January 25, 2012 | 11:38 pm

LDS singles programs: A model for Jews?

Posted by Mark Paredes

Follow me on

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. – 1 Corinthians 11:11

——-

As I prepare to marry a wonderful girl in the Los Angeles LDS Temple on Saturday, I can’t help but reflect on how my church has striven mightily to bring this about. From singles wards (congregations) at Brigham Young University to singles conferences throughout the world, singles in the LDS dating pool are brought together on a weekly basis to worship, have fun, date, and marry, preferably in a temple. I have not always enjoyed exploring the Mormon singles scene, but am eternally grateful that the church’s singles program encouraged and guided my fiancée and me towards the ultimate goal of a temple marriage. While I love pointing out areas in which Mormons can learn from Jews, in this case I think that Jews could learn a thing or two from Mormons about providing opportunities for singles to marry within the faith.

In terms of dating, BYU was the promised land for a kid from a small city in central Michigan where he was the only Mormon in his high school class. Student wards had several hundred members, and we worshipped together for three hours on Sundays. On Monday evenings, we were assigned to small Family Home Evening (FHE) groups. FHE is observed churchwide, and usually includes a spiritual lesson followed by a fun activity. As far as I could tell, its primary purpose at BYU was to encourage dating and getting to know the girls in the ward. As an extra bonus, male students who held the priesthood (as almost all men do) were paired up and assigned several girls to visit monthly as part of the church’s worldwide “home teaching” program. Small wonder that such a high percentage of undergrads (22%) and grad students (62%) at the university are married.

The LDS equivalent of Hillel is the Institute program, which provides religious instruction to over 350,000 students at over 2,500 locations. Institute courses are open to anyone between 18 and 30, though most of the enrolled students are single. I attended Institute courses at the University of Texas, and enjoyed both the spiritual nourishment and social opportunities provided by the center. Florina, my fiancée, faithfully attended Institute classes in Romania until she came to the U.S. last year.

Young single adult (YSA) wards for singles aged 18-30 are found in most large American cities and in a few foreign ones as well. The BYU model is replicated (i.e., Sunday meetings, FHE groups on Mondays, home teaching pairs), and dating is actively encouraged. After all, many members of these wards have already completed their educations and are preparing for marriage. In the YSA ward in Santa Monica alone, there are dozens of marriages a year. If I were trying to figure out how to get young Jews to marry each other, I would beat a path to that YSA bishop’s door (bishop = rabbi). In some cities, including Los Angeles, singles aged 31-45 (“mid-singles”) have a separate program.
 
I would give a great deal to see a courageous rabbi organize a congregation of active young Jewish singles in order to increase their spirituality and encourage them to date and marry within the tribe. The membership dues for the proposed “YSA Shul” might have to be lowered a bit, but I’m willing to bet that the synagogue would produce more than its share of Jewish marriages. The closest thing that I’ve seen in the LA Jewish community is the inspiring monthly Friday Night Live production at Sinai Temple, which brings together hundreds of Jewish singles together to worship and socialize.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not praise the church’s singles conferences, which bring together hundreds of Latter-day Saints for a weekend of workshops, dances, activities and dating. I have met some amazing people at these conferences, and Florina attended two of them in Poland and the Czech Republic. Even though neither of us met our bashert at a singles conference, they encouraged us to keep looking and to stay active on the LDS dating scene.

After many years of searching, I wound up meeting my mate by getting on a plane and delivering a speech on LDS-Jewish relations in Romania. Florina had felt prompted to return to Romania from London just before my visit, and decided to introduce herself after the talk. The rest, as they say, is history. Although we didn’t meet in a singles ward, in an Institute class, or at a singles conference, we are both very grateful for the opportunities that these programs provided to improve our social skills and refine our search for an LDS spouse. Their track record is enviable: 85% of married Mormons are married to other Mormons.I pray that the day will come when young Jewish singles, especially those out of school, will enjoy similar opportunities to meet and date their Jewish peers.                         

2 Comments — Leave your comment

Share this post: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati YahooMyWeb

January 22, 2012 | 1:34 am

Mormons and Money: Does God want Mitt to be rich?

Posted by Mark Paredes

Seek not after riches nor the vain things of this world; for behold, you cannot carry them with you. – Alma 39:14 (Book of Mormon)

But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. – Jacob 2:18 (Book of Mormon)

——-

In a week when Mitt Romney has been asked to release his tax returns, and on a day when many “conservative” voters in South Carolina have shown their contempt for Mormons, family values and traditional morality, I thought it would be appropriate to address questions related to Mormons and prosperity theology. Does God always shower money on the righteous? Do Mormons pay tithing to their church with the expectation of becoming rich? Is there a connection between personal righteousness and prosperity?

Given the media’s current focus on Mitt Romney’s wealth, he makes a good case study. Has he been blessed with abundant wealth and a beautiful family because of his dedication to his faith? I think that many Mormons would answer yes, though there is nothing in our theology that establishes this link for everyone. After all, a good case can be made that a wealthy CEO/governor’s agnostic son who worked hard to get a dual graduate degree from Harvard would also become wealthy in his own right. In addition, Mormons are hardly the only people who are try to raise good kids. None of this is meant to minimize any of Mitt’s many accomplishments, but it’s important to note that LDS theology does not teach that a person’s righteousness can be determined by his wealth (or lack thereof).

The Book of Mormon specifically warns against setting one’s heart on riches, and several examples are given of how collective wealth leads to pride, which in turn leads to the downfall of tribes and civilizations. The only allowance that the book makes for seeking riches is for the purpose of doing good, but this is only after one has sought the kingdom of God (Jacob 2:19). If a Mormon obsessively seeks riches and ultimately finds them, he does so without the sanction of his faith.

The payment of tithing (10% of one’s income) to the LDS Church is usually considered to be a spiritual law, not a material one, and members who observe it are promised spiritual protection and blessings throughout their lives. They are also granted the privilege of entering LDS temples to perform our most sacred ordinances.

Are there financial blessings attached to the payment of tithing? Well, yes and no. Mormons certainly do not pay tithing because they expect to become rich. LDS leaders are fond of telling members that if they pay tithing faithfully, God will reward them according to their need, not their greed. In other words, God will meet their material needs, as determined by Him, but is not obligated to satisfy their wants. Has Mitt received blessings because of his faithful payment of tithes? You bet. Is his fabulous wealth one of those blessings? Hard to say.

This focus on Mitt’s wealth obscures the three main reasons why he is widely admired by Mormons, regardless of their political beliefs:

1) More than any other LDS politician on the national stage, he represents the Mormon model for how to live one’s life. He served a mission, married a faithful woman, got a great education, worked hard to support his family, served in church positions when asked, and remained faithful to the church. By way of contrast, many of Senator Harry Reid’s actions go well beyond the bounds of Mormon orthodoxy (e.g., support for gambling interests and abortion provider Planned Parenthood), and former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman remarked a few months ago that his identity as a Mormon was “tough to define.”

2) To the extent that a son of George Romney can be, Mitt is largely a self-made man. He is far wealthier than his father was (Huntsman is not), and has worked very hard to get where he is today.

3) As members of a once-persecuted group that is still opposed by people like some “conservative” rubes in South Carolina, Mormons are very proud that one of their own has a very real chance of being elected to the highest office in the land.
   
Whether Mitt’s faithfulness and diligence have caused God to bless him with material possessions is anybody’s guess. We all know God-fearing people who are smart and work hard, yet don’t achieve financial success. While Mormons are just as likely as other groups to admire the wealthy and powerful, especially if they are religious, they are less likely than most to attribute the good fortune of the wealthy to divine favor.                 
 

16 Comments — Leave your comment

January 15, 2012 | 11:14 pm

Pew Survey: Is the “Mormon Moment” a Myth?

Posted by Mark Paredes

On two Sundays a month I teach a spiritual lesson to a group of high priests (mostly older men) in my congregation. Today we began with a spirited discussion of the new Pew survey, which shows that 46% of American Mormons feel that there is a lot of discrimination against Mormons in the United States. This survey could not be more timely, given the presidential campaigns of two (soon to be one) Mormon candidates, the award-winning “The Book of Mormon” Broadway play, the legions of Twilight fans inspired by LDS author Stephenie Meyer, and the misguided followers of Glenn Beck. Are Mormons winning hearts and minds in America, or is the country’s so-called “Mormon Moment” a myth?

I don’t deny for a moment that anti-Mormon sentiment exists in this country. Growing up Mormon in Mississippi or South Carolina is undoubtedly different from being raised in Utah or Idaho. In some ways, obsession with LDS beliefs and practices is more widespread than in previous decades. Mitt Romney’s religion has been publicly attacked during the last two presidential campaigns, while his father’s faith was rarely raised during his gubernatorial campaign and service in the Cabinet in the 1960s and early 1970s. Ditto for J. Reuben Clark, the former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico in the 1930s who rose to become the second-ranking LDS Church official.
               
However, it’s important to distinguish hostility to our faith from opposition to our actions. I grew up in a small city in central Michigan and was the only Mormon in my high school graduation class of 389 students.  I can only recall two anti-Mormon actions directed at me and my family. The first offender was my high school guidance counselor, who gave anti-Mormon literature to my Catholic girlfriend and actively discouraged her from converting to Mormonism. The second was an Evangelical family friend who came to my sister’s wedding reception at a hotel but refused to attend her wedding because it took place in a Mormon chapel. In both of these cases the men objected to LDS beliefs, which is clearly a form of anti-Mormonism.

Here in southern California, home to hundreds of thousands of Mormons and a live-and-let-live philosophy, there is little discrimination against LDS doctrines and religious practices. Actions, however, are another story. During the Proposition 8 campaign to eliminate state-sanctioned gay marriage, I was regularly attacked by advocates of tolerance. Some of them even contacted my employer, a Jewish organization, in an effort to have me fired for daring to oppose gay marriage (to their credit, my supervisors reminded the tolerant folks that the First Amendment was still in effect). As much as I disliked their actions, I have to admit that they were taken in response to the actions, not beliefs, of LDS Church members, including me.

The activists who attempted to storm the Mormon Temple in Los Angeles were in a class of their own, but for the most part our opponents objected to our actions, not our theology. Were their protests inspired by anti-Mormonism or anti-anti-gay-marriage-ism? My gut tells me it’s the latter. If Mormons are going to take sides in controversial political campaigns – even for good causes – then we should expect to encounter opposition every step of the way, much of it from people who disagree with us on principle but have no beef with our religion.

Opposition to Mormon political candidates is sometimes viewed by Mormons as prima facie evidence of anti-Mormonism. However, if merely opposing Mormon politicians is an expression of anti-Mormonism, then the Pew survey shows that many Latter-day Saints are anti-Mormon. Mitt Romney got a favorable rating from 86% of Mormons in the survey, three-quarters of whom identified as Republicans. However, only half (50%) of Mormons have a favorable view of former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, with LDS Senator Harry Reid getting kudos from only 22% of Mormons (I suspect it’s even lower outside Nevada). The differing levels of support in the LDS community for LDS politicians show that factors other than religion can influence both Mormon and non-Mormon voters to support a given candidate. In Harry Reid’s case, his support for federal funding of Planned Parenthood and protection of the gaming industry in Nevada, inter alia, alienate him from large numbers of his coreligionists.

I was relieved to discover via the Pew survey that just like Jews, this perceived bigotry doesn’t prevent Mormons from being happy: 87% of us are satisfied with our lives today. The Pew Forum summarized the results with the headline “Certain in Their Beliefs, Uncertain of Their Place in Society.” In a day when the opposite is true of so many religious groups, including two large Jewish movements, I am pleased that while I may disagree with some of the survey’s respondents on the extent of anti-Mormonism in our country, we are in agreement that being a Mormon is a recipe for happiness.     

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 12, 2012 | 12:53 am

Tim Tebow: An Example for Believing Mormons and Jews

Posted by Mark Paredes

With the AFC playoff game this weekend, Tebowmania promises to hit new heights. Straight men around the country are openly acknowledging their man crush on the Broncos’ quarterback, while Christian parents from coast to coast dream of such a match for their daughters. I’m definitely not one to idolize athletes, but in this case even I have to admit that Tebow is the real thing. I only have one regret: He’s not a Mormon. Or a Jew.

What’s not to like about a polite young man who has taken a vow of chastity amid tremendous temptation, who takes time off to perform missionary work in the Philippines, and who tapes a pro-life commercial for the Super Bowl? If sports fans can find much to like in the semi-literate, tattooed thugs who populate many NFL rosters, then they should be positively ecstatic that a clean-cut kid like Tebow is setting an example for their kids by succeeding without compromising his moral principles. If I were a Mormon youth leader or a Jewish day school principal in Denver, I’d be begging him to come and speak to my charges. 
 
There are a few famous Mormon athletes (e.g., Steve Young, Jimmer Fredette), but I can’t think of one who has ever dropped to one knee in prayer on the field or started a press conference by thanking his Lord and Savior. I know that some people are put off by these actions, but I find them inspiring.  Wouldn’t it be wonderful to hear an LDS football player publicly thank his Lord on a regular basis?

As things now stand, a professional Jewish athlete’s perceived religiosity is measured by his willingness not to play on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for Jews. How inspiring it would be to have the observance bar raised by a Jewish baseball star who not only stays home on Yom Kippur but also mentions Hashem by name in every interview. I have long been an advocate for Jewish proselytizing efforts, which would be enhanced by having prominent Jews regularly proclaim their love for the God of Israel.

Of course, these pious proclamations would have to be sincere in order to have the desired effect. If a Mormon or Jewish athlete doesn’t feel like letting the world know of his love for his Creator, then he shouldn’t. However, I remain grateful to Tim Tebow for reminding us every week of the depth of his faith and for encouraging religious people around the country to be proud of theirs. Yasher koach, Tim.           
   

6 Comments — Leave your comment

January 6, 2012 | 1:21 am

Jewish anti-Mormonism vs Evangelical anti-Mormonism: opposite sides of a coin

Posted by Mark Paredes

Although the U.S. Constitution declares that the government can’t administer a religious test to presidential candidates, individuals are certainly free to judge politicians using whatever religious criteria they wish. One popular topic of discussion among Mormons in this election year is the extent to which the “anyone-but-Romney” sentiment expressed by Republican voters in the primaries is a manifestation of anti-Mormonism. While many conservatives can and do have legitimate doubts about Romney’s conservative credentials, I suspect that Mitt’s biggest liability in the eyes of many Evangelical/Baptist/Fundamentalist voters remains his religion.

I am often asked whether anti-Mormonism also exists in the Jewish community. It does, but not nearly to the same extent as in certain Christian communities. In addition, Jewish anti-Mormonism comes from a different place and is more understandable than Evangelical anti-Mormonism. If certain Evangelicals and Jews decide not to vote for a Mormon because of his faith, that’s fine. However, one needs to make a distinction here: anti-Mormon Evangelicals judge LDS beliefs, while anti-Mormon Jews judge the actions of the LDS Church.

A further distinction can be made on the Evangelical side. It’s not only the Mormon belief in additional scriptures, modern prophets, and a corporeal god (inter alia) that upsets Evangelicals: It’s the Mormon claim that these are authentic Christian beliefs that is heretical to them. According to Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, if Mormons were to declare themselves to be members of a non-Christian Abrahamic religion, Evangelical opposition to the LDS Church would probably decrease. Of course, such a declaration would never be made by Latter-day Saints, and Dr. Land’s suggestion merely confirms that Evangelicals who won’t vote for LDS politicians generally have a problem with what Mormons believe, not with how they live their religion.

The exact opposite is true of Jews who harbor anti-Mormon sentiments. Jews, like Mormons, usually don’t care about the theology of politicians. In most American states, both Jews and Mormons have little expectation of seeing members of their communities elected to high public office on a regular basis. As a result, they tend to focus on the positions, values, and character of candidates. On the rare occasions when I hear a Jew express concern about Mormons, he always addresses one of three issues: missionary work, opposition to gay marriage, and the performance of LDS temple ordinances for the dead. All of these objections are based upon Mormon actions, not beliefs.

Given the intense persecution and proselytizing efforts directed at them throughout the centuries, Jews’ unease with the tens of thousands of Mormon missionaries serving worldwide is certainly understandable, even if those missionaries are not targeting Jews (or any other religious group, for that matter).

While I support the LDS Church’s public opposition to gay marriage, it does make efforts to reach out to liberal Jewish communities much more difficult. LDS-Jewish relations in Los Angeles haven’t been the same in the post-Proposition 8 era. Reform Jewish leaders issued some of the harshest denunciations of the LDS Church during and immediately after the Prop 8 campaign, the effects of which were keenly felt in their community. Again, it’s important to note that what set off these leaders was not LDS beliefs concerning traditional marriage per se, but the church’s actions on behalf of Prop 8. The same can be said of Orthodox Jews who worked with the LDS Church to support the initiative. They did so because they agreed with the church’s actions, not its theology.

Enough has already been written on LDS proxy ordinances for the dead. I for one am glad that the issue has been put to rest. Nevertheless, it bears repeating that it was the actions of Mormons, not their belief in modern temples, that became the cause of Jewish concern.

Anti-Mormonism is alive and well throughout the U.S., and will undoubtedly rear its ugly head against Mitt Romney if he should win the Republican nomination. I take comfort in the fact that few Jews will refuse to vote for a Mormon based on his theology, though they may well oppose Mormon candidates who fail to support gay marriage or abortion rights. In the end, it’s easier to accept criticism of your actions than of your most sacred beliefs.

2 Comments — Leave your comment

December 30, 2011 | 10:30 am

Orthodox rabbi: Romney a “dangerous homosexualist”

Posted by Mark Paredes

Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines; and this they did for the sake of riches and honor.—Alma 1:16 (Book of Mormon)

——-

Given the holiday season rush and my recent engagement to a wonderful woman (the wedding is next month), I’ve had less time than usual to follow the daily news cycle. When I finally sat down today to get caught up, I learned that perennial loon Ron Paul has a good chance of winning the Iowa caucuses next week and that an even loonier Orthodox rabbi has condemned LDS candidate Mitt Romney for being a “dangerous homosexualist.” It’s enough to make a guy want to go back to checking guest lists and ordering flowers.

I’m not going to waste blog space on a racist conspiracy nut like Paul, but I do have a thing or two to say about the Rabbinical Alliance of America’s statement on Romney. Actually, it was RAA spokesman Rabbi Yehuda Levin’s statement, since the letter was posted on his personal website, not that of the organization. 

For some reason Rabbi Levin and the RAA were obsessed with gays during this Hanukkah season. Earlier this week, they issued a “Torah Declaration” declaring that homosexuality “is not an acceptable lifestyle or a genuine identity.” Their remedy for “same-sex strugglers?” Therapy and teshuva (repentance). These rabbis believe that homosexuality can be modified and “healed.” Is this really the most important Hanukkah message that Orthodox rabbis can share at this time of year? I doubt it. While some Mormons might agree with the Torah Declaration’s ideas and proposals, their church does not have an official position on the origin of homosexuality.

That didn’t stop Rabbi Levin from calling on the LDS Church to “sanction” Romney for his “support and promotion of the immoral homosexual lifestyle and agenda.” Instead of making Torah-based arguments, the good rabbi’s letter cites claims made in the book “Mitt Romney’s Deception,” written by Amy Contrada. Ms. Contrada, an activist and blogger for the “pro-family” organization MassResistance,  alleges that Romney implemented “sexual-radical” programs in Massachusetts while serving as governor.

I’m not interested in analyzing Mitt’s record on gay issues; his paid people can do that for him. What I prefer to do is expose priestcraft, which is condemned in Mormon scripture. This involves using religious positions and language to promote oneself and/or a private agenda that is contrary to God’s. Rabbi Levin, a member of the organization Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation (!), has a history of using the Torah to push his agenda of hatred of gays. This bigot blamed the deadly earthquake in Haiti last year on the presence of gays in the military, and promised “bloodshed” if a gay-rights parade were to take place in Jerusalem. It’s no wonder that Rabbi Levin (and I use his title loosely) has lost every election he has entered, and currently heads a small Flatbush echo chamber called “Mevakshei Hashem” (Seekers of the Lord). 

It is wrong for liberal rabbis to pretend that Jewish law and tradition sanction gay marriage and relationships. However, it’s much more unacceptable for Orthodox rabbis to pretend that God kills Haitians because the United States has gay soldiers. Rabbi Levin is a fraud and a practitioner of priestcraft. You don’t have to be a supporter of gay marriage to realize that his obsession with gays is unhealthy. Judaism deserves better representation in the public sphere, and I hope that members of the Orthodox community will disavow the rabbi’s comments.He claims that more than 850 rabbis agree with him, but I know that can’t be true. As we enter a new year with a presidential election, we need to hear from candidates and leaders who have intelligent arguments to make. Unfortunately, that leaves shrill bigots like Paul and Rabbi Levin out in the cold.
 

10 Comments — Leave your comment

December 22, 2011 | 1:27 am

Jews, Mormons, Adultery and Newt

Posted by Mark Paredes

Thou shalt not commit adultery. – Exodus 20:14

Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out.  But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive; But if he doeth it again, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out. – Doctrine and Covenants 42:24-26

——-

Adultery has reared its ugly head in the Republican presidential campaign, derailing the Herman Cain Express and turning many values voters away from faux conservative (and admitted adulterer) Newt Gingrich. After many conversations with Jewish and LDS conservatives about Newt’s suitability for the presidency, I’ve been struck by how the two groups differ in the relative importance that they attach to adulterous behavior by politicians. This is most likely due to two factors: 1) The tendency of Jews to be fiscal, not social, conservatives; and 2) The theological consequences of adulterous behavior in the two faith traditions.

Most Jewish Republicans I know hate taxes and favor small government, but they are also pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. [My fellow Jewish Journal blogger Dennis Prager is a notable exception]. When asked to evaluate Newt’s moral character, not one conservative Jew told me that a politician’s unfaithfulness to a spouse would prevent him from pulling the lever for the candidate. Regardless of whether Newt was their first choice, all of the Jews said that they would have no trouble supporting him if he were their party’s nominee.

It’s logical for Jewish Republicans to like Newt, since in many ways he’s one of them. He’s smart, articulate, fiscally conservative and pro-Israel. Should these qualities be negated by Newt’s private sexual behavior, objectionable though it may be? For Jewish supporters of Gingrich, as for many Republicans, the most important question is whether he can win the White House, not whether he has kept his marriage vows. Jews know that the perfect is often the enemy of the good, so they’re willing to overlook adulterous behavior more than a decade old if they feel that Newt can defeat President Obama next fall.

This pragmatic position is not held by most Mormon conservatives I know, who are both social and fiscal conservatives. It is very difficult for many of them to ignore Newt’s adultery when evaluating his candidacy, even if they feel that he can win in 2012. Judging from Facebook posts and online discussions, there are quite a few Mormons who, like me, will not vote for either presidential candidate if Newt is the Republican nominee (in my case, this is also true of Ron Paul, and was true of Rudy Giuliani four years ago).

The status and definition of the sin of adultery in the two faiths’ theologies might account for the divergence of views on its usefulness in evaluating someone’s character. While adultery is explicitly condemned in the Ten Commandments and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, Jewish law specifies that only married women can commit adultery. Married men who have sexual relations with someone other than their spouse are guilty of fornication, not adultery. While this distinction is largely ignored by Jews living in today’s secular culture, which condemns such behavior as adulterous whether committed by men or women, I can’t help but wonder whether this ancient rule has influenced the thinking of modern-day Jewish conservatives willing to support a notorious (male) adulterer as the leader of the free world.   
 
In LDS theology, both men and women can commit adultery, one of the most serious sins. In fact, it can be grounds for excommunication. Although each case is judged on its merits, and it is impossible to predict the outcome, it is likely that if Mitt Romney were discovered to have committed adultery, he would lose his LDS Church membership (though he could be rebaptized following a period of repentance). It is also likely that much of his Mormon support base would vanish, even if the alleged offenses had taken place more than a decade ago. 

As stated above in a quote from an LDS book of scripture, Mormons do believe that it is possible to repent of adultery. However, some conservatives still believe that a person who betrays two spouses forfeits the privilege of being the conservative standard-bearer in a national election, regardless of whether he later changes his ways. 

As a conservative, I lament the rise of Rush Limbaugh-style “conservatism,” which focuses not on a candidate’s private moral behavior but on his public fiscal positions. Rush, a man who has been married four times and who abused prescription drugs for years, somehow believes that this behavior is acceptable for a self-styled “true conservative.” In this election season, I am very proud that both LDS candidates have lived conservative principles all of their lives and have strong marriages and beautiful families to show for it.

I don’t know when exactly conservatism began to be defined down, but I was appalled to read this week that respected conservative thinker (and personal idol) Thomas Sowell said that he plans to support a thrice-married former adulterer for president. Had he said that he supported Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, or Rick Perry, I would have applauded him for supporting a true conservative candidate. Indeed, Iowa’s Secretary of State is Mormon, and he’s supporting Santorum.

I have no problem with moderates, policy wonks and fiscal conservatives voting for Gingrich. However, “values voters” who support him are akin to “feminist” Democrats who campaigned for Ted Kennedy. If “family values” means anything, it means respect for the institution of marriage. Someone who cheated on – lied to and deceived—his first wife, then cheated on his next wife with his current one for seven years, is not a family values candidate – or a true conservative. My Jewish Republican friends and I can agree to disagree on whether previous adulterous behavior should disqualify someone from running as a conservative presidential candidate. That said, we would all do well to reflect on a statement made by El Rushbo himself: “We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles.” Indeed. 

8 Comments — Leave your comment

December 16, 2011 | 1:28 am

Palestinians: Why Newt is right and a BYU professor is wrong

Posted by Mark Paredes

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.” – Zahir Muhsein, member, PLO Executive Board (1977)

“...it’s true that a specifically Palestinian identity is a relatively recent development.” – BYU Prof. Daniel Peterson

“…that they might be an instrument in the hands of God to bring, if it were possible, their brethren, the Lamanites, to the knowledge of the truth, to the knowledge of the baseness of the traditions of their fathers, which were not correct.” – Alma 17:9 (Book of Mormon)

——-

My last three posts were dedicated to answering questions about Mormon beliefs posed by a thoughtful rabbi. My task today is to respond to a thoughtful BYU professor who believes that Newt Gingrich was wrong when he said that the Palestinians are an “invented” people. Dr. Daniel Peterson is every Mormon’s favorite Arabist, as well as one of the LDS Church’s leading apologists. In a recent article in the Deseret News, he makes the case against Newt with a barrage of facts that don’t hold together well. Although I am certainly not a Gingrich supporter (as a true conservative, I consider “conservatives” who vote for Newt to be akin to feminist liberals who voted for Ted Kennedy), he is right on this point. I will address each of the professor’s objections while raising a few of my own to Palestinian nationalism.

The best response to Newt’s statement by his opponents is, “So what?” After all, Americans are an “invented” people as well, and we seem to be doing pretty well for ourselves. There was no American nationalism 300 years ago, yet that did not prevent one from coalescing around great political figures and eventually inspiring them to establish the greatest democracy in human history. The fact that a people is not a historical one doesn’t mean that it cannot eventually lay claim to nationhood. However, Palestinian supporters have not advanced this argument in response to Newt. For some reason, many of them seem determined to prove that the Palestinians’ historical legitimacy is on a par with those of, say, Armenians, Kurds, and Jews. Any such attempt is bound to fail.

Based on his statement quoted above, I suspect that Prof. Peterson agrees with Newt and me that Palestinian nationalism is of late vintage. What he objects to is the assertion made by Mr. Muhsein above: that Palestinian nationalism is a fraudulent attempt to put a respectable patina on hatred of the Jewish state. 

In support of his position, the good professor begins by arguing that “Arabs aren’t fungible.” That is, Egyptians, Syrians, and Algerians have distinct histories and cultures, as do Palestinians. He goes on to list several dialects of Arabic in an attempt to further distinguish some Arabs from others. This includes the “recognizably unique” Palestinian dialect.

With all due respect to Prof. Peterson, he has it backwards. Newt’s point wasn’t that there are no differences among Arabs; of course they’re not fungible. What he was attempting to do was to highlight one important difference between Palestinians and some other Arab peoples: their longevity as a people. As long as we’re listing differences between Palestinians and other Arabs, let’s compare Palestinians to Egyptians. Egyptians, like Jews, have had a distinct culture and national identity for thousands of years.  Palestinians, it need hardly be said, have not. That is the main point of Newt’s argument, and it is an irrefutable one.

Unlike other Arab peoples, the Palestinians’ distinguishing feature is their narrative of dispossession, not a shared dialect. While there may well be a distinct Palestinian dialect in Arabic, former PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat spoke with a heavy Egyptian accent until his dying day. Palestinians living in refugee camps in Lebanon sound like Lebanese, not like Hebronites. 

Prof. Peterson correctly points out that many Arab states did not achieve independence until after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. According to him, this somehow makes the absence of a Palestinian state under the Ottomans irrelevant (it “signifies little”). What it really means is that Palestinians are not the only invented people in the modern Middle East. Let’s take the Jordanians, whose country was created by the Brits after Jews were expelled from eastern Palestine and the defeated Hashemite royal family was brought from Saudi Arabia and subsequently enthroned in Amman. History does not record any mention of a “Jordanian” people until 1946, but it is alive and thriving today.

While political Zionism began with Theodore Herzl, many Zionists would take exception to Prof. Peterson’s assertion that Zionism began with the publication of Herzl’s “The Jewish State” in 1896. The first Zionist Aliyah (immigration wave) began in 1882, and for nearly two millennia Jews had expressed in their prayers the desire to return to Jerusalem. This underlines yet again a huge difference between Jews and Palestinians: Jews have been a distinct people for many centuries. There were no “Palestinian” Arab contemporaries of Bar Kochba, Maimonides, Nahmonides, the Baal Shem Tov, or, for that matter, Herzl.

The most candid moment in the essay comes when the professor admits the obvious:  “it’s true that a specifically Palestinian identity is a relatively recent development.” However, he then confuses the reader by making the case for the existence of the region/province Palestine since the days of the Philistines. No one is arguing that Palestine, the name formally given to the area by the Romans in an attempt to de-Judaize the historical Land of Israel, doesn’t exist. What Newt and others are saying is that there was not a specific Palestinian Arab nationalism in the territory until the last few decades. Being an honest historian, Prof. Peterson concedes the point.

Now we come to the part of Newt’s claim that strikes at the heart of Palestinian nationalism: its inauthenticity. Peterson claims to believe in the cause, but fails to address perhaps the most damning indictment of the Palestinians’ territorial claim. Israel declared its independence in 1948. One day later, it was invaded by five Arab armies. Did the armies attack Israel in order to establish a state for “Palestinians?” Au contraire. In fact, when Jordan captured the West Bank during that war, it didn`t call it “Palestine” – instead, Jordan annexed it. For some reason Egypt also didn’t get the memo on Palestine: It actively undermined and controlled the “All Palestine Government” in the Gaza Strip prior to 1967. My question is this: if Jordan and Egypt were “occupying” Palestine between 1948 and 1967 (when Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza), why were there no protests by “Palestinians” at the time? Didn’t they want their country back? “Palestine” only became “occupied” after Jewish rule began in the disputed territories, which should tell us all we need to know about the true aim of Palestinian nationalism.

It’s quite amusing to me that Palestinian leaders, of all people, should be expressing outrage over Newt’s remarks. Yasser Arafat insisted to President Clinton at the Camp David Summit in 2000 that an ancient Jewish temple was built in Nablus, not Jerusalem. Palestinian officials have actively engaged in what Dore Gold calls “Temple denial” ever since. At the same time, the leaders are trying to convince anyone who will listen that their historical narrative is just as long and rich as the Jewish one. It’s time to call on them to defend their ahistorical claims.

Declaring, “It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole,” former Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (his term expired in 2009) shocked many Middle East watchers a few weeks ago by admitting in an interview on Israeli television that Arabs should not have rejected the United Nations 1947 Partition Plan for Palestine. [Had they not rejected it, there would likely have been no invasion of Israel the following year].  This admission was both welcome and long overdue. Since Abbas is interested in setting the historical record straight, he would do well to go on TV again and state the obvious: Newt Gingrich was right.

The Palestinian “right of return” is another historical invention. In law, the proximate cause of an injury – in this case, the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Arabs living in Palestine and hundreds of thousands of Jews living in Arab countries – is determined by the “but for” test. That is, but for the action, the injury would not have occurred. In the case of Palestinian Arabs, the proximate cause of their dispossession was their repeated support for genocide, culminating in the 1948 invasion of Israel that they actively supported.

Arab leaders in Palestine enthusiastically supported efforts by the Nazis (the Holocaust) and Arab states (the 1948 war) to annihilate the Jews living there. When you support genocide, you don`t get to hit the reset button when you lose the fight. You also don’t get to return to the nation that you tried to destroy. In the decades following the 1948 genocidal war, a “Palestine Liberation Organization” was created for a “Palestinian” people in order to “liberate Palestine” from those darned Jews who had the temerity to resist repeated efforts to annihilate them. The results of this invented history are plain for anyone to see: “Palestinians” who are now led by a terrorist organization and a termed-out president who can`t even feed their people or meet a payroll without extensive international aid.

How can Gingrich`s statements help the so-called peace process succeed? By calling into question the inane policy adopted by Western governments of propping up Palestinian leaders and giving them a place at the negotiating people. The legitimization of the Palestinian “liberation” movement was a colossal error by the West and Israel, and declarations like Gingrich`s can provide a rationale for putting that genie back in its bottle. There is no good reason for a Palestinian representative to be allowed to negotiate with or demand anything of Israel, let alone to be invited to the White House. Western taxpayers are feeding, clothing and educating Palestinians, so their governments should have the right to dictate to Palestinians the terms of any peace agreement.

Given that both Hamas and Abbas are illegitimate representatives of their people (Hamas launched a coup in Gaza following an election, while Abbas should have left office in 2009), now would be the perfect time to tell the Palestinians that this charade is over. Now is also the time to tell them a few more truths: They are not a historical people, their right of return is nonexistent, and they have no right to engage in negotiations with the state of Israel over the status of land just because they want it for their future state. They`re on the international dole, so the international community will decide for them what the arrangements will be in Israel/Palestine.

It may sound like a harsh prescription for peace, but the continued indulgence of Palestinian delusions and fables has already proved to be a recipe for regional instability and disaster.  Over the years Palestinian leaders have destabilized countries like Jordan, Lebanon, and Kuwait. Their people certainly deserve better, and they also deserve to have the truth told to them.

I’d like to end with a brief explanation of why I feel so strongly about the issue of Palestinian nationalism. Of all people, Mormons should be those least likely to be duped by the claims of Abbas & Co. The Book of Mormon tells of a people whose belief in the traditions of their fathers, who falsely claimed to have been wronged by others, led them to sin grievously. It goes on to warn against terrorists who try to overthrow governments and engage in “secret combinations” involving murder for gain. Mormons believe that this book of scripture was written for our day. If the Book of Mormon warns against anything in the contemporary world, it’s people like Arafat, Hamas, and other Palestinian terrorists seeking to overthrow governments and murder for political gain.

Eschatology influences me as well. Mormons believe that in the last days, a cataclysmic war will take place that will involve an all-out attack on Jews living in Israel. They will be saved by Jesus Christ, who will appear on the Mount of Olives just in time to protect them from their enemies. On which side, pray tell, will most Palestinians be fighting? Thanks to the lies told to them by their leaders, most Palestinians will be in the wrong army. This is intolerable to me. Mormons have an obligation to expose massive lies, not justify them. In a week where Israel`s 10th Nobel Prize winner claimed his award in Stockholm, the contrast between a legitimate nationalist movement and an invented one could not be more marked.
   

12 Comments — Leave your comment

December 9, 2011 | 1:02 am

Answers to a rabbi, part 3: Baptizing dead Jews

Posted by Mark Paredes

Know then that ev’ry soul is free,
To choose his life and what he’ll be;
For this eternal truth is given,
That God will force no man to heaven.

He’ll call, persuade direct him right;,
Bless him with wisdom, love, and light;
In nameless ways be good and kind;
But never force the human mind.

—Know This, That Every Soul Is Free (LDS Hymn)

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead? – 1 Corinthians 15:29 (New Testament)

——-

In a recent letter to the editor of The Jewish Week addressing Mitt Romney’s candidacy, Rabbi Mordecai Schnaidman posed three questions about LDS beliefs. I have answered two of them in previous posts, and will now address the third. Given that the topic is a sensitive one—posthumous immersions for the dead – it is especially important to remember that honesty and clarity often trump agreement in interfaith dialogue.

Q: [The Jewish Week Editor Gary] Rosenblatt acknowledges that only victims of the Holocaust were exempted from the Mormon doctrine of baptizing the deceased, but that otherwise the practice continues unabated. How does such an approach to persons, although deceased, jibe with the principle of individual autonomy that is the very foundation of modern democratic society?

A: This question contains two questions: 1) Are Jewish Holocaust victims in fact exempted from LDS temple ordinances? 2) Do Mormons believe that these ordinances somehow obligate the dead to accept them in the afterlife? In both cases, the answer is a resounding ‘no.’

Mormons believe that a prerequisite for reaching heaven is to receive certain ordinances, including baptism. One can receive these ordinances in person while on earth (as LDS Church members do) or by proxy after death. In the latter case, Mormons acting on behalf of the dead receive the ordinances in their name during temple rituals.

In the past year some Jewish leaders have publicly proclaimed that Jewish Holocaust victims are exempted from this requirement in LDS theology. This is a mistaken belief. The only people for whom temple ordinances are not performed posthumously are children who die before they are eight years old (the age of accountability, when they are deemed capable of sinning). Those young spirits get a free pass to heaven. The rest of us need to receive the ordinances that God has prepared for us. 

Just to be absolutely clear, Mormons believe that people who need temple ordinances in the next life in order to live in God’s presence include victims of the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, and other extermination campaigns where victims were targeted because of their race, nationality, or religion. Those who argue that Holocaust victims don’t have to receive the ordinances that are required for all of God’s other children are inadvertently making the case that God loves a group of Jews less than He loves everyone else. This certainly does not square with our theology.

Mormons have an obligation to perform temple ordinances for their deceased relatives. Indeed, we believe that we will not reach heaven without our kindred dead who have accepted the rites. However, church members have no such duty towards others’ relatives. For decades church leaders have asked members to perform temple ordinances only for their own ancestors. In the past, a small number of Mormons inappropriately performed temple ordinances for Holocaust victims who were not related to them, in violation of church policy (for more details, please see my first and second blogs on the subject). This understandably raised the ire of Jews, and a series of discussions took place between LDS and Jewish leaders over many years. 

The understanding that was finally reached between the two groups led to further steps taken by the LDS Church to try to prevent temple ordinances from being performed for Holocaust victims by non-relatives. In addition, the church will continue to delete names of these victims from its ordinance database when evidence is produced that an unauthorized ordinance has been performed for them. These are the only concessions made to Holocaust victims. If a granddaughter of a victim converts to Mormonism and wants to perform temple ordinances for her grandmother, she has not only a right but an obligation to do so. 

Now we come to the question of “individual autonomy” and temple rites. Mormons believe that our freedom to choose between good and evil, truth and error will continue beyond the grave. Just as we are not compelled to accept religious truths on earth, we will be free to accept or reject religious principles and rites in the next life as well. If a Mormon has performed ordinances by proxy on behalf of an ancestor in an LDS temple, the potential beneficiary is under no obligation to accept them. Thus the foundational principle of individual autonomy in religion cherished by Rabbi Schnaidman remains inviolate. In our belief system, if someone who was not a Mormon on earth becomes a Mormon in the world to come, it will be because he has chosen to become one.

The importance of free will in the LDS concept of an afterlife becomes clearer when we look at proxy immersions. When I first started discussing posthumous temple rites with Jews, I quickly noticed that they only raised objections to the ordinance known to Mormons as “baptisms for the dead.” Even though Mormons perform several ordinances for the deceased, Jews focused almost exclusively on that one. [I have never heard a Jew object to the eternal marriage by proxy of a husband and wife who perished in the Holocaust, for example]. Most Jews may not know a whole lot about Christianity, but they do know that a “baptism” means someone has just become a member of a Christian church.

It’s not always easy to explain to them that with Latter-day Saints, things are a little different: While living Mormons are baptized into the LDS Church and do become members, the dead are baptized by proxy and are not listed as members of the church. The difference? Consent. The living can freely consent to be baptized, while it is impossible to objectively discern whether the dead have accepted the ordinance.

It is for this reason that I use the term “proxy immersion” to refer to LDS proxy baptisms for the dead. Not only is the word “immersion” far less emotionally charged for Jews than “baptism,” but the term is more accurate. The “baptism” for a dead soul only becomes a true baptism (i.e., entry into the church) if he ultimately accepts it. If he doesn’t, it becomes an immersion that was performed for naught. Since the dead who are baptized by proxy are not considered to be members of the LDS Church, I think it’s a good idea to use a different, more accurate term than “baptism” when discussing the ordinance with Jews. In addition, use of the term “immersion” avoids giving non-Mormons the impression that the practice automatically confers membership in the church, as do baptisms in other Christian churches.

I thank Rabbi Schnaiman for taking the time to write his thoughtful letter, and hope that my answers to his questions have been helpful. Shabbat shalom.
 

67 Comments — Leave your comment

December 4, 2011 | 11:07 pm

Answers to a rabbi, part 2: Do Mormon politicians take orders from Utah?

Posted by Mark Paredes

Part 1: Mormon temples and Mitt: answer to a rabbi’s question

“I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” – Joseph Smith

——-

This is the second post written in response to Rabbi Mordecai Schnaidman’s letter to the editor of The Jewish Week. He posed three questions about Mormonism in relation to Mitt Romney’s candidacy. My last post addressed the rabbi’s concerns about LDS temple rites, and I will now address his second question. My standard disclaimer bears repeating: This is not a political blog, and I have no interest in advocating Mitt’s candidacy here.

Q: Since the supreme leader of the Mormon faith is considered by its adherents to be endowed with prophetic powers, might not the independence of a faithful Mormon elected to the presidency of the United States be compromised by his loyalty to his faith’s ultimate authority?

A: Mormons do indeed believe that prophets are indispensable to Israelite worship (Amos 3:7) and are grateful for prophetic guidance. It’s important to note, however, that this guidance follows the pattern established by Joseph Smith of teaching correct and moral and spiritual principles to church members and then letting them work out the details for themselves.

While LDS doctrinal teachings are often clear and unambiguous, they do leave room for individual members, including politicians, to apply them in their own lives. Let’s take the case of gay marriage, which the church clearly opposes. Can an LDS governor, while personally opposing gay marriage, not make its prevention a top priority in his administration? The answer is obviously yes, since that’s what Mitt did while serving as governor of Massachusetts. Of course, another LDS governor could choose to fight gay marriage tooth and nail during his term. In both cases the church’s doctrine is the same, but individual members are free to figure out how best to apply it in their personal and professional lives.

The immigration issue is also an interesting one from a Mormon perspective, since our scriptures teach us both to have charity for others and to be obedient to the laws of our country. Church leaders issued an official statement last June calling for a “balanced” and “civil” approach to the issue. They also criticized state legislation (read “Arizona”) that only contains enforcement provisions for “fall[ing] short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.” The church also declared its support for legalizing undocumented immigrants “without this necessarily leading to citizenship.” In spite of this statement, the chief sponsor of the Arizona immigration legislation was an LDS state senator, and Mitt Romney currently has one of the toughest anti-illegal immigrant positions in the Republican field (though he held different views during the 2008 campaign).

The LDS Church issues a letter prior to every national U.S. election that is read from the pulpits of every ward (congregation) in the country. The letter encourages members to vote, but emphasizes its political neutrality. The church’s official policy on political neutrality (yes, it has one) includes a statement that the church “does not attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader,” though it does reserve the right to “address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.” Every other large church in the country also reserves (and in many cases exercises) the right to address important moral issues. 

Could an LDS politician be unduly influenced by the President of the Mormon Church? I think it’s telling that Rabbi Schnaidman and others who have posed similar questions are unable to cite an example of an LDS governor, senator, congressman, cabinet member or mayor who took orders from Salt Lake City. In the specific case of Mitt Romney, although his church opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, he supported abortion rights and gay marriage while serving as governor. It’s highly unlikely that LDS leaders were dictating Massachusetts policy on these moral issues during Mitt’s term. [It’s also unlikely that they told Sen. Harry Reid to advocate public funding of Planned Parenthood’s abortions earlier this year, but I digress]. 

It’s also hard to cite examples of LDS leaders attempting to influence politicians, LDS or not, on political issues. The last example I can think of was the 1981 letter by the church’s top three leaders asking the federal government not to base the MX missile in Utah. Since then, only gay marriage (a moral issue for us) has merited a similar response by top LDS leaders.

In short, there is no history of LDS politicians allowing themselves to be “compromised” by their prophet. There is also no history of LDS prophets attempting to “compromise” presidents. I’m sure that any LDS president would consult with LDS leaders on the moral issues of the day, just as he would with leaders of other faiths. In the end, however, he or she is the one who is elected to run the country. Based on the track records of leading Mormon politicians, there is every reason to believe that they would be able to maintain a necessary division between their spiritual and professional lives.

Part 1: Mormon temples and Mitt: answer to a rabbi’s question

47 Comments — Leave your comment

December 2, 2011 | 1:18 am

Mormon temples and Mitt: answer to a rabbi’s question

Posted by Mark Paredes

Part 2: Do Mormon politicians take orders from Utah?

In his thoughtful letter to the editor of The Jewish Week, Rabbi Mordecai Schnaidman poses three serious questions about LDS beliefs. He asks them in the context of determining whether Mitt Romney’s faith should render him unsuitable for the presidency. This is not a political blog, and I have no interest in advocating Mitt’s candidacy here. However, I think the rabbi’s questions merit honest answers, and I’d like to offer some in the next two posts. In doing so, I recognize that clarity often trumps agreement in matters of theology.

Q: Much of the Mormon faith is kept hidden even from most Mormons who are excluded from participation in rituals and observances conducted in the secluded and off-limits areas of its temples. How can the general public determine whether this faith will affect a person’s political life if it is not totally available for study and scrutiny?

A: Given that non-Jews are not permitted to study Torah in Orthodox yeshivas or study kabbalah in a traditional Orthodox setting, I’m somewhat surprised to see the question of religious exclusion posed by an Orthodox rabbi. That said, he is correct that non-Mormons are excluded from our temples; however, Mormons are not.

Mormons worship in chapels every week, and perform certain sacred rituals and ordinances in temples. Chapels are open to the public, while temples are not. Why are non-Mormons not allowed in LDS temples? For a very simple reason: participants in temple ordinances make promises to God. Since we believe that those promises are the most sacred ones that men and women can make, God requires that those attending the temple attest that they have previously made and kept certain promises made to Him. Non-Mormons haven’t yet made those promises, so they cannot be asked to make more sacred vows.

Some Mormons like to say that the temple is “secret” or exclusionary in the same way that only Jews were permitted to gather at ancient Jewish temples. There are two problems with this argument. First of all, non-Jews were permitted to bring animal sacrifices to the temple. Second, while the high priests, Cohanim and Levites were assigned duties that could not be performed by other Israelites, those duties were clearly spelled out in the Torah. In other words, while the high priest was the only person in all of Israel who could enter the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, everyone knew what he would be doing there. By way of contrast, the LDS Church does not publish details of its sacred temple ordinances. Mormons are right to insist that those ordinances are sacred, not secret, but if they’re going to reference ancient Jewish temples, they should do so with the understanding that what went on those temples was common knowledge. 
     
LDS temple rituals are not kept hidden from Mormons, and they are not excluded from rituals and ordinances. Every Mormon in the world who wishes to enter a temple is asked the same questions by two local leaders in private interviews. To enter the temple, a member has to affirm, inter alia, that he believes in God, accepts Jesus Christ as his Savior, is chaste, treats his family in an honorable way, meets family obligations, attends church meetings, deals honestly with others, pays tithing, keeps the LDS health code (no tobacco, alcohol, coffee or tea), and pays spousal and child support (where applicable). 

If he can meet these requirements, he will be issued a temple “recommend” that allows him to enter any temple worldwide and participate in any rituals that are performed there. Mormon leaders at all levels have urged church members to obtain and use temple recommends. If a Mormon wants a temple recommend but does not have one, it is because she is not observant enough. In other words, she is not excluded from the temple, but excludes herself from the temple. Temple ordinances are at the center of LDS worship, so this self-exclusion is a very serious matter indeed.

In Jewish terms, imagine that only observant Jews (adult men and women) can study kabbalah. Moreover, the observance level of Rabbi Schnaidman (an Orthodox rabbi ordained at Yeshiva University) is required to study. To determine worthiness, a Jew wanting to begin the study of kabbalah needs to have an interview with his local rabbi and answer a standardized set of questions to determine his observance level. Anyone meeting the universal standard set by Rabbi Schnaidman is given a certificate and allowed to study kabbalah with any qualified rabbi worldwide. However, anyone confessing to, say, a weakness for cheeseburgers is not given a certificate. If Rabbi Schnaidman turned away a woman from his kabbalah study group who did not have a certificate, would it be honest to say that he had excluded her, or that she had excluded herself by failing to meet the standard that she knew was expected of her if she wanted to hear the good rabbi teach?

The sad truth is that if Rabbi Schnaidman wishes to know the details of our temple ordinances, they are all available online. Ex-Mormons and other malcontents mistakenly believe that by “exposing” and mocking our most sacred ceremonies, they will somehow damage the church. Every word of every ordinance is available for scrutiny by those wondering whether LDS temple ceremonies can somehow skew the judgment of Mormon politicians. Anyone reading transcripts of the ordinances will soon note the absence of tax plans and fiscal policy proposals. Instead, he will learn that Mormon temple-goers are earnestly engaged in performing proxy immersions for their deceased ancestors, receiving symbolic washings and anointing similar to those given to Aaron and the priests in ancient Israel, contracting marriages that they believe will last forever, and making promises to God to be chaste, avoid unholy practices, and obey God. I am not encouraging my readers to visit the anti-Mormon sites, but Mormons certainly don’t have anything to fear if they do.

A final word of caution to anyone who believes that the beauty or essence of LDS temple ceremonies can be found in transcripts or reenactments. If an alien were to come to earth and ask to see a transcript of our most important ceremony, he would probably be given something that reads like this:

Priest: And do you take this woman to be your lawfully-wedded wife?
Man: I do.         
Priest: I now pronounce you man and wife. You may kiss the bride.

The couple kiss, walk down the aisle, and have rice thrown on them.

Not terribly compelling reading, is it? If the alien relies only on the transcript, he will never understand why that moment is the highlight of most parents’ lives, why those words have brought many a father and mother to tears, or why many people will travel across the country or the world just to hear those words spoken. If he wants to understand the essence of the wedding ceremony, he should either attend one or sit down with those who have participated in one for a frank, honest discussion. Words on a page can’t begin to capture the emotion surrounding a wedding.

In the same way, non-Mormons should understand that Mormons attempt to prepare spiritually before going to the temple. Once there, they participate in temple worship in a spirit of prayer alongside like-minded Mormons. Temples are quiet places where conversations are whispered and the mind wanders naturally to celestial topics. If non-Mormons want to understand what goes on in LDS temples, they should talk with temple-going Mormons. While they won’t discuss specifics, Mormons can share with them their feelings about temples and temple worship. Jews can also learn of the many Israelite themes in temple architecture and ceremonies.   

To recap, non-Mormons can’t make certain vows and promises to God in LDS temples because they haven’t yet made and kept certain promises with Him; the only Mormons who are denied entry to temples are those who are not sufficiently observant; and the only way to understand LDS temple ceremonies is to talk with temple-going Mormons about their significance. If Rabbi Schnaidman is truly interested in learning more about these ordinances, he’ll find no shortage of Latter-day Saints both ready and willing to help.

Part 2: Do Mormon politicians take orders from Utah?

30 Comments — Leave your comment

November 28, 2011 | 12:44 am

Glenn Beck, ZOA and mad men

Posted by Mark Paredes

When Mormon media figure Glenn Beck was under attack last year by major Jewish groups for inappropriate comments he made about financier George Soros, one of the few Jewish leaders to defend him was Mort Klein, the head of the far-right Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Last week Beck returned the favor by accepting the ZOA’s Defender of Israel Award at the group’s annual fundraising dinner. Given that the honoree staunchly defended Israel, invoked the Holocaust, and made a mysterious prediction, his performance was entirely predictable.

The large ZOA crowd served as a giant echo chamber for Beck’s hour-long stemwinder, which by all accounts enthralled the audience. Condemning the world for “aiding and abetting the ranting of madmen who are out to destroy Israel and the Jewish people,” Beck went on to compare Israel’s predicament to the appeasement of the Nazis in 1939. Although I don’t understand why Beck can’t seem to speak about Jews without invoking the Holocaust, I have to agree with him here. I only see a difference in capability, not intent, between Hitler’s anti-Semites, the militants of Hamas and Hizbollah, and President Ahmadinejad of Iran.
 
However, Beck being Beck, he couldn’t stop at merely defending Israel, sometimes in apocalyptic terms. He also found a way to shift the focus to his Messiah complex, prophesying that “There is an 18-month window” in which to change the world, “and I believe I know how to do it.” He promised to clear up the mystery on December 8 with a public announcement to let the rest of us know where he is headed. I don’t know about you, but the suspense is killing me.

I only write about Glenn Beck when he makes news in the Jewish community, and every time I do his supporters accuse me of shilling for George Soros and/or my paymasters in the Democratic Party (note to George and Dems: if you’re reading this, I need a big raise). He’s one of the most prominent Mormons in the country, so I’d really like to be able to embrace him and his ideas. Unfortunately, Beck sometimes makes that hard to do. In this case, claiming unique prophetic insight and offering yourself up as a savior to Israel and the world in the next 18 months are non-starters for me. At the ZOA dinner, Beck lamented the fact that “[today] mad men speak, and the world hears and it is aiding and abetting.” One can’t help but wonder whether his hearers felt pangs of guilt.

1 Comments — Leave your comment