October 27, 2012 | 10:54 pm

Jewish-Mormon dialogue: Three wonderful evenings in Los Angeles

Posted by Mark Paredes

Follow me on

It’s been a great month for Jewish-LDS relations in Los Angeles. Readers of this blog know of my firm belief that Mormons have a great deal to say to Jews, and vice versa. Judging from the turnout at three recent events, many other Mormons and Jews feel the same way.

Last Sunday Jewish and Mormon leaders gathered at an LDS chapel in order to hear an inspired presentation on Mormons and the Holy Land given by Joe and Marilyn Bentley, who recently returned from 18 months of service as the Directors of Hosting and Outreach at the BYU Center in Jerusalem. The Bentleys have a great love for Israel and the Jewish people, and clearly enjoyed sharing interesting details of their assignment and of LDS involvement in the Holy Land for over 160 years. Jewish attendees included several rabbis and representatives of the AJC and ADL, both of which have long-standing relationships with the church. The Bentleys have already lectured widely in the LDS community here in Southern California, and I’m sure they’d be willing to speak to Jewish groups as well. 

Two weeks ago Rabbi David Wolpe and I had a meaningful public dialogue on LDS-Jewish issues at Sinai Temple (you can listen to it here). Sinai was the first temple in LA (and possibly anywhere) to host a public Jewish-LDS theological dialogue, and Rabbi Wolpe has spoken to LDS missionaries about Judaism.  I spoke for 30 minutes on historical, doctrinal, and contemporary issues in LDS-Jewish relations, followed by several questions from the rabbi and a general Q&A from the audience. Answers to two of the rabbi’s questions will become part of my future presentations on this subject. 

I deliberately left out any mention of proxy temple ordinances in my speech, which Rabbi Wolpe was quick to note. I took the opportunity, which I will also avail myself of here, to announce that I will no longer discuss the proxy ordinances issue in future presentations. Quite frankly, I’m tired of hearing about it. A small group of Jewish leaders has blown this issue way out of proportion for 20 years; even they decided last year to move on to agenda items that actually affect living Jews, instead of worrying about what a few disobedient Mormons are doing in their own temples.  I’ve blogged several times on this issue, and don’t plan to spend more time or effort explaining it. Instead, I will refer curious Jews to the rabbis at the Simon Wiesenthal Center so that they can tell them by what authority they are authorized to speak on behalf of the dead and explain just why they felt it was necessary to carry on this campaign for two decades with the help of an anti-Mormon researcher.

Rabbi Wolpe also asked whether there was a strong tradition of historical and/or literary criticism in the LDS Church. Truth be told, there isn’t. We don’t have many professional theologians, and those we do have play virtually no role in establishing official doctrines or programs. BYU students may learn in their religion classes about the presence of chiasmus (a Hebrew literary device) in the Book of Mormon, but Mormons generally look to prophets, not higher or textual critics, for help in understanding their scriptural canon. Higher criticism is much more developed in Rabbinic Judaism than in our tradition. However, when I consider cases like Prof. Bart Ehrman (a prominent New Testament scholar who became an agnostic as a result of his studies), I’m not sure how beneficial textual criticism would be to a Mormon seeking to strengthen his testimony (spiritual witness) of Christianity.

This week I had the privilege of delivering Temple Isaiah’s first Limmud comparative religion lecture, which was both a challenge and a pleasure.  I have a standard presentation that I usually make on Jewish-LDS relations, but Rabbi Zoë Klein took me out of my comfort zone a bit by asking me to address seven specific theological questions instead. I’m glad she did, since it resulted in a wide-ranging discussion of LDS theology and practice that left everyone in attendance with a greater understanding of the similarities and differences between Mormonism and Rabbinic Judaism.

A married lesbian congregant respectfully brought up the Proposition 8/gay marriage issue, which gave me the opportunity to explain (as I had at Sinai) that LDS theology cannot countenance either homophobia or gay marriage. Not one of our modern books of scripture mentions homosexuality, and we regard gays as fellow children of God who chose in the pre-earth life to follow His plan and come to earth. For some reason the congregant mentioned the separation of church and state, which of course has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage: After all, Mormons were merely expressing their support for a ballot measure, not advocating that California become a Mormon theocracy. Since the founding of the United States, citizens have been free to express their opinions on the moral issues of the day, regardless of whether those opinions have a religious or secular basis. In the case of Prop 8, opponents raised more money than supporters did, much of it from liberal churches and synagogues.

Other attendees raised issues like excommunication (rare and used only to punish actions), polygamy (discontinued, not renounced, in 1890), reincarnation (which Mormons reject), and the Abrahamic covenant (central to LDS worship).

One of the reasons for my boundless love of Jews is their insatiable curiosity about others, which was on display at each of these events. It is my prayer that similar dialogues will be held around the country in order to promote understanding between two communities that have a rich history of cooperation. I am indebted to Rabbi Wolpe, Rabbi Klein, and the Bentleys for their warmth, erudition and vision.    

---

Mark Paredes has worked in Los Angeles for the Consulate General of Israel, American Jewish Congress and ZOA. You can contact Mark at deverareligione@yahoo.com and follow him on Twitter @jewsandmormons.

October 15, 2012 | 10:02 pm

Gallaudet and gay marriage: The forces of tolerance strike again

Posted by Mark Paredes

Intolerance and the moral myopia of leaders in the black community were on display today in Maryland, where the head of the NAACP held a press conference to declare with a straight face that the state’s proposed gay marriage law means that “every church, every house of worship, every synagogue in the state can have faith that everything will be respected and protected not only by the U.S. Constitution but by Question 6 [the proposed law] itself.” Benjamin Jealous went on to assure “people of faith” that “this isn’t about any one religious belief. It’s about protecting the civil right to make a lifelong commitment to the person you love.” The Reverend Dr. Todd Yeary, a local African-American pastor, went so far as to proclaim that “[t]his really is not a religious issue. The wording of Question 6 is very specific in accepting religious protections. All persons can honor their own personal convictions without imposing them on anyone else.”

These soaring words were undoubtedly of small comfort to Dr. Angela McCaskill, the African-American Chief Diversity Officer at Gallaudet University – a federally chartered university, I might add -- who was placed on leave this week for signing a petition last summer in support of a referendum to challenge Maryland’s gay marriage law, which was passed earlier this year by the state legislature. She signed the petition after hearing a sermon at church encouraging congregants to support traditional marriage. Dr. McCaskill is a remarkable woman: She was the first deaf African-American woman to earn a doctorate at Gallaudet, and has worked at the university for 23 years. To see her placed on leave by a Jewish university president (!) for exercising a constitutional right is inconceivable to me.

Top LDS Church leaders have indicated in recent years that they are primarily interested in engaging with leaders of other faiths in two areas: 1) Tikkun olam projects, including humanitarian aid; 2) Religious freedom. The Gallaudet debacle makes it easy to see why the latter issue is so important. True to form, the NAACP leaders turned their backs on Dr. McCaskill, preferring to chant the same tired mantras about religious liberty that voters across the land have rejected. While it’s true that the plain language of Question 6 states clearly that churches and pastors will be free to reject gay marriage, the persecution of traditional marriage advocates demonstrated to anyone willing to see that elegant ballot language is powerless to stop the witch-hunts carried out by gay marriage extremists.

If Dr. McCaskill had discriminated against LGBT students or faculty members on campus, the university would have been more than justified in removing her from her post. However, no allegations of prejudice on her part have surfaced. Her only sin seems to have been a desire to put gay marriage on the ballot so Marylanders can vote on it. She is scheduled to speak out publicly this week on the issue of gay marriage, and I’m sure that enormous pressure will be put on her to issue a mea maxima culpa statement apologizing for the hurt that her actions may have caused gay marriage fanatics. When the Forces of Tolerance went after my job in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 in California, a principled gay rabbi opposed their efforts. His assistance, combined with the steadfast refusal of my bosses to discipline me for expressing an opinion, saved my job. It would be a shame if the efforts of decent people on both sides of the issue don’t manage to save Dr. McCaskill’s.

Of course, outrageous actions like the humiliation of Dr. McCaskill don’t help the cause of gay marriage, so this may turn out for the best.  Most thoughtful people remember how we were had by the gay rights activists of the 90s, who used our support to get long-overdue gay rights statutes on the books, then used them to pummel organizations like the Boy Scouts. Instead of making serious arguments, they try to convince the gullible that people who like marriage just the way it is (and has been for millennia) are haters and bigots who need to be silenced. That the most recent victim of their campaign of intolerance is an accomplished African-American woman who has helped deaf students for decades should cause them to hang their heads in shame. I can’t believe that most gays support this action. If Marylanders are smart, they’ll reject this campaign of intimidation supported by extremists and impotent black leaders by voting to keep traditional marriage on November 6th.

----

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.

27 Comments — Leave your comment

October 10, 2012 | 2:02 pm

Blacks and Mormons: The priesthood ban, Brigham and Bruce

Posted by Mark Paredes

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles. -- Bruce R. McKonkie (Mormon apostle)

---

I was contacted recently by a foreign journalist who wanted to know why all of Mitt Romney’s senior advisors and staff members were white. Was it part of a general Mormon insensitivity to blacks and other minorities, she wondered? Or evidence of personal prejudices he secretly harbors? While I admitted that all of the people I know who are working on Mitt’s campaign are white, I expressed considerable doubt that this was a reflection of racial bigotry or prejudice. I then referred her to Mitt’s campaign for further comment, since I am not affiliated in any way with Romney’s White House run. Upon further reflection, I realized that her questions reflected popular perceptions of the LDS Church and blacks in this country that may not be accurate. It is with a little trepidation that I now address the issue of blacks and the LDS priesthood, one which has had a profound effect on my own life.

The first Mormon prophet in modern times, Joseph Smith, made no racial distinctions among members. Several black men were ordained to the priesthood during his lifetime, and towards the end of his life he held abolitionist views. In fact, his platform in the U.S. presidential election of 1844 called for the freeing of slaves by 1850 through the sale of public lands.

Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, brought the Saints to Utah and established a theocracy. Mormons believe that all prophets, ancient or modern, are called to do certain things upon the earth, and that this “American Moses” led his people to the Intermountain West under divine inspiration. Indeed, Brigham Young’s sole contribution to the LDS scriptural canon is a revelation (Doctrine and Covenants 136) on how to organize the Saints for the westward trek.

Like most people throughout history, Brigham Young held contemporary views on race, views that my readers and I might find repugnant. As early as 1849, he stated his belief that Cain’s seed were cursed with blackness and with a denial of the priesthood. This belief was institutionalized following Young’s address to a joint session of the Utah Territorial Legislature on February 5, 1852, in which he declared as a church doctrine (“true eternal principles the Lord Almighty has ordained”) the principle of denial of the priesthood to blacks, together with any governing role in a secular government or civil society. That same year the Utah legislature passed a law permitting slavery in the territory. The prohibition on blacks’ ordination to the priesthood remained in effect until 1978, when church leaders lifted the ban.

How, you may ask, can any intelligent Mormon accept this? Several theological principles are applicable here. First of all, there is certainly precedent in scripture for denial of the priesthood and other privileges to ethnic groups based entirely on their lineage. According to the Hebrew Bible, the only men on earth who could be ordained as priests were the direct descendants of Aaron, who just happened to be Moses’s brother. I’m sure that many Israelite tongues were wagging centuries ago about nepotism and favoritism when it came to the priesthood, but for those of us who take the Bible literally, we have to accept that this was somehow God’s will. No detailed explanation is given in the Torah for this restriction. In addition, the New Testament teaches that the preaching of the Christian Gospel was restricted to Jews during the life of Jesus. It wasn’t until after his death that Peter, the head of the church, had a dream that authorized him to take his message to Gentiles as well. It is this latter prohibition, a temporary one, that most closely approximates the LDS temporary prohibition on blacks and the priesthood. 

Second, if one buys the assertion of irreligious pundits like Bill Maher and Lawrence O’Donnell that the ban was enacted by a racist church, then one has to conclude that eleven presidents of the church – Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, and Spencer W. Kimball (the latter at least until 1978)– were a cabal of white supremacists acting to keep the proverbial black man down. Since the president/prophet is the presiding high priest in the church and has the final say in matters of the priesthood, the Maher crowd has to believe that these men, known for their decades of selfless service to people around the world, denied the priesthood to blacks just for the heck of it.

It is impossible for any believing Mormon to buy this. As with many things relating to the priesthood, the reason has to do with Elijah. When his time on earth drew to a close, his disciple Elisha asked if he could receive a double portion of his spirit (2 Kings 2:9). Elijah doesn’t promise him anything, but says that if Elisha witnesses his ascension to heaven, he will receive his mantle (2 Kings 2:10). In other words, the decision was God’s, not his. For Mormons, this means that no prophet, no matter how great, has the authority to manipulate the priesthood according to his own personal desires. The priesthood is God’s, and He directs how His church will use it to help mankind. Any Mormon who claims that the priesthood ban was a product of racism, not revelation, has to assert at the same time that God is not guiding our prophets.

It is true that Brigham Young and two other Church presidents (John Taylor and Joseph Fielding Smith) made what we would consider to be anti-black statements, and that other Church leaders have made objectionable statements on race. However, none of these statements is doctrinal in nature. Only three official statements on this issue have been issued by top church officials. The first, dated August 17, 1949, asserted that the temporary denial of the priesthood (“at the present time”) was a direct commandment from God. It also quoted another church president as stating that "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have." It ended by pointing to our pre-earth life as the origin of the priesthood ban.

In 1969, top church leaders issued a statement on the “Rights of the Negro” that expressed support for the constitutional rights of blacks and their status as children of a common God and common parents Adam and Eve. [Indeed, the oft-repeated notion that Mormons believe that blacks don’t have souls is utter nonsense]. At the same time, it affirmed the priesthood ban, which was enacted “for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.” The prophet at the time, David O. McKay, stated: "The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God....Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's pre-existent state." President McKay added, hopefully, "Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood."

The third official statement was the 1978 announcement of the lifting of the priesthood ban. It came just in time for me. My mother had joined the church, but refused to let her kids be baptized until the church did something about the ban. She didn’t want to have to explain to her biracial son why all of the other boys in his age group at church were getting ordained as deacons, but he wasn’t. Our LDS neighbor came running over to our house that June day in 1978, and my life changed forever. A few months later I was baptized, and I was ordained a deacon the next year.

Any group of 14 million people is bound to have some bigots in it, and the LDS Church is no exception. Years ago, a stake president (regional leader) told me to my face over dinner – and in front of his family -- that he was uncomfortable having his daughter date me because “in our country we don’t like black people.” [I will always attribute his unexpected, premature release as stake president a week later to instant divine karma]. An area seventy (regional leader) in this country who knew of my ethnic background told me to my face – this time over lunch – that he firmly opposed interracial dating and marriage. [His position softened considerably after his son married outside of his race to a wonderful girl]. Do I agree with their views? Of course not. Do I think that they represent those of most Mormons? No way. However, I also don’t think that their benighted views on race wipe out the many years of devoted service that both men have rendered to their families, communities, and church. I put their views in the same category as those that were condemned by Elder Bruce R. McKonkie in the quote that opens this essay, and on a personal level I regard people like this much as I would a kindly grandmother who holds antiquated views on contemporary issues.

Why were blacks denied the priesthood for 120 years? For most Mormons, the answer is: Who cares? After all, the LDS Church has 350,000 members and 1,000 congregations in Africa (the church’s fastest-growing region), 1.2 million members and 2,000 congregations in multiracial Brazil, and many black members in the Caribbean, Central and South America, and the United States. In an earlier blog post, I profiled a black Mormon who was running for the presidency of Mali. Would I like to see a black apostle or prophet someday? You bet. Does the LDS Church need to apologize once and for all for the ban? Honestly, I don’t see how it can. I’ve already outlined how any explanation other than revelation to prophets doesn’t make sense from an LDS theological perspective, and church leaders are not in the business of apologizing for implementing God’s will, however incomprehensible it may be to contemporary non-Mormons.

I once asked a black LDS bishop what he thought of the priesthood ban. He told me that he was so busy doing what God wanted him to do that he didn’t have time to speculate on the past. Prior to leaving on my mission, I prayed specifically about this issue. I didn’t feel that I could represent the church until I had a personal witness that it had done what God had wanted with respect to blacks and the priesthood. My answer? Let’s just say that a few months later, I was on the streets of Sicily wearing a name tag.

---

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.

25 Comments — Leave your comment

October 1, 2012 | 11:14 pm

Interfaith marriage, Rabbi Rosove, and Mormonism

Posted by Mark Paredes

While I was single, I often found myself wondering whether it would be better to remain a faithful Mormon bachelor all of my life or to marry a wonderful non-Mormon girl. I had a few opportunities to do so, and in moments of frustration I almost regretted not having pursued them instead of holding out for a temple marriage, the goal of every Latter-day Saint. By the grace of God, I was able to marry an angel in the Los Angeles Temple earlier this year, but I have never forgotten what it was like to be a single Latter-day Saint who prayed for years to find a spouse.

It was therefore with particular interest that I read this week’s article in the Jewish Journal announcing Reform Rabbi John Rosove’s decision to begin officiating at interfaith weddings. Interfaith marriages in the Jewish community have long fascinated me, since they are one of the few things that can bring together rabbis from all major movements in opposition. Since non-Mormons are not permitted to be married to church members in LDS temples, my regular Jewish readers would probably expect me to agree with those rabbis who refuse to perform interfaith marriages. While they are obviously free to adopt whatever policies they choose on such marriages, if I were a rabbi I would conduct wedding ceremonies for any Jew who agreed to live as a Jew and to raise his/her children in the faith.

There are interesting similarities between LDS temple marriages and Jewish wedding ceremonies: Mormons are sealed together for eternity according to the Abrahamic covenant, Jews are married in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel, and the ideal marriage in both communities involves pairing with someone of the same faith and observance level. That said, LDS ecclesiastical leaders can and do perform interfaith marriages outside of temples that are valid for this life only – “till death do you part.” The idea is that if church members choose not to marry in the temple, at least they can have an LDS chapel and a church leader play a role on their special day. With any luck, the Mormons members of the interfaith couples will continue to remain active members of the church, raise their children as Mormons, and possibly convert their spouses.  

I’ve had several conversations over the years with rabbis on this issue, and have come to the conclusion that those rabbis who focus more on the welfare of Klal Yisrael (i.e., the Jews as a people) do not perform interfaith weddings, while those who are more concerned with individual Jews do. Like Jews, Mormons actively encourage their members to marry each other in an effort to strengthen their community. However, if a Mormon decides to marry a non-member, Mormon leaders would  try to honor that person’s choice by counseling with the couple, performing the marriage ceremony, and actively encouraging the newlyweds to make the church a part of their family’s life. Kudos to Rabbi Rosove for reaching a similar conclusion within his faith tradition.

---

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