February 18, 2013 | 1:09 am

Boy Scouts and gays: end the ban—and the boycott

Posted by Mark Paredes

Follow me on

“While we must practice tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs, including their right to explain and advocate their positions, we are not required to respect and tolerate wrong behavior.” – Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Mormon Apostle

-----

It’s impossible to be a Mormon blogger, especially one who has taken a public position opposing gay marriage, and not weigh in on the Boy Scouts of America’s upcoming decision on whether to lift its ban on “open or avowed” gays, who are currently not allowed to become Scouts or fill leadership positions. The LDS Church has not yet taken a position on the repeal of the ban, though as the largest sponsor of Scouting troops, its voice will undoubtedly be heard at BSA’s highest levels. I would like to share my thoughts on this complex issue, which have evolved over the past few years.

Unfortunately, I find myself in the unenviable position of having to choose between the repeal-the-ban position of people like the activists at Human Rights Campaign, a radical gay rights organization that has been persecuting BSA for years, and the keep-gays-out folks at the Southern Baptist Convention, a leading anti-Mormon religious group. In the interest of full disclosure, I was a Scout for a brief period of time in a small troop. I earned a few merit badges, went on several campouts and jamborees, and generally enjoyed the experience. 

First of all, I’m very glad that the Supreme Court has affirmed the right of BSA, as a private organization, to exclude certain groups of people (atheists, agnostics, gays) from its ranks. Whether or not one agrees with the policies themselves, it’s an important principle. By way of analogy, Human Rights Campaign should not have to appoint a known opponent of gay marriage to a leadership position. In effect, this means that devout Mormons, Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, etc., need not apply. This freedom to exclude carries over into the religious freedom arena, which is an area of increasing concern to people of faith around the country. After all, if private organizations can have the final say on who joins and leads them, then churches can as well.

That said, I’m having a tough time understanding the reason for the bans, which I’ll deal with separately. First of all, telling gay kids that they can’t go camping, earn merit badges, or learn the principles of the Scout Oath and Law with their straight peers seems rather benighted and mean-spirited to me. The president of our senior class was gay, and we would have counted it an honor to have him as a member of our troop. Of course, if there is any inappropriate behavior by Scouts, gay or straight, that violates the Scout Oath to be morally straight (e.g., drinking, taking illegal drugs, sexual misconduct), then their leaders can and should mete out appropriate discipline. However, Scouting’s ban on gay kids only references sexual orientation, not inappropriate conduct, so I oppose it. There is no good reason why gays who uphold the Scout Oath and Law can’t be Scouts.

Given the new safeguards in place for Scouting volunteers, the arguments against gay leaders are also less than convincing. Let’s take the most obvious objection first: adult men who are attracted to males shouldn’t be leading a group of young men. Yes, there are gay men who abuse kids, although most gay men do not. There are also straight men who abuse kids, although most do not. BSA now thoroughly vets its leaders and has instituted new common-sense rules, including one prohibiting a leader from being alone with a Scout. No system is foolproof, and there will always be perverts who seek positions in Scouting and in schools in order to prey on the vulnerable. However, in my experience being gay doesn’t make a youth leader more likely to engage in this behavior.      

I have played soccer since age seven, and one of my favorite coaches was Pat. Every good player in middle school wanted to be on Pat’s regional select team, and she coached us to the gold medal in the Mid-Michigan Olympics. We all understood that the quiet woman who watched silently from the sidelines during our games was more than a friend to Pat, but none of us cared. Pat never discussed her personal life with us, and we never asked. We were there to learn how to score off a corner kick, not to discuss lifestyle choices, and Pat was a superb coach.

Ditto for Mr. K., a transplanted Scotsman whom my father sought out to conduct a summer clinic on passing for some of his best soccer players. I do recall hearing a few locker room jokes about the coach’s limp wrist, but they weren’t any nastier than the jokes we told about our other coaches. Once again, Mr. K. was a wonderful coach who helped me improve my passing speed. We all knew that he “played for the other team,” so to speak, but he was there to teach us a specific skill, and he did it very well. Truth be told, I do recall that a few more dads than usual showed up for Mr. K’s first practice, then left us alone after they saw that he was a serious coach. Come to think of it, one sure way to increase fathers’ involvement in their sons’ troop might be to appoint an openly gay Scoutmaster.

I am opposed to Scouting’s ban on gay leaders because it only specifies orientation, not behavior. I don’t believe that sexual orientation itself should disqualify someone from teaching kids to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, etc. In addition, the ban underestimates the influence of other role models besides Scoutmasters (e.g., parents, teachers, church leaders, coaches) in a Scout’s life.   

In the end, the best course of action would be for the BSA to lift the ban on gay Scouts and leaders while allowing local units, primarily in the interest of religious freedom, to retain the right to exclude people whose behavior fails to meet their standards.

The Boy Scouts is the youth program for LDS boys, so one certainly shouldn’t expect the church to appoint a Scoutmaster who has a same-sex partner, lives with his girlfriend, or has another lifestyle that is at odds with the church’s moral teaching. However, this kind of exclusion would be based on behavior, not sexual orientation per se. 

At the same time, I’d like to see Human Rights Campaign head Chad Griffin and his radical gay activist colleagues put a halt to the sickening boycott of the Boy Scouts that has gone on for many years. Mr. Griffin & Co. don’t have another youth character-building program to put in its place, mind you: they just want to destroy an organization that has produced tens of thousands of leaders worldwide. When your most significant contribution to society is organizing vulgar gay pride parades around the country (which included NAMBLA members – pedophiles -- in their early years), you lose the moral high ground in this debate. I certainly don’t oppose the Scouting ban because I agree with the radical gay activist agenda. I just feel that it discriminates against a group of people for no good reason.      

How can I reconcile my opposition to the BSA ban on gays with my opposition to gay marriage? I view them as two unrelated institutions. For me, marriage between a man and a woman is a divinely-sanctioned relationship that will exist in eternity. I support traditional marriage because I believe that God is married. I do not believe that God is a Boy Scout.

Let us pray for BSA to lift the ban on sexual orientation and for gay rights activists to find another target for their unquenchable wrath.

---

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.

January 28, 2013 | 1:26 am

Thoughts on Mormon praise for Martin Luther, a Jew-hater

Posted by Mark Paredes

"Martin Luther and other reformers were inspired to create a religious climate in which God could restore lost truths and priesthood authority” – LDS Apostle M. Russell Ballard, quoted in the current LDS Sunday School manual

“Even if they [the Jews] were punished in the most gruesome manner that the streets ran with their blood, that their dead would be counted, not in the hundred thousands, but in the millions… they are the devil's children, damned to Hell...” – Martin Luther

---

I am indebted to one of my regular Mormon readers for providing the inspiration for today’s post. He is welcome to identify himself in the comments section below, but will remain anonymous in this essay. Our friend objected to a Sunday School teacher’s praise of Martin Luther last week, and took the extraordinary step of emailing a church department in Salt Lake City to urge them to rethink their positive views of a vicious anti-Semite. Although I had nothing to do with the letter, he copied me on it. This is not the first time that I have encountered anti-Luther sentiment in the LDS community (though it pales when compared to anti-Mormon sentiment among some Lutherans), and I think that a brief public discussion of this topic would be useful.

According to LDS theology, the original, “true” Christian church lost its priesthood and accompanying divine authority shortly after the deaths of the original apostles. A restoration of God’s priesthood, along with prophets, apostles, and revelation, became necessary. However, only God, not man, could restore this authority, and it is an axiom of our faith that this happened when the restored Church of Jesus Christ was organized in 1830 by a modern prophet, Joseph Smith.

That said, we have great admiration for those Protestant reformers who rebelled centuries earlier against the excesses of the dominant church in Europe and attempted to restore original Christianity on their own. We don’t believe that they were authorized by God to organize their churches, but we do believe that some of them were inspired to create what became Protestantism, which ultimately led to the founding of a mostly Protestant country in the Americas where God’s true church could be restored. Given that Martin Luther was the first great Protestant leader, it is understandable that he is often praised in LDS literature for his boldness and determination.

That said, I agree with the LDS Luther-haters on a basic level. After all, if Luther had had the power to implement his publicly expressed policies vis-à-vis the Jews, there would have been no need for Hitler and his Final Solution: all of Germany’s Jews would have been exterminated or expelled centuries ago. Not only do I find Luther’s anti-Semitic rants deplorable, but his religious legacy supports my thesis that those who hate Jews almost always hate Mormons as well. Having grown up in Frankenlust Township in a small Michigan city that was half-German, I am well aware of lingering anti-Mormon feelings among Lutherans. In high school I befriended the son of a Lutheran pastor who hated the LDS Church: after a few arguments, we agreed to discuss everything but religion.

In the end, viewing this controversy through a Jewish prism yields valuable insights that allow me to support Mormon praise for one of the Nazis’ heroes. First of all, neither Jews nor Mormons expect perfection from religious leaders, and believe that deeply flawed people can nevertheless receive divine inspiration to further God’s purposes. Solomon, the great Israelite king who built the First Temple in Jerusalem, later turned to idolatry and incurred God’s wrath. Moses killed a man, the Apostle Peter publicly denied on three occasions that he had known Jesus, and the Apostle Paul persecuted Christians before his miraculous conversion. None of these actions prevent Mormons from praising these men for the positive things that they did while under God’s inspiration. If Martin Luther posted his 95 theses in Wittenberg as a result of God’s influence, then he deserves to be honored for it, regardless of his subsequent descent into hatred and bigotry.

When considering LDS leaders’ praise of Luther, it’s helpful to compare it to Jewish leaders’ praise for some pro-Israel Christian leaders who also happen to be anti-Mormon. Does this bother me? Not in the slightest, because I know that Jews are praising those Christians for their support of Israel, not their anti-Mormon activities. In a similar vein, Mormons who aren’t too keen on Luther (like yours truly) would do well to remember that LDS leaders have never praised his anti-Semitism, only his role in establishing Protestantism.

I always mention Luther’s anti-Semitism when he is brought up in a Mormon setting, and encourage my fellow anti-Luther Mormons to do likewise. However, we can’t let our opposition to one feature of his ministry blind us to his significant religious contributions. Martin Luther was an inspired man for a period of time, and we do no harm to Jews by acknowledging this.

17 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

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 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 9, 2012 | 9:30 pm

Why I won’t see The Book of Mormon

Posted by Mark Paredes

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