to the Atonement of Christ.
Continue reading “False Doctrine being taught at BYU?”

Posted on

An open letter to the lds.org webmaster (or why out-of-context quotes are bad)

“Happiness and spiritual progress lie in following the leaders of the Church.”
—Elder Dallin H. Oaks
Ensign, May 1999, 37

I love the church, the gospel, and the prophets. I am a particularly big fan of Elder Oaks. But this quote, found without context on the lds.org page, is kinda creepy, huh.

Let’s put it in context. It is from a talk about Martin Harris. In it, Elder Oaks describes Harris’s life, emphasizing the good about him. He covers his alienation from and then reconciliation with the church. After covering the events of Harris’s life and his unwavering testimony of the Book of Mormon, Elder Oaks draws the following conclusions.

What do we learn from this example? (1) Witnesses are important, and the testimony of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon is impressive and reliable. (2) Happiness and spiritual progress lie in following the leaders of the Church. (3) There is hope for each of us, even if we have sinned and strayed from a favored position.

In this context, the quote is much less creepy. It is inspiring even. It’s meaning is more fully informed. It is no longer a vaguely brainwashy message from on high, but rather an example of how the gospel ultimately blessed the life of a great man, an example we can learn from.

The church is in the habit of putting quotes up at its website, generally drawn from the General Conference talks of the quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. In general, I think it is a good idea, but they should try to remember that context helps one to understand the intended meaning. It allows us to grasp the whole picture a little better. So, dear webmaster of the lds.org site, please stop using a random generator for the quotes we see there. Read them over carefully and decide if the acontextual message you send out is one that we really want to say. From your neighbor, the Mormon.

Posted on

Um, Ow!

“If you feel that Heavenly Father is not listening to your petitions, ask yourself if you are listening to the cries of the poor, the sick, the hungry, and the afflicted all around you.”
—Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin
Ensign, May 2001, 74

Posted on

Historical Mormon Smackdown! Evo-NDBF Edition

Remember back when I posted a weekly poll…good times. Well, since the Bloggernacle Times has started up again, I’ve decided I can go back to the well, too.

When last we spoke, the Old Testament was making sure that the Pearl of Great Price hied back to Kolob (rim-shot). This week, a reason to really bicker:

Who has the most influence on faithful LDS scholarship?
President Joseph Fielding Smith or Elder B. H. Roberts

President Smith is the son of the son of the brother of Joseph. He was the President of the Church (although not while most of his controversial stuff was initially published). He has written several books for the edification of the priesthood quorums. President Smith refused to countenance the idea of organic evolution.

Elder Roberts was an orphan encouraged into the church by Joseph Smith. He was a clear, forthright, and honest thinker and theologian. Many of his books were written for courses for priesthood quorums. Elder Roberts created a theory of pre-Adamites to explain the scientific evidence as he understood it.

There you go, please vote. I should also say that the idea for this week’s smackdown came from an “a random John” comment somewhere, but I can’t remember where. If you know what I am thinking of, please let me know and I’ll post the link.

Posted on

Why do we fall?

Assuming that the Fall of Humanity wasn’t an unplanned for mistake, but a part of God’s overall plan, why do we need to Fall?