10 random thoughts of the day

Some randomish thoughts:

1. I am not as mature as I would like to be. I think that mature people are better at being patient, better at waiting. Better at not needing to do everything RIGHT NOW, better at not needing/craving/reaching for instant answers, communication, friendships, etc. Also, mature people are better listeners, probably related to being able to wait and be patient. I want to be better at these things.

2. I am not managing my time very well and I wonder if it is even possible to try to manage all the various goals and projects I have.

3. The book project I am working on is like an unending game of whack-a-mole. It is also, frankly, addictive. It might drive me completely crazy, too. It will be a miracle if we ever finish it.

4. On Saturday I have to go to the funeral of my friend's wife who was killed in a car accident when she was driving drunk. Their marriage was by common law, not an official marriage, and the state of Iowa does not recognize him as direct kin, also his wife's sister and parents don't like him or want him involved at all with the funeral. So his 18 year old stepdaughter is planning his wife's funeral. That sucks. Meanwhile, my friend was in Missouri when he found out, and his sister was watching his kids. She had to tell them that their mom had been killed. My friend's sister is also my dear friend. Her husband is in jail and she has to go through this alone. It is horrible. The one son is only three. He didn't really understand what was going on. It was completely heartbreaking to try to explain it.

By comparison, the lice issue in our house is not that big of a deal at all.

5. I really like my bishop. He is a patient, smart guy.

6. I have this funny love/hate relationship with Lord of the Rings - but regardless of my mood, I really want to buy a fun t-shirt. I am sure there are a ton of them, most likely on Etsy or something.

7. A bird pooped on my baby's head today, which was really irritating.

8. I met a woman at the park from Poland today. At first, I heard her say something to her kids which sounded very, very similar to Czech, but was not Czech. Something like "Poběž!" and "můžeš skusit" or something like that. I was friendly and started talking to her. I asked if she was speaking Russian. So close! She went to school in Wroclaw, and I have been there. I wish I had gotten her phone number but I was a bit distracted with five kids and stuff. She was embarrassed about having a horribly painful looking cold sore on her lip but I didn't even care at all, obviously.

9. I hate it when Danny and I play tag with childcare/homework/etc. I am so glad we went out to lunch today so I could at least like, have a conversation with him. I love him with all my heart. He really gets me.

10. I think I care more about being grammatically correct than politically correct, which is...silly.

How can I pour my heart out to God? Mosiah 24:12

How can I pour my heart out to God? Mosiah 24:12

Answer:
There is a lot that can be said about this. I will just write a few short ideas because it's deeply personal and probably not that interesting to most people.

1. frequently - I think the word "pour" illustrates both quantity of words as well as iterations. Saying short, meaningless prayers, no matter how frequent, doesn't really qualify as "pouring." Saying one long, heartfelt prayer, no matter how long, doesn't either.
2. privately - I think that in order for me to really be praying to God, it has to be between me and God. Occasionally, I pray like this with Danny. We pray every day together. Every morning, every meal, every evening as a family and then privately together. Still, it is not that frequent that the pour-y prayers are in his presence. I have never prayed like this in anybody else's presence.
3. sincerely (see point number 2) - ...probably because I am not close enough to anybody else to be able to pray like that. It is so personal. It's not like my other prayers aren't sincere - they are - but they are also usually not so personal. They usually don't introspect quite so much. The sincerest prayers I have are all about introspection and being deeply honest with myself and before God.
4. reverently - Is it more reverent to be on my knees, or sitting in a chair with my arms folded and head bowed? Is it more reverent to be saying a prayer while my hands are on the steering wheel of my car and I'm driving, or is it more reverent to just quickly close my eyes and think something quietly to myself? I do not know if there is some kind of linear scale you can measure reverence on, but I do know that distractions of any kind detract from the reverence. I said a prayer in the celestial room of the Nauvoo temple this weekend. My eyes were closed the whole time. The room is beautiful. But it wasn't about the room. It was about my feelings and my heart. In the celestial room of the temple we do not pray on our knees - you will be asked to get up if you start doing that. It's not done. I don't know why. I think it may be because it's not so reverent for the people around you to be so conscious of the fact you are praying. It's the holiest place (except inside my own home - or perhaps in some places in nature) on earth, and we don't kneel there. Yet we do kneel other places, settings, and groups and it can be noticeably more reverent when we do. I don't know why it's like that. There isn't a protocol. It's experiential. 
5. silently - and aloud - See above point. However, I do think that there is value in reminding myself to say prayers aloud sometimes. Aside from prayers with my family and husband, I usually don't pray aloud. Sometimes I will do that if I am alone outside, for example. 
6. listening-ly - If we extend the pouring analogy, what good is water for quenching thirst if it is not poured into a cup or container of some sort? If I really want answers, if I really want to satisfy my longing, I will need to supply some sort of boundaries. These probably involve time and the sincere searching of the scriptures. We try to teach our children not to just get up and run away as soon as a prayer is said, but to pause and listen for a moment. I have found that answers to my questions seem to come when I am studying the scriptures. Today, an answer to a really important question came while studying something completely different and unrelated. 

I don't always do a perfect job at pour-y prayers. I also don't think that it's very sincere for me to measure my progress in this regard on a blog. It might, however, be helpful to share that this is a thing I've thought about, want to do better at, and is important and interesting to me.

Take it for what you will. Maybe your answer to this question will look vastly different.

Was Alma the Younger's name blotted out? Mosiah 26:36

Was Alma the Younger's name blotted out? Mosiah 26:36

As already established before, Alma the Elder was really worried about both the wicked people in the church as well as his son specifically, his son was transgressing, and so Alma the Elder prayed to know what to do about it.

He was probably worried sick because his own son Alma had his name blotted out from the church, and at that time, apparently, he did not fully understand that his own son could be forgiven.

Answer:
We don't specifically know, but it's almost certain that it was, or was about to have been. This probably was one of the main worries that instigated Alma the Elder's prayer about what to do about transgressors.

Was Alma's son Alma "the transgressor" Mosiah 26:19

Was Alma's son Alma "the transgressor" Mosiah 26:19

Alma the Elder prays to know how to deal with "the transgressor". We already established that Alma the Younger qualified in every way as one of the people who was persecuting the church that Alma the Elder was worried about.

Answer:
Yes, though probably not exclusively.

Probably Alma the Elder was both praying to know how to deal with the uncountable plural "transgressor" idea as well as his own dear son, who he obviously loved, and who was doing some horrible things to try to destroy the church.

The response is a beautiful, almost poetic series of explanations and promises from the voice of Jesus Christ. I paraphrased it here. The act of paraphrasing it really helped me to understand it better. It probably also caused it to lose some of its rich meaning, but oh well. I'm not doing it for 15 million people, or the one or two people who read this blog. I did it for myself.

Is this the first time Alma heard the word of the Lord? Mosiah 26:15

Is this the first time Alma heard the word of the Lord? Mosiah 26:15

The rising generation is going astray, including Alma's own son Alma. So Alma the Elder prays to God, "pouring out his whole soul to God" and the voice of the Lord came to him saying, basically something like this:

[paragraph about blessing]
You're blessed Alma. The people who were baptized in the waters of Mormon are also blessed. You're blessed for your faith in the words of my servant Abinadi. And they're blessed for their faith in the words you preached to them. You're blessed for establishing a church among this people. And they will be blessed, too, and they will be my people. This people is blessed for being willing to bear my name. They will be called after my name, and they are my people. You are blessed for asking me about the transgressor.

[paragraph about who you are in my church]
You are my servant, and I covenant with you that you will have eternal life. You will serve me and go forward and gather my sheep. The people who hear my voice are my sheep, and you will receive him into the church, and I will receive them. My church is made of people who are baptized to repentance. Whoever you receive will believe in my name, and I will freely forgive them.

[explanation about why I will forgive]
I'll freely forgive them because I took upon myself the sins of the world. I'll freely forgive them because I created them. I'll freely forgive them because it's up to me to give people who believe a place near me.

[promises about forgiveness]
They are called in my name, and if they know me they will come to me and have a place near me eternally.

Some day in the future, a trumpet will call out and all the people who never knew me will come to me and stand before me. They will know that I am the Lord their God, their Redeemer, and they will know that they chose not to be redeemed. I will tell them that I never knew them and they will leave and go to everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

[how to deal with people who do not repent]
Whoever doesn't hear my voice should not be received into my church because I will not receive him in the end. [i.e. it's not the act of joining the church that brings salvation, it's conversion of the heart and actually coming to Christ that brings salvation]

So, Go. Judge the people who transgress against me according to the sins they commit. If they confess their sins to you and to me, and sincerely repent, you will forgive him, and I will forgive him.

[how to deal with people who repent]
I will forgive sins/wrongs against me as often as people repent.

And you will also forgive each others' wrongs against each other because the person who fails to forgive his brother for his wrongs when he says that he repents brings blame/wrong upon himself.

So, Go. Whoever will not repent will not be one of my people, and this is how you will do it from now on.

/endrevelation

Alma wrote down these words.

Answer:
From the first part of his words which say that he was blessed for his faith in Abinadi's words alone, it sure does sound like this was the first experience Alma had with hearing the voice of Jesus Christ in a revelation.

Is Alma the younger referenced here? Mosiah 26:4-6

Is Alma the younger referenced here? Mosiah 26:4-6

Alma sets up a church. His son, also named Alma, is really wicked. Some of the things they did that are wicked are:

1. refused to be baptized 
2. did not join the church
3. separated themselves from the church
4. lived in a carnal and sinful state
5. refused to pray [to God]
6. deceived the people
7. flattered the people
8. enticed the people in the church to commit many sins (probably some were sexual, I guess - since they had to receive church discipline)

We read in Mosiah 27:8 about Alma the Younger. Let's see if he did any of the above.

1. 2. 3. unbeliever
4. 5. wicked and idolatrous (i.e. praying to a false God)
6. hinderment to the prosperity of the church of God
6. stealing away the hearts of the people
7. man of many words - did speak much flattery
8. led many of the people to do after the manner of his iniquities
8. causing much dissension among them
8. giving a chance for the enemy of God to exercise his power of them
8. going about to destroy the church of God
go about secretly
8. lead[ing] astray the people of the Lord, contrary to the commandments of God, or even the King
8. rebelling against God

Answer:
Yes. Alma the Younger matches all the descriptions of the wicked people in the rising generation who did not hear (or read) King Benjamin's sermon.

Why do people choose to not call upon the Lord their God? Mosiah 26:4

Why do people choose to not call upon the Lord their God? Mosiah 26:4

Some of the rising generation chooses not to believe, even though their parents who lived in the time of King Benjamin were believers.

Answer:
Pffffft. Why is the sky blue?

Why does the sun shine?

Why does the rain fall?

Why are we human at all?

Here is a short list of 10 things I can imagine being said by people who choose not to pray:

1. "Why should I?"
2. "I'm not going to get an answer."
3. "I'm too busy."
4. "It's conceited and arrogant to believe in prayer. God wouldn't care about my dumb problems."
5. "It's misguided and stupid to try something like that."
6. "There is no God, so it would be pointless."
7. "I don't want to."
8. "I don't know how."
9. "I am afraid that if I get an answer, I'll have to change."
10. "What if I pray and I don't get an answer? Or what if I don't understand the answer?"

Here's my response to these excuses:

1. Why not?
2. You don't know that unless you try.
3. a. Prayer doesn't have to take that much time. b. You have time to mindlessly scroll through facebook or your google (or whatever) newsfeed, pick your nose, and play candy crush - you have time to pray.
4. He's our father, so he does. Anyway, it's hypocritical to think belief in prayer is arrogant. Either that or almost unfathomably ignorant.
5. Sometimes stupid things work and we don't know why. As an unrelated example, placebo effect.
6. If there is no God, there's nothing to lose by trying it except a tiny bit of time and a bit of pride. Who doesn't want to lose that?
7. I don't know how to respond to this one if it's a friend (or niece or nephew). But if one of our children says this, it's the guaranteed ticket that they will be the person saying the prayer. This is not an allowable excuse in our family culture.
8. Oh! Let me show you!
9. That is true. And it would be hard. But it would be worth it, too.
10. You will. That is the promise.

I know that if you pray, you will receive an answer. It might not be the answer you want, and the timing might not be when you want it. But God will answer you in a way that you will understand. He loves us. He knows us. We should trust him. 

Who are the children of Amulon? Mosiah 25:12

Who are the children of Amulon? Mosiah 25:12

Amulon was the leader of the wicked priests of King Noah. He does a lot of really crappy things.

Answer:
Amulon's children are...well..his children. Probably they are his children with one of the Lamanite women who he abducted; probably he even helped plan their abduction.

Yeah. Abduction and rape. Like I said, really crappy things.

What is an "ignominious death"? Alma 1:15

What is an "ignominious death"? Alma 1:15

Nehor killed Gideon, an innocent man. He is tried before Alma. He gets the death penalty. He's taken to a hill named Manti and "there he suffered an ignominious death."

Synonyms for ignominious are disgraceful, embarrassing, shameful, dishonorable, discreditable, and inglorious.

Answer:
Maybe they stripped him naked and hanged him or crucified him or something like that. Maybe calling it ignominious was Mormon's way of censoring the ignominiousness of it. #howmanytimescanIsayignominiousinasentence

Tangent: in the medieval (and actually, not so medieval...) Czech lands people were hanged on hills. They were sometimes marked on the old 17th-18th century maps, too. Sometimes you can see that the marking on the map shows multiple nooses. It is really creepy!

Why was it legal to kill Nehor? Alma 1:13

Why was it legal to kill Nehor? Alma 1:13

Answer:
Nehor killed Gideon. This society enforced capital punishment. See Alma 1:14.

I don't have strong feelings about the death penalty, either for or against. It makes sense. It's gruesome. It's pretty evil if the person didn't deserve it. The racial component in my country is disturbing. Mostly: I don't have enough information, so like most political topics, I just reserve judgment until later. I read a pretty sad book about it in High School. And that's the extent of my commentary on that.

Why didn't Mosiah have children? Alma 1:1

Why didn't Mosiah have children? Alma 1:1

Answer:
Maybe he did, but he didn't have any sons "to reign in his stead." Or maybe they all died young. Or maybe his sons had mental disabilities. Or maybe Mosiah was infertile. Or maybe his wife was infertile. Or, etc.

The question is obviously not "why." The "why" is obvious. Somewhere between his sperm leaving his body and his death something happened which prevented a male child from being present.

Also, the question is super rude. You don't ask this question! It's not kind. Especially when you have five kids while others don't or can't.

It was mostly rhetorical. At least it was about a dead person so it was less rude.

In my defense, I ask this question all the time about dead people in my family while doing genealogical research. It wasn't meant to sound so...judgy.

What does this mean? How many people knew about the urim and thummim? Mosiah 28:15

What does this mean? How many people knew about the urim and thummim? Mosiah 28:15

Until earlier this year I had always thought that the urim and thummim were some kind of super-weird Latter-day Saint thing. You know. Just another one of those things that make us peculiar people. Like the modern day practice of polygamy. Or seer stones. Or temple garments.

But no. Turns out, this is an Old Testament object, one that Jews know about and believe in. It's this weird physical object that assists a Seer to, well, see.

It was even named the urim and thummim in the Old Testament, and most of the references to it are NOT in latter-day scripture.

Joseph Smith used one to translate the Book of Mormon, at least at first. I kind of view this device as a divine crutch of sorts. Fun fact: Joseph Smith used the same one that the brother of Jared used. Apparently there were multiple of them. Or still are?

Also, supposedly they look sort of like a pair of glasses. National Treasure comes to mind.

Hence why I always just shrugged and thought, "okay, another one for the list."

But like, wrong list. Should have been on the shared Judeo-Christian Weirdness List.

Cool.

Answer:
A lot of people used to know about it. Less people know about it now. Maybe it's the branding.

Why didn't they understand the angel at first? Mosiah 27:12

Why didn't they understand the angel at first? Mosiah 27:12

Alma's son Alma and the sons of Mosiah were persecuting the church. They were really bad guys. They wanted to destroy the church. They were totally rebelling against God. And so...they are visited by an angel.

Lucky for them.

But at first, when they saw the angel, they didn't understand what he was saying. Why?

L. Tom Perry said this about it in a talk from 1979 called The Kingdom of God (so weird to see him so young, by the way! He was an apostle for a long time while I was growing up and even visited my home stake once. But he did not look like that):

The appearance of the angel was so shocking to Alma the Younger that he became dumb. He could not open his mouth, he became so weak he could not move his hands or his legs, and the people had to carry him and lay him before his father and rehearse before him all the things that had happened. Alma’s father rejoiced, for he knew the Lord had answered his prayers, and he caused the priests to assemble themselves together, and they fasted and prayed that Alma would again receive the use of his limbs and receive his speech. They fasted and prayed for the space of two days and two nights. After such a display of faith, Alma received his strength and stood up and began to speak to those assembled and said: “I have repented of my sins, and have been redeemed of the Lord; behold I am born of the Spirit"...Alma’s life was changed. From this time forth the scriptures record that he went forth not to destroy the Church, but now to build it up, and he became a mighty leader in this land.

Answer:
Alma the Younger needed this experience, apparently, to change him to become the person who God wanted him to be. He goes on to become one of the greatest prophets in the Book of Mormon.

A harder to answer question might be: Why is it that some people who rebel and are wicked are given such a strong spiritual kick on the head while others are not? Or what is it about certain wicked people that qualifies them for miraculous spiritual experiences, while like, medium-wicked or slightly-wicked or even mostly-righteous people may not experience them at all?

Maybe that will be in next year's edition of this weird blog-game I've concocted for studying my scriptures. I really don't know the answer. I guess it's just God's prerogative. He can do it how he likes because his ways aren't our ways, he knows better what we each individually need, etc. Still, I feel a bit...well...like the prodigal son's brother a bit, I guess. It definitely isn't the wickedness that qualifies them for these experiences, though. Like, I really don't think if I go out and start purposefully sinning that it will be likely to result in an amazing, wonderful, spiritual epiphany experience. Ha. No.

It's just that sometimes it sort of feels that way, and that feeling is so humanly irritating.

Where did Alma get the idea to baptize the people? Mosiah 18:10

Where did Alma get the idea to baptize the people? Mosiah 18:10

Question rephrased:
Latter-day revelation tells us that Adam and Eve were baptized, and this passage in the Book of Mormon about baptism is also before Jesus Christ. But can we learn about baptism in non-latter-day saint sources that predate John the Baptist and the New Testament? Was baptism practiced and taught in Old Testament times?

Answer:
RESOUNDING YES.

It's not called "baptism" because that's an English version of a Greek word. And hey, none of the Old Testament was written in English originally anyway, so there's that, too.

But tons of scholars, ranging from Jewish to non-latter-day saint Christians to secular historians etc. concur that baptism really was a thing in Old Testament times.

This article references some of those Jewish etc. sources if you want to dig deeper.

Also, didn't they find something about this while excavating Qumron? In another life, one in which I wasn't a wife and mother of five kids, or in which the Czech Genealogy bug hadn't bitten me so squarely on the butt, I might be a linguist in an archaeological team in Israel, Palestine, or Egypt. That stuff is just so freaking amazing. Except that it's always political. So, yeah, no thanks. Why do people have to come along and suck so much, ruining everything deeply interesting?

Well, I guess that's why we need baptism...

What does the tender plant/root out of dry ground mean? Mosiah 14:2

What does the tender plant/root out of dry ground mean? Mosiah 14:2

Abinadi is still talking to the wicked priests of King Noah, still quoting Isaiah.

The quote could be paraphrased like this: Who believed us, and who will know the identity of the Lord? He's like a tender plant growing in the desert; he's not beautiful or nice to look at, and we won't be attracted to him for his beauty. In fact, more than that, he's despised, rejected of men, he knows sorrows and grief. And we all hid ourselves so he wouldn't see us. He was despised, and we didn't even care. Even though he experienced our griefs and sorrows, we still rejected him, considering him an outcast from God, and cursed.

Elder Bruce D. Porter says in his talk from 1995 called Redeemer of Israel:

In the premortal realm, he had been the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Creator of the earth, the great I AM. From these exalted heights, he descended, coming to earth in the most humble of circumstances that he might be no stranger to our sorrows. Instead of worldly station, he chose to be born in a lowly stable and live the simple life of a carpenter. He grew up in an obscure village in a despised precinct of Palestine. He made himself of no reputation, and was “a root out of a dry ground,” having “no beauty that we should desire him”

There is probably more to the plant symbolism than I understand or can see, but I think that the imagery of a lush, tender plant that is somehow firmly rooted and growing in the middle of a barren wasteland would be surprising, miraculous, remarkable - something that we should stop to pay attention to. It's like a flower growing in the middle of the sidewalk. (tangent: I vaguely remember seeing some passive aggressive person on a reality TV show getting her revenge by filling an obnoxious pothole with potting soil and planting flowers or a tomato plant in it. I thought it was hilarious.)

Jesus Christ lived on earth in a horribly wicked time and place. Maybe the dry ground is symbolic of the wicked environment in which he lived.

Answer:
Jesus's power is self-sustaining. It wasn't dependent on his environment. He's God. He chose to come to this horrible earth. We should notice him.

Who is "the" angel of the Lord who Alma the Younger saw? Mosiah 27:11

Who is "the" angel of the Lord who Alma the Younger saw? Mosiah 27:11

Alma the Younger sees an angel. Twice. Some people are really lucky, I guess? Humph.

Answer:
The same angel appeared to Alma both times. We don't know his name.

Also, I'm not the only one asking this question, nor coming to the conclusion that I guess it doesn't matter.

Considering the changes, what was the likely persecution? Mosiah 27:4

Considering the changes, what was the likely persecution? Mosiah 27:4

King Mosiah deals with some problems in the church. I'll highlight some things and comment on them.

1 And now it came to pass that the persecutions which were inflicted on the church by the unbelievers became so great that the church began to murmur, and complain to their leaders concerning the matter; and they did complain to Alma. And Alma laid the case before their king, Mosiah. And Mosiah consulted with his priests.

2 And it came to pass that king Mosiah sent a proclamation throughout the land round about that there should not any unbeliever persecute any of those who belonged to the church of God.

3 And there was a strict command throughout all the churches that there should be no persecutions among them, that there should be an equality among all men;

4 That they should let no pride nor haughtiness disturb their peace; that every man should esteem his neighbor as himself, laboring with their own hands for their support.

Answer:

It seems like the unbelievers were probably persecuting the believers by somehow subjecting them to additional labor. Maybe this was the end of whatever vestigial remnants of feudalism (or something like that) existed in their society. Or maybe it wasn't a remnant, but some kind of new creation. Regardless, it seems like the new system was much more fair towards both unbelievers and believers.

I know that here "men" probably means "men and women" - but it is still such an irritating limitation of my stupid language that there isn't a better way to express this idea. I am kind of sick about discourse about how equal and great everything is whilst simultaneously failing to recognize the big, fat, slightly-more-than-half-the-population-sized elephant in the room. Or elephants? Hmm. I dunno.

Sigh. There's nothing I can do to change any of that.

What does it mean to "declare his generation"? Mosiah 15:10

What does it mean to "declare his generation"? Mosiah 15:10

Abinadi is teaching the wicked priests of King Noah by quoting Isaiah.

There's some interesting doctrine in this verse, but only after this really weird phrase in English:

"Who shall declare his generation?"

Huh?

What does "declare" mean here?

Who is going to be doing the declaring?

Whose generation are we talking about?

Fortunately, Bruce R. McConkie comes to the rescue in a talk that is literally all about this topic. It wasn't really a talk, but a BYU devotional from 1975 called, "Who shall declare his generation?"

Side tangent: Every Tuesday at 10 (if I remember right?) there is a devotional at BYU held in the Marriott Center - a big hall capable of holding almost all of the student body. The topics range from spiritual to secular, with non-latter day saints invited to speak on various topics. The entire campus shuts down; you can't buy any food anywhere except a vending machine, there are no classes at that time, etc.

When I was a freshman I had a goal of going to every BYU devotional. I remember going to one that was about the string theory of quantum physics and not understanding a single word. Maybe partially because of that negative experience, the next year I stopped going. I think it was also because I was lazy. I know it doesn't sound or look lazy, but it really was laziness even though I was simultaneously taking the maximum number of courses (18 credits every semester for four years), staying up every night until 1-4 am (!!!) doing various things like working as an RA, homework, but honestly, mostly hanging out with friends/boyfriends - and in later years I was teaching 2-3 classrooms full of kids ages 11-13. I confess I kind of mocked these devotionals in my head a bit, which was pretty arrogant and stupid of me. I guess I felt irritated that they messed with my schedule, like when wanting to go somewhere (like the art museum or FHL on campus, or something like that) and then discovering it was inconveniently closed.

Answer:
McConkie says:

This means, “Who will give his genesis? Who will reveal his genealogy? Who will give the source from whence he sprang? Who will announce the divinity of the mortal Messiah?”

Oh! Excellent questions, but not for this post :-)

What is Abinadi saying about the trinity? Mosiah 15:1-5

What is Abinadi saying about the trinity? Mosiah 15:1-5

Answer:
Nothing, because the trinity is not real. Haha.

Seriously, though, he isn't talking about the trinity here, even though there is a lot of talk about Fathers and Sons and probably also the Holy Ghost somewhere in there.

But here it is all about how Jesus Christ can both be called the Son and the Father. As if naming God weren't already tricky enough, here's a new layer of words to make it even more confusing.

Here's a fairly concise explanation:

“As Abinadi taught, Christ was ‘conceived by the power of God’ [Mosiah 15:3] and therefore has the powers of the Father within him. In addition to that divine lineal relationship, Christ also acts as the Father in that he is the Creator of heaven and earth [see Mosiah 15:4], is the father of our spiritual rebirth and salvation, and is faithful in honoring—and therefore claiming the power of—the will of his Father above that of his own will” (Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon [1997], 183–84).

The scriptures can't just say things forthright. They have to add lots and lots of layers of symbolic meaning. I guess this is good because we are supposed to read them continually throughout our lives and it would get a bit dull without them. I also think God is interested in protecting our agency, so he purposefully makes spiritual things have multiple layers. 

I also think that there needs to be room for all kinds of people in God's kingdom on earth, including those crazy apologists, hermeneuticists (haha is that even a word?), linguists, and scholars.

I am not sure if I fall squarely into any of these camps (or ever really will), but I certainly appreciate them all. My list is probably in ascending order of how much I honor/respect them, by the way.

I'm just a person who writes about my thoughts sometimes - not really qualifying in terms of training, expertise, or publications to fit in the other clubs. I guess I'd be capable of sitting down at the table and having a conversation with any of them, but that's true of a great number of kinds of people, many of whom I guess I'd never aspire to become.

Why does the Lord speak in the third person here? Mosiah 14:10

Why does the Lord speak in the third person here? Mosiah 14:10

Abinadi teaches the wicked priests of King Noah by quoting Isaiah.

And as usual, it's really hard to understand. The part that is difficult for me is the fact that this is the LORD speaking, aka Jehova, aka the pre-mortal Jesus Christ. Except it's really Isaiah speaking...but as him...speaking about himself...as if he's doing something to himself...and it's already happened. So weird. 

Let's compare the two verses:

Isaiah 53:10

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

Mosiah 15:10
Yet it pleased the Lord [not LORD] to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin [no comma] he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord [not LORD] shall prosper in his hand.

Nowhere in the Book of Mormon is Lord written as LORD. It's written like that all over the Old Testament, and in almost all cases it means Jehovah, meaning Jesus Christ.

A comma is removed in the Book of Mormon text. This changes the meaning a tiny bit from: 

When a happens, then b, c, d, e.

When a happens then b, and then [later?] c will happen, and then [later?] d will hapen. 

I guess the main difference here is that in the Book of Mormon text points a and b are more closely linked to one another.

So what do they mean? 

In a 1995 talk called the Power to Heal from Within (that is a really mystical sounding talk title, IMO), Merrill Batemen, then presiding bishop, said: 

The Savior, as a member of the Godhead, knows each of us personally. Isaiah and the prophet Abinadi said that when Christ would “make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed” (Isa. 53:10; compare Mosiah 15:10). Abinadi explains that “his seed” are the righteous, those who follow the prophets (see Mosiah 15:11). In the garden and on the cross, Jesus saw each of us and not only bore our sins, but also experienced our deepest feelings so that he would know how to comfort and strengthen us.

Basically, Bateman is saying that this is one of the places in the scriptures that discusses how Jesus Christ will suffer for all of our sins and pains individually. I believe that he did this not just for the righteous people who follow the prophets, but for everybody. 

Answer:

I don't know why Isaiah had to speak messianically. It is confusing. But Matthew quotes Jesus Christ's reasons for teaching in parables in Matthew 13:14-15. I think it has to do with protecting our agency, allowing us to really choose faith. In these verses, Jesus Christ refers to Isaiah's prophecies, which is why I think they are both following the same pattern of reasoning.

Sometimes it's kind of irritating to me that it is this way, but as far as I know, I was not consulted. 

Was Abinadi mocking the priests? Mosiah 12:31

Was Abinadi mocking the priests? Mosiah 12:31

Abinadi the prophet is preaching to the wicked priests.

He basically says, "You're gonna get it someday. You said you teach the law of Moses. But what do you even know about the law of Moses? Here's an easy question you should be able to answer: does salvation come by the law of Moses? What's your answer?"

Answer:

I think it's almost impossible that he was not both mocking the priests and sincerely trying to save their souls. I could be wrong, but that is how I interpret this series of comments and questions.

Well, he saved one soul at least: Alma the Elder.

Why is the Czech word for resurrection vzkříšení and does this have some kind of root to the word "cross"? Mosiáš 15 p 21

Why is the Czech word for resurrection vzkříšení and does this have some kind of root to the word "cross"? Mosiáš 15 p 21

Answer:
No. The root of this word is kříšit: to try to resuscitate, to revive, to try to bring somebody around, to restore somebody to consciousness.

Also not to be confused with vykřičník, which has the word křičet as its root: to yell, to scream, to shriek, etc. and means an exclamation mark.

The word kříž is a cross, a crucifix. Kříš and křič look and even sound similar but that's where it ends.

Is it bad to know evil from good? Mosiah 16:3

Is it bad to know evil from good? Mosiah 16:3

This is one of the main questions that religion seeks to answer.

The TLDR answer that Abinadi gives is this:

It's very bad to know good from evil if redemption were not made possible through Jesus Christ. Knowing evil necessarily means being endlessly lost without a redeemer.

But there is a resurrection. That is why death has no victory, and its sting is swallowed up in Christ. He is the light and the life of the world. His light is endless and cannot be darkened. His life is endless and conquered death. One day, we will all stand before him to be judged. Faith in his atonement, true humble repentance of sins, baptism, and receiving the gift of the holy ghost are the first steps towards following him and being his true disciple. Steps one and two are repeated daily until we die. Steps three and four we renew every week when we go to church to take the sacrament. There are lots of other steps on the covenant path. I invite you to walk with me on it. 

Why did the widows choose to influence the people of Limhi this way? That's dumb. Mosiah 21:11

Why did the widows choose to influence the people of Limhi this way? That's dumb. Mosiah 21:11

There's this two verse reference to what was probably a lot more significant than two verses in the lives of the people who experienced it:

10 Now there were a great many widows in the land, and they did cry mightily from day to day, for a great fear of the Lamanites had come upon them.

11 And it came to pass that their continual cries did stir up the remainder of the people of Limhi to anger against the Lamanites; and they went again to battle, but they were driven back again, suffering much loss.

I had never noticed this before. It's pretty sad that the widows would choose to cause more bloodshed. It is also incomprehensibly stupid.

Answer:

"People make bad choices when they're mad or scared or stressed." 

You need to bring your emotions along on the drive, but don't let them get behind the wheel or choose the destination.

Why did Ammon consider himself an unworthy servant? Mosiah 21:33

Why did Ammon consider himself an unworthy servant? Mosiah 21:33

Ammon (Book of Mormon Explorer) apparently did not feel worthy enough to baptize people. Lots of the people wanted to be baptized but "there was none in the land that had authority from God. And Ammon declined doing this thing, considering himself an unworthy servant."

The majority of mankind has lived in a time and place where there was no physical access to priesthood authority. Baptism and all other ordinances performed without it are not valid, though I am not convinced they are meaningless or worthless.

Jesus Christ compared the kingdom of heaven to leaven, aka yeast. A woman took a bit of yeast and put it in three measures of meal, which supposedly equates to something like 2 gallons (7.3 liters). That's a lot of flour. You aren't going to use that much flour when you make your daily bread. Trust me.

She waited, and after a long time the entire thing was leavened. 

Yeah, this totally does work, by the way. She's basically making sourdough starter. Yeast is all around us. Super weird, fascinating substance.

The series of parables that Christ is talking about in Matthew 13 are all about the kingdom of heaven on earth. In other words, they describe what his church looks like. The parable of the wheat and the tares show us that we don't get to decide who is "good" or "bad", but we have to learn to live with it and Christ himself will judge in the end. The parable of the mustard seed shows that small and simple things can bring to pass great things. The parable of the pearl of great price is to show how valuable it is when somebody finds the gospel - the true gospel of Jesus Christ - and recognizes it for what it is, he will sacrifice everything to obtain it. The parable of the treasure found in the field is similar, but it's also about how becoming a member of God's church in the correct, proper way requires going all in. The man found some treasure in a field that he didn't own. He wanted the treasure so to obtain it properly he sold everything that he had and bought the field. It requires drastic life changes to decide to commit yourself to the church.

The leaven is about how God's church may be small at first but eventually it will fill the earth. This is the same meaning of the dream that Daniel saw, by the way, when he saw the stone cut out of the mountain without hands. I think "fill the earth" means both that there will be a church presence in every nation on earth (there is not today) but of far greater importance, I think it is referring to the promise that every human soul who has ever lived will have their temple ordinances performed for them either live or by proxy. That is what the leaven filling all three measures of meal means to me. 

Answer:

I don't know why Ammon felt like he was unworthy. I suppose he felt like he did not have the authority from God. Maybe he did not have the priesthood authority. Maybe he felt like he was not worthy of it. It doesn't work if you are not worthy anyway. 

What kind of land must it have been for them to have lost the trail in 2 days? Mosiah 22:16

What kind of land must it have been for them to have lost the trail in 2 days? Mosiah 22:16

The Lamanites are pursuing the people of Limhi but they can't find their tracks after two days, so they give up the search.

How good are you at tracking?

If you are one of my children, you wouldn't even be able to find your way home, let alone pursue people who were actively trying not to be followed.

Answer:

I think it's safe to assume that the terrain included some waterways (hard to track travel in river or a stream), some forests (easy to hide), and possibly some other hills or interesting terrain. The traditional site for the Book of Mormon lands is somewhere in the Yucatan. Lots and lots of people have lots of theories. I have no idea what I think except that God sure values protecting our agency. It would be so much easier to have answers about things like dinosaurs and the geography of the Book of Mormon, but physical evidence is not what faith is about. Neither is faith incompatible with these ideas, or science in general. It will be so nice to have clear answers someday, though.

Thoughts about the Outdoors

Perhaps one reason why 'The Lord of the Rings' appeals so deeply to the men in my life, ranging from my dear husband to one of those guys (yeah, there are several! Ugh...) I dated-but-didn't-really-date-because-he-refused-to-let-me-win-him, to my older brother is because all of these men were also greatly fond of the outdoors.

I have read 90% of the trilogy before - I stopped somewhere three quarters through the third book about six or seven years ago, and so by now it's better to just read it again starting from the beginning. I have been listening to the audiobook with my 9 year old daughter. Audiobooks are fantastic. They allow me to actually participate in the world of books while getting the every day things done which need to get done. The reader for this book is excellent: a very easy to listen to British accent, which is a must for this series, of course. By now the recording is about 25 years old.

I am pretty sure that the first time I actually read it, I was actually listening to Danny read it aloud to me then, too. He read a lot of books out loud to me when we were first married. It was nice. There is no time for that kind of thing now because of his school work. He has been doing very well with it, but I think the poor man will be so much happier when he can have time to find and pursue his own interests and hobbies again. It has been about two years since he started this program. His hobby before that time was finishing our basement, which he did himself: framed, wired, floored (okay, I helped with that a lot), sheet rocked (we should have done that; we would have done a better job!), and painted. Before that, we lived in Houston and his hobby was his commute. It was 1 hour and 15 minutes there, 1 hour and 15 minutes home. Pretty miserable, if you ask me. That is why we moved.

Danny has it hard now, but I think I would literally wither and die without an outlet for my interests.

Once, when I was feeling particularly miserable because the editing process was so painfully dull, frustrating, and impossible, and I had been editing the first (and so far only) piece of writing which I have ever held in my hands as a book, I mentioned to my friend something like, "I'm never going to write anything ever again." His response made me feel so happy. Something like, "What!? Nooo!!" It feels good that people exist out there who want to read my thoughts and ideas. Even if they didn't, though, I would still have to share them. It's just part of me. I love to write.

Editing, on the other hand, especially co-editing...

Tolkien wrote long. His sentences are beautiful and full of descriptive language, but he's not just telling the story - he is really painting the setting itself in how he tells it. You feel like you are there. It helps a lot that I have in the background of my mind images of the characters, and a gorgeous New Zealand tapestry - but the movies just really don't have the space/ability to do the books justice because it's precisely the slowness, the wordiness, the how-ness, that makes this book so fun. Several times in our 2.5 hour car drive today I found myself just grinning uncontrollably because of some funny nuance in the language (the names of the hobbit families, for example). I had to stop the book to have Jane think about the sentence, “I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.”

That boy who I dated-without-dating called the collective works of J. R. R. Tolkien "literary masturbation" which forever gave me permission to not like them, aka to voice the inner frustration I had always found with them before. I think he did like these books, but they were just too long for him. All the other men in my life who love LOTR are deeply hurt by this colorful phrase. Perhaps it's because this series is the one thing that is not at all tainted by sexuality. Period. Or perhaps because their feelings for the series were deeply tied to feelings of loyalty to their boyhoods. I'm not sure.

It's not like I hadn't tried to read them before. I idolized my brother growing up, and he created an Elvish-esque alphabet and word for his name which he not only wood-burned into a beautiful plaque which he hung above the door of his room - the room in which we spent many long hours talking into the night about European history and fantasy/sci-fi literature - but also wrote onto the sides of all of my future hand-me-down school books along with VASICEK. There wasn't a chance I would grow up without longing to try Tolkien.

It's just that...well...I was always (and still am) a lot better at collecting books than reading them.

I like people.

And also, I guess another reason I never let Tolkien into my childhood was that somehow I got it into my mind to start with the Silmarillion. I should've gone with the Hobbit! Duh. I was an adult by the the time I finally enjoyed it as a book. Not as a movie series. Haha. Dunno, I could only stomach one of them.

I, too, loved (and still love) the outdoors. I didn't (and will not likely ever) have the same kind of relationship that the men in my life have had with nature because, well, unfortunately that wasn't an option. If I could have gone on camp outs, overnight treks, fishing trips, canoeing adventures - I would have. At least I had the great fortune of growing up in a part of the world that is forested. Our house abutted...well, here is a picture.

Was the quarry smaller 20 years ago? This is actually the first I have ever really studied the aerial view of this place. That was not the style or pace of things when I was growing up, to google a place and view it from all angles except perhaps the experiential one, the one which actually matters most. 

I knew the paths in those woods very well. I walked there alone quite often, or sometimes with my brother or even rarely, a sister. I liked it best to be alone there, though. There were some canal ruins by the creek, and an old waterfall. There were places where the water was really deep and still and you could see fish. I remember seeing deer and foxes there, too. And people riding dirt bikes. And suddenly you're looking down at the quarry, or you're in the middle of the burned out area (did Myst model the landscape after this place!? I used to wonder). 

I think what I loved about the outdoors as a child was the fact that it was a place where I could go and not think, but still think. The only inside place that is remotely similar is music. It's like...you can be thinking your thoughts, but your senses are overwhelmed with noticing other things, like the smell of moss or the sound of birds calling, or the stink of skunkweed which you accidentally stepped on - these things suddenly call your mind away abruptly to faraway places like, "What did the Indians who used to live here think of this?" or "can I walk across the creek on that log without falling in?" or other things like that. When I listen to music, it's like surrendering a piece of my brain to something else, letting it steer. It's like that for the outdoors, too. Both can be so calming.

As an adult, what is calming about being in the countryside in nature is the lack of worry. There's a huge field and the kids can run very far away. You can still see them, but they are free! There isn't a constant nagging fear about cars running them over or strangers talking to them or kidnapping them (!) or etc. It's just wide open skies, trees, fields - so comforting, so much relief.

Growing up is hard. I don't really know from experience what it must have been like to grow up in a male mind or body. It seems stressful in some specific ways that I did not have to deal with (while other things were probably much harder the other way around). Perhaps the strong emphasis on outdoor programming for boys (and not girls) in my church was for good reasons. I can be happy for the men in my life for having such wonderful experiences with scouting. To marry an eagle scout was always my naive wish - fulfilled, too. Though, I am not sure if I can do it without a hint of sadness that can sometimes be masked by regretful, defensive bitterness. I personally do think there were good reasons - along with some painfully stupid ones - for the way scouting worked. 

But I am just one person. What can I do against a problem that is bigger than a church culture, especially when it's as big as the entire world's culture? When I am brought up to believe in and strongly value positive discourse but the world teaches that criticism and campaigning is the only valid way to make your voice heard? What can I do when I see, feel, and experience a problem but do not have the tools to name it or even speak about it? 

Pray. That's pretty much it.

That is another reason why The Lord of the Rings is such an appealing story: the theme of the small and simple struggling to do what is right, and eventually even succeeding.

Will I ever write something great? Something that is read, shared, beloved, turned into a major motion picture, stained with teardrops on the pages, something so cherished and treasured that the names of my characters become names of generations of children? My forays into fiction have been unsteady. My only semi-successful writing has been in these small bursts (like blog posts) of concerted energy - disconnected ideas and thoughts, and none of it fiction; what compels me to write seems to be the lure of a possible reader. I know that I can write about Czech Genealogy, the Czech Language,  my faith, or even just dip the bucket into my inner pool of thoughts and splash it onto the screen. Could I ever hope to aspire to something even greater, though?

Perhaps. 

I wonder what would happen if I took my laptop into the outdoors and tried. The fact is, my life is tied up with caring for others, and though that is not a bad thing at all, it does make some logistics tricky. Me + the outdoors is tricky. It's not a casual thing in my life. It's a planned adventure. 

But I've learned that there are no easy paths for anyone. None. 

The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
Pursuing it with weary feet,
Until it joins some larger way
Where many paths and errands meet.
And whither then? I cannot say.

The best we can hope to find are worthwhile quests and steady friends with whom to share them, and I feel lucky that I have a small handful of those.

There is only one friend that I have who can truly understand me, though, and for the time being he is not at all as tangible as I would like. Still, I feel a closeness to God when I am paying attention. Perhaps most of all when I am alone (at least in my head) in a beautiful place outdoors.

But why their feet? Mosiah 15:15

But why their feet? Mosiah 15:15

Abinadi is preaching to the wicked priests. He remarks, "These are they who have published peace...and O how beautiful upon the mountains were their feet!"

Actually, this is a super common Old Testament saying, found laced all throughout Isaiah.

Feet aren't really that beautiful, per se. I mean, they are hardly a popular sexy body part. They can get pretty nasty, especially if you are a hard worker or wear shoes all day. So why are they beautiful?

I think feet are a symbol for going and doing.

There's actually a whole lesson about this exact topic here.

TLDR: Feet are a symbol of missionary work.

Answer:
People who accept the gospel of Jesus Christ and become converted really appreciate the love shown to them by the messengers who brought them the gospel.

I talk about my faith all the time. To my knowledge, I have never been the one to bring somebody into the fold of faith. It just hasn't happened that way for me. I am not holding my breath that it ever will. The main point that I wish my non-believer friends would take away from any attempts I have at sharing the gospel with them is that I am not saying I am better than them because of who I am or what I believe that is different (and you know what? There's way more that's the same, even with atheists). The act of me sharing my testimony is an act of love. It's me saying, "This is something that brings me great joy, and because I love you I want to share this joy with you, too. Won't you try it?" It's about imagining that somebody that I love could be happier than they already are. I guess it could quite easily be misconstrued into something else, but that is the way I perceive missionary work.

Who was king Mormon? Mosiah 18:4

Who was king Mormon? Mosiah 18:4

Alma is starting to preach in private in a place called Mormon.

And it came to pass that as many as did believe him did go forth to a place which was called Mormon, having received its name from the king, being in the borders of the land having been infested, by times or at seasons, by wild beasts.

Oh English. You lovely, ambiguous language, you.

Here "from" could mean that the name of the place was "after" the name of the King. But we know that the king was actually named Noah, so this doesn't hold.

Answer:
It most likely means that King Noah named this place.

Why does Mormon say "they are beautiful to the eyes of them who there came to the knowledge of their Redeemer"? Mosiah 18:30

Why does Mormon say "they are beautiful to the eyes of them who there came to the knowledge of their Redeemer"? Mosiah 18:30

The context of this story is that Alma, one of wicked King Noah's priests, flees for his life. He starts preaching in private. He sets forth the covenant of baptism and starts baptizing at the waters of Mormon. He organizes the Church of Christ and ordains righteous priests, who teach the people. Alma leads a group of people away from King Noah into the wilderness.

Centuries later, a historian named Mormon (the namesake of the Book of Mormon) is abridging the record of Alma and his people. This is how Mormon describes what happened:

And now it came to pass that all this was done in Mormon, yea, by the waters of Mormon, in the forest that was near the waters of Mormon; yea, the place of Mormon, the waters of Mormon, the forest of Mormon, how beautiful are they to the eyes of them who there came to the knowledge of their Redeemer; yea, and how blessed are they, for they shall sing to his praise forever.

 Mormon was probably named after this place. He probably grew up hearing about the waters of Mormon, the forest near the waters of Mormon, the place of Mormon. By the way, there's perhaps some kind of parallelism here.

A. In Mormon
B. Waters of Mormon
C. Forest near the waters of Mormon

A. The place of Mormon
B. Waters of Mormon
C. Forest of Mormon

Answer:
When people have powerful spiritual experiences their sensory memories are invoked and they are likely to remember specific details about where they were, who they were with, and what they were doing. This place went down in history probably both because it was objectively a beautiful place, and also because it was associated with strong feelings of peace obtainable only through the redemptive power of Jesus Christ.

You are likely to remember details about your baptism day just like these people did.

Where Men are not Allowed

When I was on a study abroad in Jordan, there were many times when I was not allowed to participate in activities because of the fact that I'm a woman. These ran the gamut between extracurricular activities to merely traveling alone.

I hated it.

We were required to write journal entries about our experience and have them reviewed by the study abroad director. I wrote about how unfair and awful it was that I wasn't allowed to do so many things on the basis of my gender, sometimes in quite colorful language. The director was Kirk Belnap and he was amazingly patient with me. When we met to talk about my journal entries, he pointed out that though there were many places I couldn't go - certainly many more than I was used to having been raised in a western country - there were also places I could go that he and all the other men on the trip would not ever be able to go. Homes in the middle east have a formal sitting room for guests and an informal interior area of the home where only close friends and family are allowed to go. He told me that the fact that I'm female meant I had the ability to see, experience, and participate in conversations of un-veiled women in the inside parts of the home. I hadn't considered that.

Later I returned to Jordan and lived for about four months with the Hammouri family. The only consistent times I was able to leave their house were on trips to school and church. I was rarely alone. The Hammouris literally treated me as one of their own daughters. I slept on a mat in the bedroom with all the other daughters (two of them on mats, two on a queen bed): Alaa2, Senaa2, Hibba (my age), and Momina (younger). The brothers Ahmed and Mohammed (both younger) slept on the internal family room's couches. The house was the lower level of a small apartment building and you probably have the sense that it was not very big - it wasn't. The biggest and nicest room in the house was the guest sitting room, with many fancy chairs and a large table for serving people. There were two bathrooms, but only one with a toilet. I entered the parents' bedroom only once, walking in only a few feet because mama Hammouri wanted to show me something (I can't remember; maybe jewelry?).

Could a man have ever had this kind of experience?

The reason I was able to live with them at all was because they were friends with Nedal, a member of my church from a nearby village. They knew how he lived. They had an implicit trust in me, that I would follow the same moral code that they did, especially no sex or alcohol. They told me this point blank.

The other reason which they didn't tell me but didn't need to was that the ages and genders of their own children were an appropriate match. I was 19 and Ahmed was 15, the only possibly dangerous combination (Mohammed was 10 or so, I think?). Ahmed was tall, very broad shouldered, and just large - I guess I wouldn't say fat. He was also very immature. Some of his friends hadn't gone through puberty. His English was a disaster. He was always playing and telling jokes. He was very nice to me, and I treated him like a brother. I also didn't spend any time with him alone.

There was never a chance I'd exert my very real flirtation energy on Ahmed; there was another Arab guy who I met on campus from a culture (Syrian) that was less stifling - a fellow international student who could relate to me. He spoke lovely Arabic (of course), could put a sentence together in English tolerably well, had some life experience, was physically very attractive, and was extremely kind and sweet to me. I guess I got "the full middle eastern girl" experience, complete with the clandestine on-campus dating. I witnessed this every single day by others.

I participated in a wedding for some cousin or friend when I was there. A few days beforehand all the women did this thing with henna - not the fancy design drawing thing, but something else that I only vaguely remember as "messy". It was inside the private home area of the upstairs neighbor's house.

The Hammouris often had guests. Hijabed women would come in to the house and de-hijab. I visited them dressed in totally normal, ubiquitous looking jeans and t-shirts (long sleeved, but that was the norm). Their beautiful hair. So much attention was placed on their makeup and hair. Sometimes I was really confused about that - I got the eyeliner thing but the hair thing? You're just going to cover it anyway.

I learned how to put on a hijab. I saw my Arab sisters do this every day. They taught me. In fact, most of what I learned was through observation. I was some kind of dissatisfied ethnographer fly on the wall.

It was excellent for language learning, that's for sure.

***

100, 200 years ago in our culture, you'd be able to clearly define the separate roles of men and women in the western world. But now?

Now I live in a world where some of my closest friends are men. How can this be?

Well, it started out when I decided to blog about an extremely niche topic that I didn’t actually know that much about: Czech genealogy. Eventually I realized that because Czech genealogy (more than other kinds of genealogy) is a really fun linguistic puzzle, it would serve me really well to like, actually learn Czech. Haha.

I recently downloaded this videomessaging app at the request of my friend who wanted to message me that way. When I first downloaded it, it connected me to this group which included 9 other women - my sisters in law (plus Jules and Katie who are honorary sisters in law, I guess). These women are gorgeous wives and mothers (except Ella, who is Danny’s 17 year old sister) and I see them a maximum of twice per year.

A fun fact: last time we all hung out together was in 2016 in Las Vegas on a girl’s trip to a resort. They teased me for sitting (in the shade - I didn’t want a sunburn!) by the pool while reading, “Deciphering Handwriting in German Documents.” Yeah, that is objectively a funny contrast. Har. Har. The other funny contrast was that was one of the first times Lukáš decided to text me, ever. The subject? Czech nationalism. 

Can you even imagine these women (who I love) choosing to talk about that? Well, I can’t.

When I opened the group, there were tons of messages from these women - all of them about 10 seconds to 2 minutes long (and none of them about Czech nationalism, predictably). Almost all of the messages were from within their homes or cars. I watched them all, and they really made me smile. It felt good to be included. There were children in almost all of them - some of them were even sent by children.

The thought of communicating with my male friends in this way is terrifying to me. Actually, to be honest, there are really three competing voices in my head: “NO! I can’t handle that!” [fear and trembling]. “I shouldn’t, so I want to!” [rebellious Kate?] “I feel like I shouldn’t, but why in the heck is that the case? I videochat with men all the time. I have to figure out why this could be!”

Like, is it the real time, the audio, the video, or something else?

	time delay	audio	video
phone call	real time	yes	no
instant messaging/texting	asynchronous both because there is always a delay between your brain and your keypad/board, and you can choose to respond later	no	no
video chat (skype, hangouts, facebook video)	real time	yes	yes
video messaging (marco polo)	can be both asynchronous or “live” (but really, if the time delay is 10 seconds you would never *actually* know)	yes	yes

This table really makes it seem like there must be additional factors other than real time, audio, and visual at play, since I am equally comfortable video chatting with men as with women. What could they be? Some ideas:

	Is the information saved and viewable later?	Can I be doing something else at the same time?	When do I tend to use it?
phone call	no	yes	typically while cleaning or driving long straight roads when there’s no rain or snow
instant messaging/texting	yes	yes	while breastfeeding, when I should be doing something else - really anytime
video chat (skype, hangouts, facebook video)	no	no	while sitting at my computer or in front of my phone
video messaging (marco polo)	yes	no - but kinda.	pretty random parts of the day doing normal, boring things

My current hypothesis is that for me, somehow, and I don’t really know how or why, I have a separate internal family room where men just are not allowed. I spend most of my day isolated from other adults. The women in my life don’t even usually see this space. They don’t go in my bedroom when they come visit. We don’t spend our time together in real life folding my laundry or cleaning the toilets; that time is intentional. Usually we just sit and talk, or passively watch kids and talk.

I guess the reason why marco polo attracts my demographic is that it can include the young people in our lives that are always around. When I’m texting, it’s all in my head. My voice is not even spoken aloud. It’s just mental, in my mind. My children can’t participate. When I’m sucked into my phone, I’m not paying attention to them.

The other thing is, it’s so fast. The point of no return is record. You can delete messages but not until after they are sent. People can watch you while you are recording (well, I guess nobody would actually know for real if you were speaking in real time, would they. I guess there is likely some tiny delay because why not?). As soon as their message is done, the camera zooms in on you. Super disconcerting when I’m nursing a baby and playing with my phone, which is most of the time. It’s bad enough in google hangouts or skype that I (or my baby) can accidentally hit the “video chat” button - but if I were communicating with a guy friend, that would send. In all its...glory. Ugh.

I fully realize that my guy friends can (and probably do - I know that *I* do) reread our texting conversations later. They often feel really different to me, rereading them. First of all, it’s a whole lot faster. I catch things I didn’t before, “Oh! He probably meant x. I didn’t realize that because I was typing.” It’s usually, but not always an exercise in I-am-such-an-idiot.

But how would I feel if my guy friends could (and probably would) rewatch a video of me? Especially a video of me in my really personal spaces - my bedroom!? I don’t necessarily have to be in my bedroom folding laundry, or standing in front of a pile of dirty dishes, or in the car with my kids, but let’s be honest: that’s probably where I’d be because that’s where I spend most of my time.

What about how I look? I don’t usually make a big fuss about what I look like before I videochat with someone (unless I’m going to be skyping with my in laws; it’s too embarrassing to not look at least a little bit put together in front of my mother in law) but in my personal spaces, I guess I care about that kind of thing even less? Kids constantly touching me all over with their sticky, moist hands. What if the camera angle is funny and gets too much of my body in it or something like that? Sitting in front of my webcam or phone cam is a known quantity - but moving around?

My voice (ie what I say) is definitely different through text vs. real time audio. When I videochat, I sometimes don’t really know what to say, which in me usually manifests in talking too quickly about random things.

There’s only one man on this planet who I can talk to in real time totally freely, and that is my husband. He’s always allowed wherever I am.

It’s okay that my male friends are not allowed in some spaces where my female friends are. It’s just so weird to me to realize that, like in the middle east, I too have an internal area which is only accessible to my female friends and husband. I don’t know why it’s this way, but it is.

Hmm. Weird.