September 28, 2012 | 9:34 pm

The face of Mormonism: Mitt Romney vs Harry Reid and Gregory Prince

Posted by Mark Paredes

Follow me on

In a conference call with reporters two days ago, LDS Sen. Harry Reid delivered himself of the opinion that Mitt Romney had “sullied” the Mormon faith, saying that Romney “is not the face of Mormonism.” He may not be, but there’s no doubt that Sen. Reid was the face of chutzpah this week.

Let’s look at Reid’s LDS bona fides for a moment. He’s a Mormon senator who is the point man for the gambling industry in Washington, who has publicly criticized top LDS Church leaders -- whom he regards as prophets -- for their position on gay marriage, and who recently slandered Mitt Romney by falsely claiming that he hadn’t paid taxes. This is the guy who gets to determine who the face of Mormonism is?

In his ill-considered comments, Reid expressed support for Gregory Prince, an LDS historian who wrote that Romney had “sullied the religion that he and I share” after hearing of his infamous “47%” speech to supporters. Prince apparently believes that the religious injunction for Mormons to "take care of the poor and needy throughout the world" requires Mormons to support liberal government programs that have failed to lift people out of poverty for nearly five decades. If he wants to support such programs, he’s welcome to do so. However, I dearly wish that he’d keep our religion out of this discussion.

While Mormons believe, along with Jews and other Christians, that God wants us to take care of the poor and the needy, there is nothing in our theology that requires us to use government programs to do so. Mormons have an individual obligation to help others, but no verse of scripture that I’m aware of enjoins us to take money from one group of people in order to help another. Self-reliance, not handouts, is at the heart of the LDS Church’s welfare program. Mitt Romney spent many years of his life helping the poor and needy while serving in various ecclesiastical positions, and I doubt that he needs lectures from a historian on what his religion requires of him. Again, if Prince feels that government programs are the best way to help the poor, he’s welcome to advocate for them. However, I resent very much his inference that Mormons who disagree with him care less about the poor or are not as devoted to their faith.   

          
Harry Reid would have more credibility in the mainstream LDS community if he spent more time studying the doctrines of our faith (e.g., sustaining and supporting prophets) and less time practicing liberalism, the faith that appears to command his prime loyalty. As for Dr. Prince, one hopes it is not too much to ask that he stop conflating his political views with normative Mormonism and/or  anathematizing those who disagree with him. If Mitt Romney is not the face of contemporary Mormonism, at least he is far more representative of it than Messrs. Reid and Prince.

September 24, 2012 | 7:36 pm

The Torah and the JST: Pharaoh’s heart, Lot’s daughters, Noah’s altruism, and wicked witches

Posted by Mark Paredes

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. – Deuteronomy 4:2

I thought of blogging on the LDS concept of atonement during Yom Kippur week, but given the centrality of Jesus to any such discussion, I decided to defer to Jewish sensibilities and focus on the Torah instead. My inspiration for this essay came via an email from a Jewish reader who wanted to know in what way modern LDS prophets contribute to Torah interpretation. It’s one of the best questions I’ve ever been asked, and it allows me to highlight one significant way in which Jews and Mormons approach scripture from different perspectives.

When reading the Bible, I use a standard Hebrew text and the English-language King James Version (KJV), which is the official Bible of the LDS Church and many Protestant churches. The LDS edition of the KJV, in turn, contains many excerpts from the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible. Joseph Smith was the first modern Mormon prophet, and he spent years working on the JST (also called the Inspired Version) in order to clarify certain doctrines and offer interesting inspired insights into scripture. The JST was incomplete at the time of his Joseph Smith’s death in 1844. While the JST is not the official Bible of the LDS Church, the translation does offer many interesting biblical insights for Mormons. Here are a few well-known passages in the Torah that are interpreted differently by Mormons:

1) The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. In traditional translations of the Book of Exodus (or Shemot, if you prefer), we read that on many occasions God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he wouldn’t let the Israelites leave Egypt, then punished Pharaoh with additional plagues for his stubbornness. By way of contrast, in the JST every mention of the divine hardening of the pharaonic heart is changed to “and Pharaoh hardened his heart.” As a result, Mormons believe that Pharaoh hardened his own heart after each plague, making his punishments more just according to our view of a fair God. Whether Mormons have an even more negative image of the biblical Pharaoh than Jews as a result of this JST insight would be an interesting topic for Jewish-LDS discussion groups.     

2) Lot’s bizarre proposal to the men of Sodom. In the traditional rendering of the 18th chapter of Genesis, Abraham’s nephew Lot plays host to two (the JST says three) angels in Sodom. The wicked men of the town encircle Lot’s house and demand that he produce his guests so that they can “know” them in a carnal way. A gracious host but terrible father, Lot pleads with the men to have his two virgin daughters instead of the men. In the JST’s version of Lot’s speech to the men of Sodom, he comes off as a protective father who had no intention of betraying his daughters: “Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes; For God will not justify his servant in this thing.”

3) Noah’s selfishness. In Genesis we read that God decided to destroy all flesh on the earth, so He called on a just, righteous man named Noah to build an ark for himself and his family so that they could survive the flood. There is no mention in the Torah of Noah’s efforts to warn others of the dangers to come. In the JST, Mormons read that Noah and his sons “prophesied, and taught the things of God” and “called upon the children of men that they should repent,” all while their lives were being threatened. We also read in the JST that it repented Noah, not the Lord (as stated in Genesis 6:6), that man had been created on the earth.

4) Alas, the JST was published too late for the residents of colonial Salem, but Mormons believe that it was murderers, not witches, who deserved the death penalty as required in Exodus 22:18 (“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” changed in the JST to “Thou shalt not suffer a murderer to live”).

5) While most Mormons would probably join with Jewish thinkers like Dennis Prager in praising the Torah requirement that true justice requires that the poor not be privileged in their disputes (Exodus 23:3 – “Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause”), the JST substitutes “wicked” for “poor” in this verse, clarifying for Mormons the need to prevent the wicked from prevailing. I’m sure that Jews would agree with this sentiment, if not with the change itself.   

Mormons believe that the Hebrew Bible is God’s word as far as it has been translated correctly and preserved throughout the centuries, and we view the Torah as an inspired spiritual and secular history of ancient Israel. In addition, like the ancient Israelites, we rely on modern-day prophets to interpret scriptures authoritatively for us. As the Jewish world begins the reading of the Torah once again this month, I wish all of my Jewish readers a chatimah tova in the book of life for the coming year.

I will be making presentations on Mormonism in Los Angeles at Sinai Temple (dialogue with Rabbi David Wolpe, Oct 18th @ 7:30 p.m.) and Temple Isaiah (dialogue with Rabbi Zoë Klein, Oct 24th @ 6:00 p.m.). The public is invited.

4 Comments — Leave your comment

September 13, 2012 | 10:53 pm

Mitt’s statement on Middle East attacks: Wrong target, wrong time

Posted by Mark Paredes

I rarely write about politics in this space, but I feel the need to weigh in on the recent violence in Egypt and Libya. As a former U.S. diplomat in the Middle East, I was very disappointed to read Mitt Romney’s ill-timed and ill-considered comments during Tuesday’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions by raging mobs in Cairo and Benghazi. His appalling lack of judgment and chest-thumping approach to diplomacy in the region and around the world have understandably raised questions about Mitt’s temperament and judgment when it comes to foreign policy.

First of all, Mitt’s target was way off. While a hostile crowd was gathering nearby and threatening to storm its gates, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued a brief statement on Tuesday condemning a silly anti-Muslim video made in California that had been widely viewed and condemned in Egypt. The embassy’s purpose in issuing the statement was obviously to calm things down and prevent an attack; not, as Mitt asserted, to express “sympathy” with the attackers. Equally puzzling was his statement that we need not apologize for American “values.” Since when is producing anti-Muslim videos an American value? You can respect the First Amendment all you want, but there’s no need to go to bat for an Islamophobic idiot – especially one whose bigotry has resulted in deadly violence. 

I can’t remember the last time that a serious politician took advantage of a tragedy in the Middle East to bash a sitting president. As The Atlantic magazine points out, when Pres. Carter’s mission to rescue the Iranian hostages failed spectacularly, then-candidate Ronald Reagan had this to say: "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united." George H.W. Bush, campaigning at the time for the Republican nomination, also expressed his support: "I unequivocally support the president of the United States -- no ifs, ands or buts -- and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision." Similar comments would have made Mitt look more astute – and presidential.

History shows that angry fanatics in the Middle East are no respecters of politicians or political parties. Terrorists blew up the American embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut on President Reagan’s watch, and they blew up two American embassies during the Clinton administration. Moreover, presidents from both parties have been trying for decades to bring about a comprehensive peace in the region. They weren’t able to do it, and I’m betting that Mitt won’t be any more successful. The U.S. has been unpopular in the region for a long time, and it’s hard to see how a President Romney will change that dynamic. 

Mitt’s aggressive approach to diplomacy is the one aspect of his candidacy that gives me pause. When it comes to campaigning versus governing, where a politician stands depends on where he sits. Earlier this year the former governor promised to get tough with China on trade. The truth is, as former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman explained, that once he’s in office Mitt would have to negotiate and compromise with Chinese leaders, just as his predecessors have done for 40 years. Ditto for his harsh stance on Russia. Sooner or later, a President Romney would have to meet with Putin and try to reach an accommodation with him. Granted, President Obama’s reset approach hasn’t worked, but I'm not too sure that the general proposals outlined on the Romney campaign's official website will, either. For now, all we hear is that we need "American leadership" abroad. No one doubts that, but without specifics, it's hard to judge whether Mitt's policies will be any more effective than Obama's have been. What would Mitt have done differently in Egypt? Syria? Libya? If the proposals outlined on his campaign website are any indication, the answer is "not much."    

When it comes to foreign policy, the Romney campaign is long on posturing and short on specific proposals for engaging with the world and solving its problems. General criticism of Obama’s foreign policy is to be expected, but is it too much to ask for Mitt to project a presidential demeanor when tragedy strikes abroad? Mitt still has my vote, but I do wish that he had kept his powder dry on this one.

-----

I will be making presentations on Mormonism in Los Angeles at Sinai Temple (dialogue with Rabbi David Wolpe, Oct 18th @ 7:30 p.m.) and Temple Isaiah (dialogue with Rabbi Zoë Klein, Oct 24th @ 6:00 p.m.). The public is invited.

17 Comments — Leave your comment

September 9, 2012 | 9:30 pm

Why I won’t see The Book of Mormon

Posted by Mark Paredes

Jared Gertner in "The Book of Mormon."

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! – Isaiah 5:20, 2 Nephi 15:20 (Book of Mormon)

AY! My name is Joseph Smith, and I’m going to f*** this baby! – verse from the song “Joseph Smith, American Moses” in The Book of Mormon musical
 

-----
One of the Jewish community’s many virtues is its expression of righteous indignation. Whenever anti-Semitism rears its ugly head in the public square, you can bet that organizations like the ADL and AJC, as well as prominent rabbis and other leaders, will confront it and denounce it. Jews are well-known for their self-deprecating sense of humor, and are better than anyone else at laughing at themselves, their religion, and their culture. When non-Jews attempt to poke fun at them, Jews generally laugh along with them as long as the humor is in good taste.  Mormons also tend to be thick-skinned, and are usually good-natured when their beliefs become fodder for jokes. However, judging from their reaction to the vulgar, anti-Mormon musical The Book of Mormon, Mormons do not yet feel comfortable expressing righteous indignation in public, even when it is obviously warranted.

Since I do not plan to see the musical, I researched the songs and storyline before writing this essay. I’m not easily offended, but I was appalled at the vulgarity and at the way in which anti-Mormonism makes even racism palatable.  Try to imagine the opening night for a musical parody that depicts Africans as AIDS-infected, misogynistic villagers who sing a song (“Hasa Diga Eebowai,” a parody of “Hakuna Matata” from Lion King) whose title translates to “F*** you, God.”  There would be protests up and down Broadway, and the musical’s run would be pretty short. However, if you add Mormon missionaries to the mix and use this outrageous depiction to skewer Mormonism, suddenly it becomes acceptable, even laudable.

Two things are obvious from even a cursory review of the musical: Its creators hate religion, and they hate Mormonism. No one with any respect for the sacred or the divine would write lyrics like “F*** you God in the a**, mouth, and c***.” There is no context in which this is anything less than religious pornography. Adding a catchy tune and voices to this smut doesn’t change anything. Ditto for a schmaltzy, predictable ending.  

Unsurprisingly, the musical’s creators are all hostile to religion. Trey Parker believes all religions are silly: "All the religions are superfunny to me......The story of Jesus makes no sense to me. God sent his only son. Why could God only have one son and why would he have to die? It's just bad writing, really."  Matt Stone, though ethnically Jewish, is an atheist. Here’s Robert Lopez’s insightful take on LDS beliefs: “The reason why we both wanted to do Mormonism from the beginning is that we all felt that way about religion. There is something supremely, ridiculously fake about it, but it helps people live their lives better, and there is something emotionally true about it … But you don't think God talked to this guy and had him bury some plates in the ground, that's ridiculous. But if believing in a goofy story helps a bunch of people lead lives in a meaningful way, then it is true, and that's where we started from."

What is incomprehensible to me on a personal level is to read comments from a few Mormons who have seen the show and find positive things to say about it. When I worked in the Jewish community, I was always disappointed to see Jews serve as spokesmen for groups and organizations that actively worked against Israel and the Jewish people (e.g., BDS groups). They are referred to in some Jewish circles as “self-hating Jews,” a term I always recoiled at. I could never bring myself to use it, because I never experienced the visceral reaction that those who used the term did upon seeing fellow members of the tribe behave in such a disgraceful way. When I see these Mormon mouthpieces praise a blasphemous, sacrilegious, vulgar show that is hostile to their faith, I get it; Like my Jewish friends, I experience a total disconnect. I have no idea where these people are coming from, or why they would want to support the efforts of people who hate their religion. All of us want to be liked and accepted by others, but sometimes it’s important to be in, not of, the world.

A word of explanation is probably necessary here: I am not a vulgar person, I do not swear, and I included the original lyrics above (albeit with asterisks) only after long deliberation on my part. I apologize to anyone who is offended by them, but in the end I thought that it was necessary to include the original words in order to make my point.

Like most Mormons, I do have a healthy sense of humor in the religion department, and am happy to laugh at the latest polygamy jokes. I am also pleased that my church has chosen to take the high road by paying for ads pushing the real Book of Mormon in the musical’s playbill. However, as they say in Hebrew, yesh gvul (there’s a limit). I dearly wish that there were a Mormon ADL right now to point out that Mormon-bashing (as a subset of Christian-bashing) remains the only acceptable prejudice in this country.  If there are any Jewish readers who want me to lighten up, imagine Moses delivering the Joseph Smith line cited above in a Broadway musical entitled “The Torah.” Not so funny now, is it?

To be clear, I can understand why Mormons want to go to the musical. They may be curious, they may think it’s only a little risqué, or they may think that a show that’s won 9 Tonys must be worth seeing. I am genuinely baffled, however, by my coreligionists who come away from the show with good things to say about it. Thankfully, their numbers are few. I’m more than willing to laugh at LDS culture with people who do so in good taste and with at least a modicum of respect, but as for The Book of Mormon, I’ll stick to the original.

-----

I will be making presentations on Mormonism in Los Angeles at Sinai Temple (dialogue with Rabbi David Wolpe, Oct 18th @ 7:30 p.m.) and Temple Isaiah (dialogue with Rabbi Zoë Klein, Oct 24th @ 6:00 p.m.). The public is invited.

43 Comments — Leave your comment

September 2, 2012 | 10:29 pm

The Abrahamic Covenant: Still Applicable Today?

Posted by Mark Paredes

As the Jewish New Year begins later this month, I will join Jews in reflecting on beginnings. I was married earlier this year, and celebrate my birthday on the first day of Rosh Hashanah. Since neither Rosh Hashanah nor my temple wedding would have been possible without the covenant that God made with Abraham, I can’t think of a better time to give an overview of the LDS concept of the Abrahamic covenant and its centrality in our theology.

Many Christian churches believe in supersessionism (so-called “replacement theology”), which holds that the Christian churches have replaced Israel in God’s plan, that Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and that the Abrahamic Covenant has been fulfilled in Christianity. What do Mormons have to say about these beliefs?

It is an article of our faith that other Christian churches do not have divine authorization to “replace” anything, let alone the Jewish people. If you ask a Mormon to join a debate on supersessionism, don’t be surprised if he declines. Claims that Israelites (including Jews) no longer have a covenant with God or that they have been replaced by modern Christian churches are non-starters for us.

For Mormons, the Abrahamic covenant is as valid today as it was on the day that God gave it to the biblical patriarch. However, we don’t believe that the covenant is restricted to Jews. Anciently the covenant was extended to all Israelites, and Latter-day Saints believe that everyone who is accepts the gospel of Jesus Christ and is baptized into our church becomes a child of Abraham and therefore a covenant Israelite.

The last belief – that the Abrahamic covenant has been fulfilled in Christianity – requires a much more nuanced answer. Compared to Judaism, LDS theology posits an expanded definition of the Abrahamic covenant. For Jews, the only affirmative obligation listed in the Torah in order to receive the blessings promised to Abraham is to circumcise their newborn boys (though Moses certainly lengthened the list).  For Latter-day Saints, the covenant involves the higher priesthood and related covenants (including eternal marriage) that Abraham received.  

The covenant also requires us to engage in missionary work in order to encourage people worldwide to take upon themselves the name of the Lord (indeed, Jews at one time were the most aggressive missionaries in the world). So the next time you see Mormon missionaries on the street, remind yourself that they are fulfilling what they understand to be their obligations under the Abrahamic covenant.

In other words, the question for Mormons is not whether the Abrahamic covenant still applies to Jews, the descendants of the ancient Israelites (it does). The question for us is whether Jews (or Mormons, for that matter) are keeping the terms of the covenant. Given the LDS understanding of the covenant that God made with Abraham, it can find its fullest expression only through the higher priesthood and temple ordinances.

While Mormons and Jews may differ on the scope of the Abrahamic covenant, we definitely agree that it is as valid today as it was during Abraham’s lifetime. It helps to define us as a people and to inspire us to honor God in all that we do. Circumcision for Jews, and priesthood ordinances for Mormons, help to remind us of who we are and Whom we serve. As I blow out my birthday candles on Rosh Hashanah, I plan to make a special wish that the names of Abraham and his God will be honored to a greater extent throughout the world in the coming year.

9 Comments — Leave your comment