Posted on

Hagia Sophia

When we were considering what to name our first child, whom we thought would be a girl, we briefly discussed the name Sophia. I like the name for what it means and also for the biblical (and possible Canaanite) imagery surrounding it. My wife, Tana, did not particularly like the name however. When I asked why, she responded that she could see kids teasing our future child, taunting with names like “Hagia Sophia, Hagia Sophia”.

After some time and some perspective, she withdrew her objections and we gave the name to our second child (although Tana does prefer the Sofia spelling).

In the moment, Tana did not stop to think about the implications of her fears. The likelihood of a schoolyard bully integrating the name of a cathedral in Byzantium into an insult is minimal. Tana simply didn’t like the name at the time and this was the reason that popped into her exceptionally well-educated head.
Continue reading “Hagia Sophia”

Posted on

Honor Among Warriors, Zerahemnah

So, I’m going through the Book of Mormon in response to President Hinckley’s Challenge, and I came across this passage this weekend.

(Alma 44:8 )
And now it came to pass that when Zerahemnah had heard these sayings he came forth and delivered up his sword and his cimeter, and his bow into the hands of Moroni, and said unto him: Behold, here are our weapons of war; we will deliver them up unto you, but we will not suffer ourselves to take an oath unto you, which we know that we shall break, and also our children; but take our weapons of war, and suffer that we may depart into the wilderness; otherwise we will retain our swords, and we will perish or conquer.

I realize that Moroni is bound by his oath to Zerahemnah when he offers terms for surrender, but it seems rather honorable for Z. to not be willing to swear an oath “which we know that we shall break.” Given the history of the Lamanites, this seems likely.

In a way, it seems that killing Z. and his army has become an exercise in hunting a dangerous natural predator. Sharks attack people at the beach, not because they are mean or evil, but because it’s their nature. Somehow, despite Zarahemnah’s ill-fated personal attack on Moroni, I can’t help but feel a little sorry for him. He was just acting according to his nature. (Such as it was, we all have choices.)

Any thoughts on this?

My apologies that this is not nearly as deep and philosophical as John C.’s posts, but hey, sometimes lighter is good. =)

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