December 3, 2012 | 1:05 am

Jews and Mormons celebrate the 1947 UN vote creating Israel

Posted by Mark Paredes

Follow me on

I was only too happy to accept the invitation of my friend Dr. Judea Pearl to attend last week’s commemoration/celebration at the AJU of the 1947 UN vote that created the State of Israel in Palestine. He’s been trying to make this happen for several years, and I was glad to be there to support him and his lovely wife Ruth. Not only was this recognition by the LA Jewish community long overdue, but it had the added benefit of being held on the same day as the shameful vote by the UN to recognize “Palestine” as an observer state. The event was produced by Craig Taubman, the most energetic man I have ever met. 

LDS Church leaders publicly and privately expressed their support for Israel at its founding, and President David O. McKay purchased $5000 of Israel Bonds on behalf of the church the year after they were issued. He said that he did this “to show our sympathy with the effort being made to establish the Jews in their homeland.” I am unaware of similar statements or gestures made by senior Mormon leaders in favor of any other country’s independence. In recognition of this history, two prominent LDS leaders accompanied me to the event and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Rabbis Ed Feinstein and David Wolpe, two of my favorite religious leaders, delivered brief remarks, along with Dr. Pearl and Israeli Consul General David Siegel. Although the Vatican did not recognize Israel until 1993, Father Alexei Smith was chosen to speak on behalf of non-Jewish religious leaders. He shared a story of Cardinal Spellman of New York and his private support for Israel that was very touching. Being a Craig Taubman production, the pace was good and the music was great. By the time the crowd joined Noa Dori in a soulful “Hatikvah,” many of us had tears in our eyes.

I believe that the UN vote authorizing the creation of Israel was divinely ordained, and hope that Jewish and Christian communities around the country and the world will begin to set aside time every year in late November to remember this providential act. The LDS Church’s support for the establishment of Israel is yet another witness of the special relationship that exists between Mormons and Jews. It was an honor for me to represent the church at the celebration. Am Yisrael Chai!

November 27, 2012 | 1:39 am

Pluralism in Israel: Temple Emanuel and King Solomon

Posted by Mark Paredes

Like just about every other blogger for the Jewish Journal, I found myself at Temple Emanuel in Beverly Hills this evening to watch Jewish Journal Editor-in-Chief Rob Eshman lead an Israeli consul general, a female Conservative rabbi, an Orthodox lawyer, two female Reform rabbis, an ultra-Orthodox rabbi and a Modern Orthodox rabbi in a spirited discussion of religious pluralism in Israel. The event was inspired by the recent arrest of Israeli feminist activist Anat Hoffman for “inappropriate” religious expression at the Western Wall. I went primarily to hear how the Orthodox speakers would defend the religious status quo in Israel. While I was very glad to see Modern Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky take his seat, I was rather disappointed that the organizers had to ask Chabad Rabbi David Eliezrie to drive up from Orange County on a weeknight because no other prominent Orthodox rabbi in Los Angeles had the courage to show up at a Reform synagogue and defend his beliefs.

A few observations on the evening:

1) Consul General David Siegel is a very impressive guy. In fact, every time I see him he seems even more impressive. He started his talk on pluralism by showing us the logos of 92 Israeli organizations currently engaged in promoting pluralism/Jewish renewal in Israel. He also let us know that this was a personal issue for him: his father was the second Conservative rabbi in Israel (there are about 120 today).
 

2) The battle lines were drawn early. Everyone gave kudos to Rabbi Eliezrie for volunteering to be the Orthodox lightning rod for the evening, but I found his arguments less than compelling. His main justification for the denial of certain religious rights to women at the Western Wall was that “Jews have been praying this way for 3300 years, since the days of King Solomon.” Needless to say, his Reform and Conservative colleagues took exception to this statement. The night’s best line went to Rabbi Judith HaLevy, who noted that Jews don’t slaughter animals at the Western Wall today “even though they did it at the time of King Solomon.”

3) I found Rabbi Kanefsky’s comments to be the most thoughtful and engaging. His most interesting observation was that the well-documented return to tradition by Israelis does not necessarily translate into a return to Orthodoxy, whose rules and strictures are difficult for modern secular people to accept. Moreover, he believes that Israelis are actively involved in the creation of an organic Israeli Judaism. 

Regular readers of this blog know that I don’t take a position on whether Judaism needs to be “reformed” or on which Jewish movement is more authentic, though I have expressed my thanks on occasion to Orthodox leaders for their stances on certain moral issues. I am also most unwilling to express my opinion on which laws Israel should or should not adopt. Having lived in their country for two years, I know that the last thing Israelis need is for non-Jews to lecture them on how they should live. However, on a night when only one prominent rabbi in the Los Angeles Orthodox world was willing to engage in a public dialogue on religious pluralism, I do feel comfortable offering an outsider’s opinion on which argument I found most compelling.

I can see why many Orthodox Jews are not impressed by liberal Jews’ willingness to change their traditions simply because they think that it’s a good idea to do so. However, invoking King Solomon to defend your practice of exclusion isn’t terribly convincing, either. I went to Rabbi Kanefsky after the event in order to understand the Orthodox theological objection to female rabbis. His candid response? “You’re assuming there is one.” After all, while the Torah does state that priests in ancient Israel were male descendants of Aaron, modern Rabbinic Judaism doesn’t have priests, priesthood, or temples. Rabbis are teachers and decisors of Jewish law, not priests. As a Mormon I believe that the Israelite priesthood has always been conferred exclusively on men, and I understand that men were almost exclusively the teachers and judges in ancient Israel, but in a modern world with many female teachers and judges, what is the theological objection to authorizing female rabbis if they don’t hold the priesthood?  Rabbi Kanefsky offered up the belief that halacha conferred divine authority on the sages to lead Jews in the right paths. Fair enough. It’s a lot more convincing than the King Solomon argument.

I hope that this is the first in a series of candid discussions on Jewish religious pluralism. My only suggestion for improvement would be to limit the number of participants to four: a Reform rabbi, a Conservative rabbi, an ultra-Orthodox rabbi, and a Modern Orthodox rabbi. Additional participants will only add needless repetition. Evenings like this are entirely absent from the calendars of Mormon communities, and it was a delight to watch Jews who are all passionate about their Judaism challenge each other on an issue that is much more important to American Jews than to their Israeli cousins.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

November 19, 2012 | 11:47 pm

Anti-Israel Protestants: more Bible study needed

Posted by Mark Paredes

“The state of Israel is an illegal, genocidal place… to equate Judaism with the state of Israel is to equate Christianity with Flavor Flav.” – UCC Pastor Emeritus Jeremiah Wright, in a speech to thousands of people in Baltimore in 2011

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. – Acts 17:11

-----

Much has been made in the Jewish community – too much, in my humble opinion – of the recent letter signed by 15 Protestant church leaders calling for Congress to review and possibly suspend U.S. aid to Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East. The signatories believe that “unconditional U.S. military assistance to Israel has contributed to this deterioration, sustaining the conflict and undermining the long-term security interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.” To add insult to injury, the letter was released with no notice on a Jewish holiday, just days before a scheduled interfaith meeting between Protestant and Jewish leaders. Predictably, Jewish leaders angrily withdrew from the meeting and denounced the letter. It is hard to see how this troubled dialogue can be resurrected in the near future.

A letter like this doesn’t come out of a vacuum. The offending churches -- Presbyterian Church (USA), Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, United Methodist Church, National Council of Churches USA and the United Church of Christ (UCC) – are all mainline Protestant bodies. In a recent Pew survey, white mainline Protestants knew less about Christianity and the Bible than Mormons, white Evangelicals, white Catholics, black Protestants, Jews and atheists. By way of contrast, Mormons and white Evangelicals, the most knowledgeable groups on those topics, tend to be very strong supporters of Israel. Instead of developing talking points on Israel to present to Protestant leaders, I think that Jewish leaders would accomplish more by creating Bible study courses, perhaps co-taught by rabbis and pastors, that could be used to educate Protestant congregants and leaders on Jewish themes in the Bible.

Israel needs to become a priority for these churches. Right now it’s not even on their theological radar screens. Let’s take the UCC, for example. On the church’s official website right now are the following lead stories: “Minnesota church plans to be carbon neutral by 2030,” “UCC churches celebrate 14th Annual Transgender Day of Remembrance,” and “UCC President, Office of Communications, Inc. ask FCC to lower prison phone rates.” Although Jeremiah Wright is best known for his incendiary statements about Jews and America, he also helped thousands of people in Chicago through his decades-long service as a popular pastor.  Clearly this is a church that believes in doing good and helping people. However, on Israel, Jews and the Bible it clearly needs more education.

As I see it, the problem is that the leaders of these churches focus every Sunday on social justice and other contemporary issues instead of an intensive study of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. When the time comes for them to gather together and vote on Israel issues like divestment, Jewish leaders have to make Israel’s case to people who have generally devoted very little pulpit time (and thought) to the subject. If current trends are any indication, Jewish leaders’ efforts will soon become futile. Last summer Presbyterian leaders rejected divestment by the slimmest of margins in a 333-331 vote. I know that my Presbyterian friends keep reassuring me that the overwhelming majority of their coreligionists strongly support Israel, but apparently their leaders haven’t gotten the memo.

Jewish leaders who are trying to engage mainline Protestant leaders on Israel clearly have their work cut out for them, and I applaud them for trying. The sad truth is that unless these churches make the Bible and Jewish themes a focus of their study and ministry, secular arguments for Israel will eventually fail to carry the day with their leaders, especially when a nominally Protestant organization like Sabeel spews out religious-themed drivel advocating Palestinian Liberation Theology. As we see during the current Israel-Hamas confrontation, people who are confused about the Jews’ (and Israelites’) role in God’s plan are often unable to make meaningful moral distinctions between competing narratives in the Middle East.

I applaud the Jewish leaders for their efforts to reach out, and I applaud those Protestants who are trying to effect change from within their churches. I will pray for their success in bringing mainstream Protestantism into the pro-Israel fold. After all, it’s an article of the Mormon faith that miracles have not yet ceased.          
       
 

9 Comments — Leave your comment

November 12, 2012 | 8:33 pm

Interview with a Jew-loving Ukrainian Mormon

Posted by Mark Paredes

LDS Seminary and Institute (= Mormon Hillel) coordinators are an oft-overlooked resource for Jewish leaders in Europe who are attempting to conduct outreach to friendly Christian communities. Some of the most philo-Semitic Mormons I have ever met are Institute directors, and one has profoundly changed my life. Marin Iachimov, the Institute coordinator for Romania and several other countries, kindly invited me to speak on LDS-Jewish relations in Romania and Moldova, and I met my lovely wife-to-be in Bucharest. I have already blogged about the former Institute directors in Lund, Sweden, a German couple who organized groups of young Mormons to clean Jewish cemeteries. In this column I’d like to profile the dynamic philo-Semite who serves as the Seminary and Institute coordinator for Ukraine. If you know Jews in Ukraine, by all means forward this interview to them.     

Igor Piddubnyi has been an Institute coordinator for 15 years, and writes that he “was always attracted to our brothers, the Jews. I had many Jewish friends during my school years.” Like many Mormons, Igor had this to say about his trip to Israel: “I love them [Jews] with all my heart. I have never heard that I had Jewish roots, but when I went to Israel, I felt home. I almost wept as I stood at the Western wall. There is still something sacred there.” In addition, Igor speaks and reads some Hebrew. I asked him to respond to a few questions for this blog, and he was kind enough to send the following responses:

How long have you been a Mormon? When did your interest in Judaism begin?
I was baptized in June 1993. My wife was baptized in February 1991, when there were only five members of the Church in Ukraine. As I look back, the topic of Judaism has been on my mind since I can remember. Basically, it started along with my membership in the Church, after I had come back from serving in the Soviet Army.

Which Jewish sites have you visited in Ukraine?
As a S&I (CES) coordinator I travel a lot throughout Ukraine. As I visit classes in the mission branches, I often pass by famous Jewish sites. All of them are located in picturesque areas. Sometimes I visit such places to think about my life and feel closer to God. So far I have visited:

• the grave of Baal Shem Tov (in Medzhybyzh), the founder of Hasidism
• the grave of Rabbi Nahman (in Uman), the most famous leader of Hasidism
• the grave of Rabbi Levi Yitzhak (in Berdichev)
• the grave of Rabbi Nathan (in Bratslav), the disciple of Rabbi Nachman
• old synagogues in western Ukraine, including Rivne and Dubno, Lviv and Chernivtsi. Here is a site in Russian about the Jewish heritage of Ukraine. I believe they are working on the English version, but it’s not available yet. I have visited more than half of these places.

Besides the Bible, what is your favorite work of Jewish literature?
I have not read the Talmud yet, but I really like Moshe Haim Luzzato’s “Mesilat Yesharim” (The Path of the Just). He wrote it when he was 33. I also like Martin Buber’s “The Tales of Hasidim” (parables and stories) and  “Roots of the Bible” by Friedrich Weinreb. The three books (Gardens) by the modern writer Shalom Arush (especially his “Garden of Peace”) should be read by every husband.

You recently purchased a Torah with commentary by Rashi. How does this add to your understanding of Judaism -- and Mormonism?
Jewish people are people of details as we know. They believe that there are no excess words in the Scriptures. Rashi wrote his commentaries with a close look at small details, but also gives a lot of contextual material. When I read some passages in the Bible that are difficult to understand, where principles can't be seen because of lack of context, I usually try to look up the same passage in the Torah with Rashi or other commentaries to see what historical background can found there. For example, in Genesis 6:1 – 8 we read about “sons of God and daughters of men” – the time when the Lord, because of the wickedness of men, gives them a certain time to repent. Rashi suggests two meanings for the expression “the sons of God” – 1. Sons of the princes and the nobles of the land; 2. Messengers of the Most High, who mingled with men. Regarding the first possible meaning he explained, by quoting other authors, that wickedness was so great that when princes or nobles of the land saw “daughters of men” beautifying themselves before entering the nuptial canopy, a son of the noble or prince would come and take them by force “from whomever they chose” - even a married woman. After that the Lord sets the countdown timer. Many details give additional insights into the situation from which we can draw principles. The stories I used to read by blocks and pages, now become words and letters. I started to underline not sentences or verses as before, but words that become a basis for principles and doctrines

What were the spiritual highlights of your trip to Israel?
When I first went to Israel (it was November and I was flying in from cold Moscow), the very smell of the air in Tel Aviv, rose bushes, trees and many other details added to my understanding of why it’s a land chosen above all other lands and why they still fight for it. I remember my first feeling of seeing the Western Wall. I could not believe I was standing there. I was touching the wall of the Temple Mount and thinking how many lives were lost and touched at this place. I could feel somehow that I was standing in the middle of the universe, that that was the place of most interest for me. I have visited quite a few countries and seen wonderful sites and historical places, but I have never felt anything like that. For me it was such a native and natural place. Another highlight – Masada. It has a very dramatic story. It was so amazing to walk among stones that have seen so much. The trip to Israel changed my understanding of the Scriptures. The distances to, colors, smell of the places I visited – every time I come across those in the Scriptures – they become alive, it expands my understanding. Also, the Garden Tomb was such a touching moment. When we were leaving, I stood on Friday night on the Mount of Olives and looked at the Temple Mount. It was difficult to part with this city, I felt as if I was leaving someone very close to my heart. Jerusalem has a living soul.

What do you see as the most important Jewish-Mormon ties?
The belief in the absolute truth. Focus on the family. Working on your personal salvation by hard spiritual labor. Following the path of those who have trodden the path of righteousness before. Waiting for the Messiah (or for His return) with an single to the glory of God. Being separated from the world. I believe the Lord applied the same pattern working with the latter-day group of His covenant people as he used with ancient Israel. That’s why we have the same Root and we can find many similarities in the concepts of Judaism and Mormonism.

4 Comments — Leave your comment

November 7, 2012 | 12:46 am

Mitt’s defeat: We’ve come a long way, America

Posted by Mark Paredes

I write these words immediately following Mitt Romney’s gracious concession speech. I dearly wish that he had been able to deliver a victory speech instead, but the election gods clearly weren’t smiling on Boston tonight. While I was disappointed with the result, I remain enormously proud of this country’s progress. Ten years ago few people would have thought it possible for either a black or a Mormon candidate to have a serious shot at the White House. This year a black and a Mormon ran against each other, and the issues of race and religion were largely absent from the campaign.

I hope that Mormons of all political stripes would take pride in having one of their own make a serious run for the most powerful office in the world, winning tens of millions of votes from other Americans who believed in him. Mormons have come a long way in this country, and I believe that our best days are ahead of us. I know many Jews who strongly supported Mitt’s candidacy, and he appears to have convinced 30% of Jews to vote for him. In addition, his strong support for Israel and the Jewish people highlights the philo-Semitic nature of his faith. Although I admire Paul Ryan, Mitt probably would have received more Jewish votes if he had had someone perceived to be more centrist as his running mate.

I didn’t vote for him, but I will pray for President Obama – and for our country. He’s got a tough job, and it’s unlikely to get any easier. This time he won’t have President Bush to blame for his failures. I want President Obama to succeed because I want America to succeed. The fact that he had to beat a Mormon in order to retain his office shows that America has come a long way in terms of tolerance and acceptance of minority groups. Who knows? We could even be a better nation after a second Obama term. Let us pray.

27 Comments — Leave your comment

November 4, 2012 | 9:08 pm

Evangelical anti-Mormonism: A guide for Jews

Posted by Mark Paredes

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil
against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in
heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. – Matthew 5:11-12

-----

During a recent presentation on Mormonism at Temple Isaiah in Los Angeles, I was asked twice why Evangelicals don’t consider Mormons to be Christians and why some of them go so far as to classify the LDS Church as a cult. After suggesting that they must have a different definition of Christianity, I recommended that they ask Evangelicals why they hold those views instead of relying on me to explain them. In hindsight, I realized that I was extending to Evangelicals a courtesy that is rarely reciprocated.

Much has been made of the willingness of Evangelicals, Baptists, and other conservative Christians to set aside their misgivings about LDS Christianity and pull the lever for Mitt Romney this week. Four years ago they championed Mike Huckabee, and this time they’re holding their noses and voting for the Mormon anti-Obama candidate. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has even removed Mormonism from its list of “cults” just in time for the election. Well, bully for them! While one can certainly hope that decades of Evangelical anti-Mormon bigotry will soon go the way of Evangelical anti-Catholic bigotry and Evangelical anti-Semitism, I have a feeling that things will revert to the status quo ante after the election.

There are many opportunities for Mormons to work with Evangelicals (and Jews, for that matter) to make the world a better place. This is especially true in the political arena, which has witnessed the formation of conservative faith coalitions in order to uphold traditional moral values and religious freedom. People don’t have to worship in the same place or believe exactly the same things in order to see eye to eye on the issues of the day. In my experience, Evangelicals in the pews are decent, God-fearing people of conviction and action. Left to their own devices, I believe that they would be accepting of other people who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ. However, many Evangelicals are led by pastors who are theological cowards and liars to boot.

If only pastors would follow what I call the Jewish/Mormon Model for Interfaith Inquiry. When Jewish and Mormon congregations want to know what other religions believe, they invite leaders from those faith communities to address them and answer questions. I have spoken at many such events in synagogues and Jewish schools, and once moderated a series of presentations by religious leaders for Mormons living in Santa Monica. One presentation was made by a friendly Evangelical pastor whom I knew from my Israel advocacy work. Truth be told, Evangelical theology as seen through a Mormon prism is incomplete and fairly uninteresting.  A recent Pew survey showed that Mormons know the Bible better than Evangelicals. In addition, we accept Jesus as our Savior, and we believe in God’s grace as a means of salvation. Those topics took up all of the good pastor’s talk, and those present were courteous and respectful as they peppered him with questions. What is relevant here is that a faithful Evangelical was given the opportunity to speak about his faith to Mormons. The reverse almost never happens in the Evangelical community.

Instead, pastors who want to “educate” members of their flock about the LDS Church will often invite anti-Mormon speakers to speak at a “Mormon Night” where living, breathing Mormons are not welcome. Some evangelical leaders even claim expertise in LDS theology after reading an anti-Mormon book or two. A case in point is Jay Childs, Senior Pastor of the Midland Evangelical Free Church in Midland, Michigan. On his personal blog, which is linked to the church’s website, Pastor Childs claims to have lectured on Mormon theology “in a couple of venues” and to have “talked these things over with Mormon missionaries” before stating his strong disagreement with the “bedrock theological moorings” of LDS Christianity. What, pray tell, are these offensive moorings? “In a nutshell, Mormons believe that Jesus was a polygamist, that He is the spirit brother of Lucifer, that all faithful Mormon males can become gods, and that Adam is the resurrected god of this planet.” A Mormon fact checker would have a field day with these assertions: The LDS Church does not teach that Jesus was married, let alone that He was a polygamist, and we certainly do not believe that Adam is God. The other two statements are true, but require additional explanation, sort of like having an “expert on Judaism” assert that faithful Jews support the “mutilation” of little boys. True? Yes. An adequate explanation? Hardly.    

What is especially sad about this mendacious pastor’s rants is that just down the road is an LDS Institute (=Mormon Hillel) headed by a director with a graduate degree whose job is to teach LDS theology. One would think that a pastor in Midland who was truly interested in teaching his congregants about Mormonism would give Daymon Leonhardt a ring and ask him to make a presentation at his church.

However, if I were Daymon, I wouldn’t stand by the phone. The dynamic in play here is fear, not friendship. Lots of current Mormons used to be Evangelicals, and our church is viewed as a threat by their leaders. Fear is the catalyst for the whole anti-Mormon industry of books, videos, and speakers that have slandered and vilified our church for decades. My Catholic girlfriend in high school was given an anti-Mormon book by her guidance counselor after expressing interest in her boyfriend’s church. One can only imagine the reaction of Jewish parents if their son’s girlfriend were given The Protocols of the Elders of Zion by a school official after expressing interest in Judaism. Where Christian principles fit into this campaign of distortions and lies is a mystery to me.   

While I welcome critical comments on my blog, I do have a policy of deleting anti-Mormon comments, reasoning that anti-Mormons are welcome to create their own blog on a Jewish website if they feel that Jews care what they have to say (good luck!). However, I must thank the good pastor for inspiring me to set a new rule for posters to my blog: If you claim that Mormons believe something outrageous, be prepared to back it up by offering up a quote from an LDS leader or official source from this century (i.e., the last 12 years). The pastor got his “Adam-God” theory from controversial statements made by Brigham Young over 140 years ago (and probably cited in an anti-Mormon book). Church leaders have opposed this theory since the 19th century, and in the 1970s LDS Church President Spencer W. Kimball publicly denounced it. As any Mormon can tell you, we don’t believe that Adam is God. Here’s a theological rule of thumb for my Jewish readers: If the only source for a “Mormon” belief comes from the 19th century, it’s not a Mormon belief. I’ve set the 12-year rule because chances are good that the people making those statements can defend themselves. It’s pretty cowardly to attribute false teachings to Mormons by quoting leaders who are not around to respond. 

I am proud to belong to a church that does not hold “Evangelical Nights,” publish anti-Evangelical books, produce anti-Evangelical films, or host anti-Evangelical speakers. Although we disagree with some aspects of Evangelical theology, we accept them as fellow Christians. However, we don’t believe that Christianity condones slander and libel. It is my hope that Evangelical leaders will eventually choose to shut down the anti-Mormon industry and devote themselves to the exclusive preaching of their faith. Until they do, they’re not going to get any applause from me for their occasional praise of individual Mormons’ virtues. If I had to choose today between having Romney win with the support of pastors who think he belongs to a non-Christian cult, or having Obama win without it, I would toss a coin.

46 Comments — Leave your comment

October 27, 2012 | 10:54 pm

Jewish-Mormon dialogue: Three wonderful evenings in Los Angeles

Posted by Mark Paredes

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.    

10 Comments — Leave your comment

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

September 28, 2012 | 9:34 pm

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

Posted by Mark Paredes

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.

16 Comments — Leave your comment

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