May 4, 2013 | 12:17 am

Mormon and Jewish interfaith marriage rates: Of temples and missionaries

Posted by Mark Paredes

Follow me on

I read with great interest Naomi Schaefer Riley’s recent Forward article, in which she contrasts the low LDS interfaith marriage rate and the relatively high Jewish rate while proffering areas for emulation to her Jewish readers. I believe there are two main reasons why Mormons tend to marry other Mormons, only one of which is mentioned by the author.

The first is our newly-expanded missionary program, which sends tens of thousands of young men and women all over the world to study and spread their faith. As Ms. Riley notes, returned missionaries generally maintain high levels of activity in the church. My wife and I were both sent to foreign countries, where we had to learn a new language and culture, study the doctrines of our faith, and preach to others during the prime of our lives. Given the level of desire and commitment involved, it’s not surprising that most former missionaries choose to continue their church service upon their return.

Jews have the Birthright program, but a 10-day stay in Israel designed to reinforce feelings of Jewish peoplehood and identity is hardly comparable to two years of intense missionary work. It would be unrealistic to expect them to achieve the same results in religious retention.

Although the Forward article was very interesting and insightful, the omission of temple marriage was glaring. The crowning ordinance of our faith is eternal marriage in the Abrahamic covenant, which can only be performed in our temples. In addition, only faithful Mormons can participate in this ceremony, which binds couples together for eternity. Mormons are taught from childhood not to settle for less than a temple marriage, and most active members don’t.

As I see it, there are two obstacles to lowering the intermarriage rate for non-Orthodox Jews. One is the claim, which I still struggle to comprehend, that atheism and agnosticism are perfectly acceptable expressions of Jewishness. If they are, then there is not a compelling reason to find a marriage partner who is a member of a particular religious faith.

The second obstacle has to do with Jews’ reluctance to seek to convert non-Jews. Let’s take me as an example. If I were dating a non-Orthodox Jewish woman and agreed to raise our children as Jews, why should she decline my marriage proposal? I’ve lived in Israel, speak Hebrew, love Jews and the Jewish community, and blog for a Jewish website. As long as our kids would be raised as Jews, what difference should it make to her what my religious views are since Jews don’t seek to change others’ beliefs? Mormons can’t have a temple marriage without another Mormon. Non-Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, can live a fulfilling Jewish life with a non-Jewish spouse.

Of course, it’s difficult to compare even the hand-wringing by both communities when their members marry outside the faith. When a Mormon marries a Lutheran, there may be deep disappointment that a temple marriage will not take place. However, there is no concept of a people that is being diminished by this marriage choice. 

Ms. Riley has opened up an interesting discussion, one I hope will be held in many cities across the country between Jews and Mormons. The truth is that if non-Orthodox American Jews want to lessen their intermarriage rate without becoming Orthodox, the best thing they can do is to make their faith a proselytizing one. I have no doubt that the results would be astonishing.

April 21, 2013 | 10:49 pm

Canadian Mormons commemorate Yom Hashoah

Posted by Mark Paredes

After speaking with a prominent Orthodox rabbi in Montreal a few years ago, I had the distinct impression that great things were going to happen on the Jewish-Mormon front in that beautiful city. One of the stake presidents (regional leaders) is Eric Jarvis, a psychiatrist at Jewish General Hospital, and he and his wife Catherine have engaged the Jewish community in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding that is truly inspiring.

Last weekend President Jarvis’s stake hosted a Yom Hashoah commemoration on behalf of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue of Montreal. The stake president’s presentation was followed by one made by a female rabbi, who declared herself “a member of the LGBT community and a friend of the Roma.” Unsurprisingly, the Canadian Jewish press focused on President Jarvis’s reiteration of the church’s ban on performing temple ordinances for Holocaust victims unless they were direct descendants of living Mormons. Regular readers know that I have a self-imposed ban on blogging about this manufactured controversy, but I think that it was appropriate for President Jarvis to address the issue in that setting.

Here is a link to the article in The Canadian Jewish News, the largest Jewish newspaper in the country.  Yasher koach, Eric and Catherine.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

April 14, 2013 | 11:26 pm

A new philo-Semitic Mormon bishop in LA

Posted by Mark Paredes

Today I was ordained a Mormon bishop, the equivalent of a volunteer pulpit rabbi. I was as surprised as anyone when the call was extended to me, but I accepted knowing that I would have the support of my lovely wife and our diverse, dynamic Koreatown congregation.

Although a bishop’s position is a volunteer one, you don’t sign up to become a bishop. Instead, regional leaders prayerfully identify a married man whom they feel God has called to lead a congregation and submit his name to the First Presidency, the top three leaders of the church in Salt Lake City. After receiving approval from the First Presidency, the regional leader (stake president) conducts interviews with the prospective bishop and his wife, and then calls the man to serve as bishop. Most bishops serve for about five years. 

A former bishop told me this week that this calling is where “the rubber meets the road” in the church. My main responsibilities will include working with youth, helping people who are in need of material assistance, presiding at meetings, preparing members to go to the temple, reviewing numerous reports, and overseeing the congregation’s spiritual life. I will attempt to do all of this while holding down a regular job, blogging for the Jewish Journal, and spending quality time with my pregnant wife. It’s no wonder that bishops frequently ask their congregants to pray for them.

One new responsibility that intrigues me is that of being a “judge in Israel.” If members have committed serious sins and/or are in need of spiritual counseling, they will come to me for help with repenting and reconciling themselves to God.

I look forward to this challenging yet rewarding calling, which will allow me to serve a large congregation in a very meaningful way. If possible, I will look for ways to collaborate with the local Jewish community on tikkun olam and other projects.  I thank my readers in advance for their support and prayers during this exciting time of service and sacrifice.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

April 6, 2013 | 12:39 am

The Supreme Court and gay marriage: no compelling secular reason to deny it

Posted by Mark Paredes

After taking the time to digest countless editorials, blog posts, and articles on the recent gay marriage cases argued at the Supreme Court, I remain convinced that there are valid religious reasons for opposing gay marriage, but no secular ones. While religious people should certainly be free to vote according to their deeply-held convictions, most anti-gay marriage arguments don’t adequately address the one principle that gay marriage advocates often seek to avoid when discussing marriage: its central role in the bearing and rearing of children.

The overwhelming majority of male-female married couples – I’ve seen figures as high as 80% -- raise children at some point during their relationship. Attempts to deny this come across as rather silly. Yes, we all know elderly couples who marry, couples who choose not to have kids, couples who can’t have kids, etc. However, this doesn’t change the basic fact that the reason secular governments accord marriage pride of place in the hierarchy of relationships is because it is the best way we’ve found to provide stable relationships for the rearing of children.

Not only do I recognize the state’s interest in promoting marriage, but I also believe that a father-mother combination is the best one for children. That said, when it comes to kids we can’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good. While I don’t think that Justice Kennedy was terribly eloquent when raising the issue of children of gays during oral arguments, he brought up a point that I have not seen successfully rebutted with secular arguments: Given that gay parents are raising tens of thousands of children nationwide, is it better for those kids for their parents to be legally bound to each other and legally responsible for the raising of their kids, or for the parents to simply shack up because they’re not allowed to marry? It’s very difficult to argue that it’s better for kids for their straight parents to be legally bound together, while kids of gay parents would be better off if their parents simply live together. In addition, dedicated stepparents and adoptive parents are proof positive that one does not have to be a blood relative of a child in order to love and raise it.

While certain sexual acts are condemned in the Bible, both modern American society and the Supreme Court are of the opinion that the government should stay out of the bedrooms of consenting adults. Moreover, gays are now pretty much fully integrated into society, including the military. In light of this, it becomes an increasingly untenable secular position to say that millions of people and their children should be denied the benefits of a privilege granted to other people in society solely because of their sexual orientation.

Whichever way the Supreme Court rules, I do hope it establishes a national standard for marriage. I’m usually in favor of states’ rights on most issues, but I do think that a national standard is needed here. It seems needlessly confusing and inconsistent for a couple to be married in one state and then lose their status as a legal couple when they cross a state line. Ditto for divorces of married gay couples if they happen to live in a state that doesn’t recognize their relationship. Until recently, marriage in our 50 states was always between men and women. Minimum ages and requirements for marriage may have differed from state to state, but the basic male-female dynamic was the same until Massachusetts legalized gay marriage nine years ago. I think that it should stay that way (again, for religious reasons.) However, if the justices want that arrangement to change, they should issue broad rulings that affect all 50 states. If you’re an adult of legal age, whether you’re married in America shouldn’t depend on where you happen to be living.

How to vote on gay marriage in the privacy of a voting booth is abundantly clear to me as a religious Mormon. However, if I were a judge ruling on the issue, I would be hard pressed to craft a ruling that affirms traditional marriage with a compelling reason that goes beyond the “it’s always been this way” stock answer. Until recently, gay couples were not having and adopting thousands of children on the scale that we see today. Many of them are anxious to have their relationship legally recognized, and I’m fairly certain that they will eventually be granted their wish. Pace Justice Scalia, the secular question is not whether it is constitutional for states to continue their centuries-old promotion of traditional marriage, but whether a compelling argument that does not violate the 14th Amendment can be made for governments to continue to make a legal distinction between straight and gay relationships. Unless a judge wants to incorporate Scripture into his ruling, the Equal Protection Clause will likely trump Leviticus every time.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

March 30, 2013 | 9:39 am

Mormon student vs Democratic vice-chairman on Florida campus

Posted by Mark Paredes

As a Mormon blogger on religion, I would be remiss in extremis if I did not use this space to send out kudos to Ryan Rotella, a junior at Florida Atlantic University (and devout Mormon) who was suspended from a class after refusing a request from the vice-chairman of the Palm Beach Democratic Party, an instructor at the university, to write “Jesus” on a piece of paper and then stomp on it. The purpose of the anti-Christian class exercise was apparently lost on Mr. Rotella, who confronted Dr. Deandre Poole after class, reported the incident to Poole’s supervisor, and was then asked not to return to the class. Thankfully, FAU’s website shows that the instructor has been placed on administrative leave and will not teach classes, hold office hours, or be present on the campus.

According to Poole’s bio, his research focuses on “the role mediated messages play in shaping individual attitudes and beliefs concerning issues of justice and inequality, and examines how leaders, organizations, and other influential authorities dominate and oppress marginalized groups of people.” The offending exercise allegedly came from a book by James W. Neuliep that is supposed to “provide a clear contextual model (visually depicted by a series of concentric circles) for examining communication within cultural, microcultural, environmental, sociorelational, and perceptual contexts.” It’s a wonder to me how Howard University, which educates so many thoughtful undergraduates, can churn out so many brain-dead graduate students.  With all due respect to Mr. Rotella, I think it might be time to consider transferring to a BYU campus.

To those who might object to my mentioning Poole’s political office/affiliation (once again, he’s a prominent Democrat), I have one question: Is it remotely possible that a Republican vice-chairman anywhere in the country would ask students to stomp on Jesus?

In the end, I have contempt for the class exercise because it is not only anti-Christian but cowardly to boot. Has Poole ever asked students to stomp on pieces of paper with “Allah,” “Buddha,” “Moses,” or even “Martin Luther King, Jr.” on them? I doubt it. Anti-Christian bigotry remains the only acceptable form of religious prejudice in our society, and I’m as proud as can be that it was a Mormon student who stood up to this bigot. May Ryan's tribe increase.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

March 24, 2013 | 10:53 pm

Why peace with Abbas and Hamas is worse than occupation

Posted by Mark Paredes

Mai bine singur decât cu o companie proastă [Better single than with bad company] – Romanian proverb

-----

When I was single, I met lots of people who thought that not being married was the worst thing that could happen to them. They allowed their marital status to define -- and depress -- them, and generally held the view that if they could just get married, their lives would be immeasurably happier. Though I have always wanted to marry, and count it my greatest blessing that I now have a lovely wife, I learned through the experiences of others who married in haste and repented at leisure that there are, in fact, worse things in life than being single. One of them is surely choosing a mate who has repeatedly  expressed a desire to kill you.

In the case of Israel and peacemaking with Palestinian leaders, it is much better for Israel to continue occupying Judea and Samaria with little international support than to sign an existential peace agreement with an autocratic mediocrity like Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas’s presidential term officially expired more than four years ago, so he currently wields unelected power and has no mandate from his people. In addition, he has no control over what happens in Gaza, which is led by the anti-Semitic terrorist organization Hamas.

When it comes to identifying good and evil in the world, personal relationships can often cause moral myopia. The fact that you and I may know many wonderful Palestinians who desire peace and live exemplary lives means absolutely nothing in the context of Middle East peacemaking. Israel has to negotiate with Abbas and Hamas, not with your Palestinian friends. Truth be told, if your friends really do want to make peace with Israel and live in harmony with Jews, they have no chance at all of leading a Palestinian government. So far, that high honor has gone to an indicted Nazi war criminal who planned a Final Solution for the Jews in Palestine (Amin al-Husseini), an arch-terrorist who led attacks on civilians in Israel, Jordan and Lebanon (Yasser Arafat), our friend Mr. Abbas (who wrote a doctoral thesis in Moscow entitled The Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement 1933 – 1945), and the Hamas terrorist group.   

Some of the brightest people I know like to point out that there are extremists in both Israel and “Palestine.” True enough, but they should be honest enough to admit that the extremists in Gaza and Ramallah run the government; Likud jokes aside, that is not the case in Jerusalem. While many of Israel’s leaders have engaged in corrupt, even criminal, behavior, at least they are elected – and arrested when their misdeeds come to light. I don’t know about you, but I would like to live in a country where the president can be accused of rape, forced to resign, and subsequently be convicted and sent to prison for seven years. Such a scenario is unimaginable in today’s Palestine.  

Over the past four years I have generally defended President Obama as a friend of Israel in spite of his strained relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu. However, that thankless task is now that much harder following Obama’s speech in Ramallah with a large banner of Arafat’s ugly face serving as a backdrop. No U.S. official has any business honoring Arafat (may his name and memory be erased) at a public or private event. When it came to Jews, the only difference between Arafat’s desires and Hitler’s was their capability. If Arafat & Co. had had their way, the Jewish state, along with millions of its Jewish inhabitants, would have been destroyed.

The greatest monument to anti-Semitism in the world would be the creation of a Palestinian state. I always support whatever peace policies the democratically-elected Israeli government adopts, but I would refuse to support its recognition of the fictional Palestinian “right of return.” Palestinians are refugees because they (or their parents or grandparents) collectively rejected a two-state solution and actively supported the efforts of Arab armies to destroy the Jews in Palestine and their nascent state. Had they not attacked the Jews, they would still be living in Safed, Jaffa, and Haifa. Led by Nazi collaborators and terrorists, Palestinians went on to carry out terror attacks in Jordan, Lebanon, the world’s airports, and the Olympics. They also supported Saddam Hussein in his rape of Kuwait. To add insult to injury, Palestinian leaders deceived President Clinton, Yitzhak Rabin and their successors for years in doomed peace negotiations.

No people that is led in part by Hamas deserves a state. No people that celebrated the 9/11 attacks deserves a state. No people that names streets, squares, and schools in honor of suicide bombers deserves a state. No people that has claimed for decades that the world owes them a living deserves a state. No people that believes that it is entitled to a “do-over” because their first few attempts to destroy Israel failed deserves a state. No people that wants to create a state that is free of Jews deserves a state alongside Israel. Israel may eventually choose to acquiesce in the creation of Palestine, but it certainly won’t be because the Palestinians deserve it.

A famous Jew once said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If this is true, there is a lot of insanity at the White House and State Department. President Obama missed a golden opportunity during his visit to Ramallah to send a message that might produce the change that Palestinians claim to believe in. Instead of propping up the Abbas cabal, Obama should have told Palestinians in blunt terms that their leadership is unacceptable. Every Palestinian I know in the U.S. is a professional of some kind. It strains credulity to claim that Abbas and Hamas are the best leaders that Palestinians can produce; moreover, it is not a "pro-Palestinian" position to ask Israel to negotiate with them. True supporters of Palestinians would demand better leaders and more democracy in Ramallah and Gaza.

In the end, I do not currently support a Palestinian state because I think that it would attempt to destroy Israel. Nothing that I have seen during Obama’s visit has changed my view. The word needs to tell Palestinians that their suffering is the result of their past choices. If they want their suffering to end, they have to choose different leaders and eschew violence. If Palestinians can rise to the occasion and produce presidents worthy of the name who can transform their society, then they should be allowed to negotiate peace with Israel. If they elect to continue down the same road of disappointment, violence, and hatred, then I wish them many more years of occupation. There are worse things than not negotiating with terrorists, and the premature establishment of “Palestine” is one of them.

Chag sameach to all of my Jewish readers.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

March 20, 2013 | 11:26 pm

General Conference and The Forward’s top rabbis

Posted by Mark Paredes

In just over two weeks, Mormons around the world will gather for the church’s semiannual General Conference, broadcast around the world via satellite from Salt Lake City. During five two-hour sessions over two days, top LDS leaders will teach and inspire members with spiritual sermons. On the Saturday prior to the conference, a worldwide broadcast will be made of the general meeting of the Relief Society, the world’s largest women’s organization (all LDS women 18 and over are members). Relief Society leaders will speak on topics of interest to women and families, and they’ll be joined by one of the church’s top three leaders. In addition, leaders in the youth and Sunday School programs hold annual training meetings that are webcast for use by local leaders throughout the world.

These conferences are repeated at the local level, where leaders hold semiannual stake conferences that allow members to hear from and come to know their regional leaders. Bishops (heads of congregations) are also required to hold ward conferences once a year. In this way Mormons become very familiar with their local, regional, and general leaders, and are able to hear from them directly on a regular basis.

I thought of these conferences while reading The Forward’s current list of “America’s Most Inspiring Rabbis.” I have met only one of the rabbis on the list (Rabbi Lisa Edwards, head of one of the most friendly synagogues in town), and would certainly welcome the opportunity to learn from the others as well. Instead of simply listing names with accompanying testimonials, in the future The Forward may want to provide links to audio clips, video clips, or even the texts of inspiring sermons given by these rabbis so that we could all learn from these gifted teachers.

I think that it’s important for the Jewish community and the world to be exposed on a regular basis to contemporary rabbinic thought. If it were up to me, there would be a website for rabbis and other figures in the Jewish community to upload their speeches, writings and presentations on a regular basis, possibly following publication in other media. 

A website devoted to the writings and speeches of contemporary rabbis is long overdue. The Jewish exposition of ethical monotheism is sorely needed in today’s society, and I’m pretty sure that some thoughtful rabbis aren’t getting enough exposure. In addition to the educational benefit of such a website, it would have an important practical one: the relative ease of drafting future lists of influential rabbis.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

March 15, 2013 | 9:34 pm

Help needed for Passover seder in Warsaw

Posted by Mark Paredes

People who know me well know that if I had millions of dollars to give to charity, one of my projects would be to help build up the LDS and Jewish communities of Eastern Europe. I have spoken on the Mormon-Jewish connection in Hungary, Poland, and Romania, and remain optimistic about the future spiritual growth of those countries. The renewal of Jewish life in Poland is especially exciting. Following my speech in Warsaw (in Polish), I had the honor of meeting Chief Rabbi Michael Schudrich and touring the Nożyk Synagogue with Piotr Kowalik, a prominent local Jewish leader.

I was therefore pleasantly surprised to receive an email this week from Rabbi Haim Dov Beliak, a rabbi who has decided to dedicate his life to Jewish renewal in Poland and other countries. I have known Rabbi Beliak for years, and we agree on very few political and social issues. However, he knows of my desire to support the Jewish community in Poland, and I was pleased to be included on his distribution list for this action item.

Beit Warszawa is the Progressive/Reform synagogue in Warsaw, and it will be holding a Passover seder on the evening of March 25. That night it will also commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising. Apparently the budget for the evening is currently in the red due to higher prices, and contributions would be greatly appreciated. An adult ticket to the seder costs 100 zloty, or about $30.

It is very important for Jews around the world to be able to celebrate Passover. It is doubly so in countries like Poland, where the Jewish renewal efforts must succeed. If you are able to contribute funds or at least buy a ticket to support the evening, please let me know and I’ll put you in contact with Rabbi Beliak. Whether you are Mormon or Jew, the fact that Jews of any movement are celebrating Passover in a land that almost witnessed their annihilation seven decades ago is a modern miracle. As countless Jews and Mormons sit down to their Passover meals next week, I hope that some of them will act to ensure that Jews in Warsaw are able to put on a memorable seder as well.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

March 11, 2013 | 1:00 am

Papabili rabbis and holy envy

Posted by Mark Paredes

The papabile.

After my first year of law school, I spent half the summer clerking at a law firm in Rome whose office was just a few blocks from the Vatican. I went to St. Peter’s Square every day for lunch, got to touch Pope John Paul II’s hand as he whisked by in his Popemobile during a general audience, and attended a semiprivate papal audience (along with a few thousand other people) in a large auditorium. Those experiences left me with a lifelong fascination with the Vatican, and I have been following the Italian and American press religiously over the past few weeks as they try to predict which of the “papabili” will be the next Pope.  As I direct my gaze towards the chimney of the Sistine Chapel this week, I will be filled with holy envy – of the Jewish community.

Since I blog for a Jewish website, I drafted a list of rabbis who would be my “papabili” if an election were held for Chief Rabbi of LA. Should I go with erudition over charisma, to the extent that they are mutually exclusive? Should a rabbinate be centered on social justice? Torah teaching? Israel issues? Los Angeles is blessed with an abundance of capable rabbis, and narrowing the list was very hard to do. In the end, I chose one rabbi from each of the three major movements: David Woznica (Reform), Ed Feinstein (Conservative), and Elazar Muskin (Orthodox).

Holy envy rears its head when I think of the opportunities that these rabbis and other Jewish leaders have to carve out their own niche in the Jewish world while remaining under the Jewish community’s expansive umbrella. A rabbi can teach, head a congregation, create a nonprofit organization, work for a Jewish organization, become a newspaper columnist, or follow any number of professional paths that lead to his/her fulfillment. Things are a little different in the hierarchical, structured LDS world.

Mormon bishops – the closest LDS equivalent to rabbis -- don’t choose their callings; instead, they are invited to serve their congregations in a volunteer capacity for about five years. They are of course free to engage in any of the activities mentioned above like teaching and founding nonprofits, but these private activities fall outside the official LDS umbrella. For example, there are only a few official periodicals published by the church. If a group of Mormon bishops got together in LA and decided to publish an LDS-themed newspaper, they would have a zero percent chance of receiving official church sanction of their efforts, even though many Mormons might read their paper. The Jewish Journal, by way of contrast, is very much a part of LA’s “official” Jewish community, even though to the best of my knowledge there is no rabbi in a senior position at the paper.

LDS bishops are given specific responsibilities, though they do have some leeway in how they carry them out. These include focusing on youth programs and counseling those seeking repentance for past wrongs.  A bishop can’t suddenly decide that he’s going to set aside his administrative or counseling responsibilities so that he can devote more pulpit time to teaching, involving his congregation in social justice campaigns, etc. He’s certainly welcome to do these things on his own time, but not in his capacity as an LDS leader.

Rabbis have an enviable opportunity to personalize their rabbinates, and they do a wonderful job applying their training and talents to tikkun olam and serving the Jewish community. Catholic Cardinals, like LDS leaders, have a little less leeway in their capacity as senior representatives of a hierarchical church, but it is my sincere hope that they will be moved this week to elect a leader of the world’s largest church who will be worthy of the job.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

March 5, 2013 | 12:40 am

Ron Wolfson and home teaching for Jews

Posted by Mark Paredes

It’s been a good night so far. My lovely wife and I met a Mormon couple from Utah for dinner at Factor’s, my favorite LA Jewish deli. The philo-Semitic husband and I have been corresponding for some time after he saw a newspaper article on my blog, and it was nice to finally meet him and his better half and to exchange insights on subjects like the 11th chapter of Isaiah and the remarkable history of the Jewish people. He is planning to attend the upcoming Jerusalem Post conference in New York before making his first visit to Israel, and became very emotional as he described what visiting the Holy Land means to him. It’s always inspiring to hear Mormons express their love for Israel and Jews, and when we parted I had the feeling that his Israel experience would impact the rest of his life.

After arriving home, I read Susan Freudenheim’s interesting article on Ron Wolfson’s latest book in this week’s Jewish Journal. In “Relational Judaism: Using the Power of Relationships to Transform the Jewish Community,” Dr. Wolfson argues that developing genuine relationships with people should be more important to the Jewish community than programming and meetings. His advice for attracting and retaining unaffiliated Jews? Spend more time listening and talking with people.

I agree completely with Dr. Wolfson’s thesis; I only wish that he had mentioned the LDS Church alongside Chabad and Evangelical churches when citing role models for this kind of engagement.  As part of our efforts to foster retention, every new member is supposed to be given some kind of responsibility, or calling, in his congregation. In a church with a lay ministry, this is usually pretty easy to do. One calling that is shared by almost all active Mormon adults is to serve as a home teacher (men) or visiting teacher (women).

Home and visiting teachers are assigned certain individuals and families to befriend and visit in their homes on a regular basis, usually monthly. If the families need fellowshipping and friendship, this is an excellent way for them to make new friends in the church. If they have specific needs that the church can meet, the home teachers convey these needs to the appropriate church officials. Not all members who receive these visits go to church regularly: many inactive or semi-active members (= unaffiliated Mormons) are assigned home teachers. Indeed, I am eternally grateful to two home teachers in Mount Pleasant, Michigan who were assigned to visit a newly-relocated member who had no desire to see them. They persisted, and as a result my mother, siblings and I were baptized.

I have no doubt that this kind of program would be of help to most synagogues in increasing and/or retaining their membership. In fact, home teaching seems to be tailor-made for large groups of Jews. Assign members of the congregation to befriend and visit several other members – or prospective members – on a regular basis and see what happens. In my experience, Jews are great listeners who care deeply about other people and seek to help them wherever possible. A Jewish home teaching program would allow synagogues to channel this empathy into member retention and enrichment. Many lifelong friendships have been created in the Mormon community as a result of these visits, and there is every reason to expect the same result from Jews cementing their friendship with other Jews on a monthly basis.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 23, 2013 | 12:00 am

Viva Ladino! Mormon student promotes upcoming UCLA conference on Judeo-Spanish

Posted by Mark Paredes

When I arrived in Israel as a young diplomat, Ladino saved me. Although I had studied Hebrew for six months at the Foreign Service Institute in Washington and with a private tutor in Mexico, the rate at which Israelis spoke Hebrew was a little too rapid for me to follow at first. Much to my delight, I discovered that Turkish taxi drivers and some Moroccan and Greek Jews were able to talk with me in a slightly antiquated form of Spanish. During my first few months in Israel, whenever I met a Sephardic Jew, I asked him in Hebrew if he spoke Ladino. If the answer was “sí,” I immediately switched to Spanish. Ladino helped ease the transition to life in Israel for me, and I still listen to Ladino music as often as possible.

Given my affinity for Ladino, I was pleasantly surprised to receive an email earlier this month from Bethany, a Mormon graduate student in UCLA’s Department of Spanish and Portuguese.  The university is planning to host its second annual Judeo-Spanish Symposium next month, and she wanted to enlist my help in promoting it. Of course, I would have immediately agreed no matter who had asked me, but the fact that a Mormon was put in charge of publicity for a conference on Judeo-Spanish made me even more willing to lend a hand.

I did ask Bethany why modern linguists and Spanish speakers should be interested in learning about Ladino. Her response is pretty convincing: “The connections between Spanish and Judeo-Spanish are many, and so it's perhaps natural for those who study Spanish to at least have an awareness of them, and to recognize the influence of Judeo-Spanish in various nations of the Americas, from the U.S. to Argentina. The history of Judeo-Spanish is fascinating and complex. Yet, it's not just a historical language, since it's spoken today in many nations around the world. Internet sites like Ladinokomunita have allowed speakers from all over to connect with one another, and they foster dialogue. The music is also thriving, with performers and audiences appreciating the unique style and lyrics. It's important to recognize the vibrancy and cultural importance of Judeo-Spanish--it's not a ‘dead’ language, and there are many people who want to make sure it never becomes one, lest those cultural elements be lost.”

Hats off to Bethany and the students at ucLADINO for all of their hard work. If you’re interested in attending the conference on March 5-6, here is the link with all of the information you need:

https://sites.google.com/site/ucladino/

Hasta pronto!

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 18, 2013 | 1:09 am

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

Posted by Mark Paredes

“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.

17 Comments — Leave your comment