May 22, 2012 | 12:50 am

Jews say no to online porn; Mormons applaud

Posted by Mark Paredes

Follow me on

The speakers at Citi Field said that if improperly used, the Internet can destroy families, with gambling, pornography and other addictions. But mostly, surfing the Internet is a colossal waste of precious time young people could spend working or studying. – Rabbi Gershon Tannenbaum, Brooklyn

I raise an apostolic voice of warning about the potentially stifling, suffocating, suppressing, and constraining impact of some kinds of cyberspace interactions and experiences upon our souls. The concerns I raise are not new; they apply equally to other types of media, such as television, movies, and music. But in a cyber world, these challenges are more pervasive and intense. I plead with you to beware of the sense-dulling and spiritually destructive influence of cyberspace technologies that are used to produce high fidelity and that promote degrading and evil purposes. – Elder David Bednar, an LDS Apostle

——-

When my wife told me that tens of thousands of religious men had gathered at a stadium in New York yesterday to hear sermons on the dangers of the internet, I was sure that some kind of LDS priesthood meeting had been held. It turned out to be a gathering of ultra-Orthodox Jewish men, and the speakers were rabbis instead of apostles and prophets. Nevertheless, the unprecedented event highlighted the desire of religiously observant leaders throughout the country to warn their congregants of the downside to a wireless world.

In recent years it seems that at almost every large LDS conference, at least one speaker condemns online pornography. When my former stake president (= Catholic bishop) began his service, one of the first things that he did was to establish a pornography self-help group for members of the stake (= diocese). He had been a bishop (= rabbi) for many years, and after counseling many pornography addicts he had decided to help them.

Of course, Mormons are avid users of the internet (as are many ultra-Orthodox Jews). The LDS Church itself has a large online presence, and Mormons use the internet to promote their values and beliefs to a worldwide audience. However, we are regularly reminded by our leaders to be careful about the websites we visit and the online contacts that we make. If the Jewish gathering in New York is any indication, our mutual concern over internet abuse may lead to fruitful collaboration in the future between the LDS and Orthodox communities.

As a postscript, I’d like to add my firm belief that the extension of First Amendment protection of political speech to pornographers is one of the greatest legal fictions of our time.           

10 Comments — Leave your comment

Share this post: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati YahooMyWeb

May 13, 2012 | 11:42 pm

Gay rabbis, God’s will, and Conservative Judaism

Posted by Mark Paredes

But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.

Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
Deuteronomy 5:31-32

——-

The recent decision by the Schechter Rabbinical Seminary in Jerusalem to admit gay and lesbian students is about the best example of Mormon/Jewish divergence that can be found in contemporary Judaism. The Conservative seminary’s statement affirmed that it is “bound by Halacha [Jewish law], whose inclusive approach allows for a variety of halachic opinions.” In other words, Schechter considers itself bound by Jewish law, which for millennia has condemned homosexual behavior, while also considering itself free to invent new Jewish law to which it will be bound. Mormonism and contemporary Conservative Judaism diverge widely on this issue, which highlights the role of continuing revelation (or the lack thereof) in the development of a religion’s theology.

To begin with, let us state the obvious: Schechter is free to make whatever admissions and ordination decisions it wants. It’s not for me to say whether the seminary should admit gay Jews, pork-eating Jews, or atheist Jews. Some of the most energetic and passionate rabbis whom I have met are gay, and I have no doubt that they will make significant contributions to Jewish life wherever they serve. I write a blog about religion, and am primarily concerned about the theological justifications used to back the change. In this case, I was very disappointed.

A recent interview conducted by Jewish Journal writer Shmuel Rosner with Professor Hanan Alexander, the chair of Schechter’s board of trustees, is very revealing. When asked how exactly the seminary’s decision is compatible with “religious Jewish law,” the professor inexplicably (and inaccurately) states that “Jewish law has always allowed for the possibility that more than one ‎interpretation is correct.” Alas, this principle is completely absent from the Hebrew Bible, where prophets were the only ones authorized to declare God’s word. No authoritative dissenting interpretations of Jewish law are recorded from Genesis to Malachi. From the time of Moses (~1400 BCE) until at least the time of the Mishnah (200 CE), halachic pluralism did not exist. By way of example, the Pharisees and Sadducees may have promoted contradictory halachic interpretations, but they viewed the other movement’s views as erroneous and even heretical. It is correct to say that Rabbinic Judaism has always allowed for halachic pluralism, but it is erroneous to assert that Jewish law has always done so.

For Mormons, the question for Conservative rabbis who support the liberal shift on issues related to homosexual conduct is whether they claim that God has inspired the movement to do this. Is it God’s will that Conservative rabbinical courts approve gays and lesbians for ordination? If the answer is yes, then there’s nothing more to say. However, to my knowledge no Conservative rabbi has made this claim. Unlike Mormons, Jews don’t believe in continuing revelation – for them direct revelation from God to prophets stopped over two thousand years ago. While I understand this, it’s still hard to understand why a Conservative seminary professing fealty to Jewish law would claim the right to override a biblical prohibition on conduct that Leviticus called an “abomination” that defiled nations and the land itself. Many years later rabbis would put homosexual conduct in the category of “gilui arayot,” sexual acts that are forbidden to both Jews and Gentiles. 

The Conservative movement has adopted two responsa, or rabbinic onions, on homosexual conduct: one upholds the traditional ban in Jewish law, while another overrides it by claiming that all male homosexual conduct except for a specific sexual act were not prohibited by the Bible but by rabbis. The responsum goes on to argue that a rabbinic, though not a biblical, ban can be trumped by consideration for “human dignity” and “respect for others.”  This mirrors the evolution on gay issues in the Reform movement, whose leading rabbis wrote opinions opposing gay marriage until the 1990s, when they stopped citing Jewish law and began appealing to justice and equality (please see this useful database on the website of the Institute for Judaism and Sexual Orientation if you doubt this). The difference is that Reform Judaism does not regard Jewish law as binding; Conservative Judaism does.

Of the three major Jewish movements, the Conservative position on homosexual conduct is the hardest one to respect. Orthodoxy retains the ancient halachic prohibition, and Reform Judaism says it doesn’t care what halacha says about it. Conservative Judaism tries to have it both ways, and the halachic contortions it engages in to justify acceptance of this conduct results in a confusing, schizophrenic policy. When Conservative leaders make a sincere effort to find out what God wants Conservative Jews to do in this regard, I’m sure they will adopt a policy worthy of the movement that produces the most erudite, impressive rabbis in the country.

31 Comments — Leave your comment

May 7, 2012 | 8:33 am

The Book of Mormon in Hebrew—A Labor of Love

Posted by Mark Paredes

On this blog I occasionally profile people whose work should be known by both Mormons and Jews. When I heard that there was a rocket scientist in Alabama who is working on a Hebrew translation of the Book of Mormon, I knew that I had to find out more. By day Tom Irvine analyzes shock and vibration data from rocket vehicles for NASA. In his spare time, he translates the Book of Mormon into Hebrew. Since Mormons believe that the book was originally written in “reformed Egyptian” characters by people who also knew Hebrew (leading most LDS scholars to claim that it was written in either Egyptian or in Hebrew using an Egyptian script), this translation project promises to be an interesting one. At his request, I have posted Tom’s comments in full and unedited.

Q: You’re a rocket scientist. Where does your interest in learning Hebrew come from?

A: My Interest in Hebrew developed over a period of many years.  I have felt a melancholy emptiness in LDS Church meetings, where most of the membership is drawn from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. I have concluded that Ephraim and Manasseh without Judah is as the sound of one hand clapping.

The Book of Mormon teems with scriptures proclaiming that it must go forth unto the Jews, starting with its very title page. Elder Russell M. Nelson reaffirmed this in his October 2010 conference talk.  Elder Nelson is a member of the “Quorum of the Twelve Apostles” in the LDS Church.

Like Elder Nelson, I believe that the Book of Mormon can be the instrument for uniting the tribes of Israel.

The prophet Isaiah wrote that the Ephraim and Judah must reunite.  Isaiah 11:7 proclaims “. . . and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.”  The lion represents Judah, and the ox is Ephraim.  This chapter is repeated in the Book of Mormon.

Members of the LDS Church must embrace their Hebraic roots in order to prepare their hearts and minds for this reunion.

Q: Why did you decide to translate the Book of Mormon into Hebrew?

A: I set a goal some years ago to read the Book of Mormon in Hebrew.  I then discovered that the LDS Distribution Center does not currently offer one. So I decided to make my own translation and share it with others.

Q: How many more chapters do you have to go?

A: I have finished about 2/3 of the translation in terms of a first draft, which I began in August 2007.

Q: Are you being paid to do this?

A: I am not being paid in earthly cash, but the Lord has blessed me in many ways.

Q: Does the LDS Church already have a Hebrew translation of the Book of Mormon? Is it sponsoring your translation project?

A: The LDS Church briefly offered a Hebrew Book of Mormon in the early 1980s.  But it was withdrawn so that the LDS Church could establish its BYU Jerusalem Center.  Ultra-orthodox Jews at the time had protested that the BYU Center would be used for missionary work.  So the LDS Church made an agreement that no proselyting would be conducted in Israel.**

The LDS Church is not supporting my translation. Mr. Rob Jex, of the LDS Scripture Committee in Salt Lake City, called me on March 26, 2012 to inform me that LDS Church objects to my translation.  He requested that I “pull my website.”

That evening, I took a long walk and prayed about the situation. I received a burning in my heart from the Holy Ghost that I should carry on.  Jews will be familiar with the Holy Ghost as the Still, Small Voice which inspired Elijah. (1 Kings 19:12)

I state this only for disclosure.  I do not seek controversy.  I respect Mr. Jex, and I respect the Church’s position.

I am not making the translation for the LDS Church.  Rather I am doing it for the House of Israel.

Q: Have any Jews objected to your labor of love?

A: None has complained.

Q: What have you learned from translating this book of scripture into Hebrew?

A: Jesus the Messiah is the Torah made flesh and dwelt among us. Synthesis of 3 Nephi 15:9 & John 1:14.

The Jews are the Lord’s chosen people (2 Nephi 29:5).  He will honor all of His covenants with them.

Members of the LDS Church must embrace the Hebraic roots of their faith.  They can begin by praying for peace in Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6).  They can also learn the Shema which Jesus himself recited in Mark 12:28-29.

Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Ehad - Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is One

The theology of the Book of Mormon is richer in Hebrew than it is in English.  As one example, the title Lord is stated as YHWH in the Hebrew Book of Mormon.  YHWH is a form of the Hebrew Hayah (I AM) and is pronounced as Yahweh. The equivalent name in English is Jehovah.

The Hebrew Book of Mormon should thus be as much value to LDS members as it is for the Jews. 

Q: When you complete the translation, do you plan to publish it?

A: I am currently self-publishing the translation in pdf format at my website.  I do not have any plans for printing hard copies.

Q: Where can people go to view the ongoing translation? Do you need proofreaders?

A: Yes, I need proofreaders!

The ongoing translation is posted at:

http://www.vibrationdata.com/Book_of_Mormon_Hebrew.htm

Q: Are you active in any Jewish or pro-Israel organizations?

A: I have participated in Torah studies and Shabbat services in Jewish Temples from time to time.  My favorite part is singing the Shema.

Richard N. Holzapfel, a Hebrew scholar, is the current LDS Mission President in Alabama. I once asked him before a church meeting to recite the Shema in his talk.  I was delighted that he did so.

I also support Yad Ezra V’Shulamit, which distributes food baskets to families in Israel.  I am mindful of scriptures such as Genesis 12:3 and Isaiah 40:1 which remind us to give our support to the Jews.

And I visit cemeteries to place stones on Jewish grave markers.  I have posted some photos at: 

http://www.vibrationdata.com/Jewish_Gravestones.htm

——-

**There is freedom in religion in Israel, where proselytizing has always been legal. In order to obtain permission for ongoing construction at the BYU Center in Jerusalem in the 1980s, the LDS Church signed an agreement not to proselytize “so long as such activity is prohibited by the government of Israel.” Since the government of Israel does not prohibit proselytizing, the reason that Mormons aren’t preaching in Israel now is because their leaders voluntarily choose not to do so, not because they don’t have a legal right to share their beliefs. 

52 Comments — Leave your comment

April 29, 2012 | 9:56 pm

Israel Festival - Good Times at Rancho Park

Posted by Mark Paredes

Under the inspired leadership of Director Ron Smith, the Jewish Relations Committee for the LDS Church in Southern California has sponsored a booth at the Israel Festival in Los Angeles for the second time. Thousands of people attended today’s event, and many stopped by our booth to say hello and to thank us for being there. We handed out 250 Mormon Tabernacle Choir CDs (Broadway tunes), along with information on the history of LDS-Jewish ties and BYU’s Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. With New York’s Salute to Israel Parade and Chicago’s Jewish festival coming up in June, it would be great if Mormons could man booths at those celebrations as well.

This was my Romanian wife’s first Jewish festival and third Jewish event in LA. She was blown away by the energy and organization on display, along with the length of the food lines. For Mormons this was a chance to celebrate the achievements of our fellow Israelites, and it was a beautiful thing for us to see so many people spending their Sunday afternoon in a massive show of support for Israel and the Jewish people.

The LDS community does many things right, but our organized community of lay volunteers would have a hard time matching the output of the organized Jewish community, which is staffed by dedicated (and well-compensated) professionals. That said, I am proud to belong to a church with both a long history of philosemitism and a Jewish Relations Committee in this region. Judging from the comments made by visitors to our booth, more Jews are becoming aware of our bridge-building efforts. It is my hope that these interactions will lead to greater understanding and cooperation between our communities in the future. Am Israel Chai!

1 Comments — Leave your comment

April 22, 2012 | 11:07 pm

Jewish Survey: Mormons, Muslims much more popular than Evangelicals

Posted by Mark Paredes

While Mormons may baptize the occasional dead Jew, Jews can at least appreciate the thought and concern. Evangelicals just tell the Jews their ancestors are going to hell. This is probably why Jews prefer Mormons. – online comment on the Deseret News
——-
Whenever I’m looking for a story idea, I make sure to check Jamshid Askar’s latest articles. The Iranian-American LA native writes for the Deseret News, and usually has an interesting take on current events. This week he didn’t disappoint. Under a headline that grabbed the attention of most of his paper’s Utah readers, Jamshid reported the findings of the 2012 Jewish Values Survey. If the survey is to be believed, Jews strongly prefer Mormons to the Evangelical “Christian Right.” In addition, Jews also strongly favor Muslims over Evangelicals. This news has reaffirmed my belief in the intelligence and good judgment of our Jewish friends.

When asked to rate the three religious groups on a scale of 1 to 100, Jews scored Mormons at 47, Muslims at 41.4, and Evangelicals at an embarrassing 20.9. This survey represents a reality check for those prominent Jews who have worked hard for years to convince their coreligionists that Evangelicals are their best friends. However, they shouldn’t be surprised. With all due respect to Messrs. Prager, Medved et al., Evangelicals as a group largely deserve the poor grade they received.

Evangelicals often tout their suppport for Israel as evidence of their goodwill towards Jews. However, the poll clearly shows once again that Israel, rightly or wrongly, is not the number one concern of most American Jews. Once you factor their laudable support for Israel out of the equation, what do Evangelicals have to say to Jews?  Apparently not a whole lot. Some writers have pointed to liberal Jews’ disdain for Evangelicals’ conservative Republican politics as the prime mover behind the survey results. However, Mormons are the reddest religious group in the country, Utah is the most Republican state, and the LDS Church has been rather active recently in campaigns opposing gay marriage around the country. None of these “negatives” prevented Jews from expressing over a 2-to-1 preference for Mormons over Evangelicals.

Theological differences in and of themselves are unlikely to turn off large numbers of Jews, who have spent the past 2,000 years living as a religious minority among dominant faiths whose teachings they do not share. Mormons, Muslims, and Evangelicals all have profound theological differences with Rabbinic Judaism, yet it is the latter who now have a huge PR problem with the Jewish community. Given that most Evangelicals are wonderful people who love Israel and do an enormous amount of good in the world (including tikkun olam), to what can we attribute their unrequited love for Jews?

In my opinion, it is Evangelicals’ actions, rather than their beliefs, which have alienated many Jews and Mormons. I could write a book on this topic, but a few contrasting examples will suffice.

Mormons may send out missionaries, but Jews know they are not being targeted by them. If an LDS missionary knocks on a rabbi’s door, he knows that they will also stop by the homes of his Catholic and Methodist neighbors as well. By way of contrast, major Jews for Jesus/Messianic Jewish groups targeting Jews for conversion are Evangelical, and are funded and supported by Evangelical churches. Targeting the Jewish faith in this way demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for Judaism that cannot be overcome by holding pro-Israel rallies. Mormons also strongly believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, yet it is inconceivable that an LDS leader would follow Pastor John Hagee’s recent example and preach Christian doctrine while in an Orthodox Jewish building. Respect for other faiths is a bedrock LDS belief, and it is somewhat lacking in certain Evangelical circles.   

Both Mormons and Evangelicals tend to vote Republican, but only the latter impose litmus tests on prospective candidates seeking their vote. During this year’s Republican presidential primaries, several prominent Evangelical groups held public meetings to assess the candidates’ willingness to fight for their conservative agenda before endorsing them. To my knowledge, no Mormon group did this. Mormons disagree with Evangelical theology at least as much as Evangelicals do with ours, yet no Mormon leader has publicly accused a candidate of another Christian faith of belonging to a “cult” or organized a press conference to denounce his church.

Evangelical churches and organizations print anti-Mormon material, publish anti-Mormon books, and sponsor anti-Mormon lectures and conferences. Mormons do not reciprocate in kind. I have known Evangelicals who refused to attend the wedding of a family member because it was held in an LDS chapel (however, they did come to the reception held in a hotel). An Evangelical pastor in California canceled a speech that I was scheduled to give as a representative of the Israeli Consulate after he found out that I was LDS. Evangelical pastors regularly denounce Islam in the harshest terms. I could go on and on. It is clearly Evangelicals’ religious bigotry that alienates Jews, Mormons, and many others. This, combined with the Jewish perception that Evangelicalism represents a threat to their religion, is probably responsible for the survey results.

Of course, the survey also shows that Mormons have their work cut out for them when it comes to strengthening relationships with Jews. After all, 47 points out of 100 isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. That said, Mormons do have a big advantage over Evangelicals when it comes to Jews: Given our belief that we are covenant Israelites, our respect for Judaism is as strong as our support for Israel. When Evangelicals can say the same, they will have more success with Jewish outreach. 
 

10 Comments — Leave your comment

April 15, 2012 | 7:52 pm

Rosen, Romney, and Respect

Posted by Mark Paredes

A lot of Romney supporters were outraged over Hilary Rosen’s recent claim that Ann Romney “has actually never worked a day in her life” during a discussion about women and the economy on CNN. While Hilary was clearly referring to a regular 9-to-5 job, many thought that the liberal lobbyist was attacking Mrs. Romney’s choice to stay at home and raise her five sons while her husband worked to provide for the family.

I’m not all that interested in what Ms. Rosen has to say about anything, and I’m willing to bet that more women in this country can identify with a married mother of five who has battled cancer and MS than they can with a lesbian activist who broke up with her partner after they were fortunate enough to adopt twins together. Moreover, if women who are struggling to juggle their many responsibilities could schedule a counseling session with either Ann or Hilary to improve their situation, whose schedule would fill up first?

Ann Romney was married to a man who spent many years of his life counseling people with problems while serving as an LDS bishop and stake president in Boston. She went to church every week with people living normal lives, the same people whom Rosen claims Ann doesn’t understand because she doesn’t work in an office. It’s not surprising that Rosen’s bio reveals no similar period of selfless service to others. In short, Ann, like her husband, is a role model for all Americans in the family department, while Hilary Rosen is not. 
   
In the end, while I hardly think that Rosen is in a position to be criticizing a woman like Ann Romney, I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt on her statement for only one reason: she’s Jewish. I may be naïve, but it’s hard to believe that a woman from a faith and culture that are so success- and family-centered would question the ability of a wealthy woman who has successfully raised five sons to comment on the economic lives of other women. While most Jewish women I know have chosen to work while raising their children, they respect others’ choice to stay home.

In the ideal LDS arrangement, which the Romneys have, a married man and woman have different divinely-ordained roles to play in the rearing of children. The man is expected to work to support the family, while the woman stays at home to raise the children. Both serve in the church, with women called to serve and teach children, young women, and other women (they are also called to be organists, choir directors, etc.). Most married Mormons with children pattern their lives after this ideal. I have known exactly two active Mormon husbands who are stay-at-home dads. I respect their choice, but it’s not a common one in the LDS community. A few years ago I dated an LDS girl, a new convert, who thought it was important that a parent stay at home with our future children. Unfortunately, she wanted to succeed in her career so badly that she asked me to agree to be a house husband so that she could continue working after having the kids. I love kids, but once I found out that she wasn’t going to change her mind, she became my ex-girlfriend. I suspect that most LDS men would have done the same thing.

Of course, some couples’ work/home arrangements are difficult to understand. During my first week of conducting visas interviews at the American Embassy in Israel, I met an unforgettable applicant who was an ultra-Orthodox rabbi with seven kids. Having spent the previous two years interviewing Mexican applicants, I immediately asked him what he did for a living. His answer? Study Torah. In his world, the wife had to work to support the kids so that he could study Torah all day. I told him that his lack of a job rendered him ineligible for a visa (which is what I would have told an able-bodied Mexican man of his age), but that I would be happy to consider the applications of his wife and minor children. He in turn told me that I would “join Jesus in hell.”

As a newlywed LDS man, I’m very glad that I don’t have to choose between staying home and working. I respect women (and men) who do both, though I will admit to having a hard time relating to men who believe that God doesn’t want them to get a job. Part of this respect involves acknowledging that women who stay home are as credible as their sisters in the workforce when they voice their opinions on the issues of the day. As much as Hilary Rosen hates to admit it, this even holds true for wives of Republicans. 
       

8 Comments — Leave your comment

April 8, 2012 | 9:09 pm

Hagee, Aish, and Interfaith Respect

Posted by Mark Paredes

What better occasion than the celebration of Easter/Passover this weekend to consider the limits and expectations of interfaith cooperation. The catalyst for this essay was the recent visit of pro-Israel Pastor John Hagee to Jerusalem, where he videotaped a sermon about Jesus Christ while standing on the roof of the headquarters of Aish HaTorah, one of the world’s most prominent Jewish educational institutions.  As you might imagine, many Jews, including some Aish officials, were less than thrilled about this, and a vigorous online debate ensued over religious liberty, Evangelical proselytizing to Jews, etc. Based on my experience dealing with similar issues in LDS-Jewish dialogue, I think that the pastor’s video was both insensitive and inappropriate.

My feelings about the video have nothing to do with Evangelical theology or support for Israel. Even though Mormons don’t agree with all of the theological points made in the video, readers of this blog know that I’m not terribly interested in what Evangelicals believe. I have also written in this space that Jews should accept Evangelical support for Israel even if they suspect their motives for doing so. Interfaith relations have to be based on common decency and fairness, and I think that in this case the good pastor abused the trust of his hosts.

Mormons would be quite offended if a leader of a breakaway LDS sect made a short video promoting the glories of polygamy while standing on Temple Square in Salt Lake City. The Aish World Center in Jerusalem faces the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site, and is the worldwide headquarters of an organization (its name means “Fire of the Torah”) dedicated to promoting Orthodox Jewish learning. Given the rejection of Jesus’ divinity by rabbinic Judaism, it was highly inappropriate for Pastor Hagee to preach of every knee bowing to Jesus while standing atop Aish’s building. I would of course feel differently if he had asked permission from Aish to make the video, but it’s highly unlikely that Aish would have approved such a request.

Respecting Jewish sensitivities is also a theme of LDS-Jewish dialogues, which normally feature two prayers offered by a Mormon and a Jew. The Mormon will invariably ask the organizers how he should close the prayer, since LDS prayers always end “in the name of Jesus Christ.” There are some LDS leaders who feel that Jews come to such an event expecting to learn about another faith tradition, so in the interest of authenticity they prefer to have the Mormon close the prayer using the Savior’s name. Others try to be as considerate as possible of Jewish sensitivities, and prefer to close the prayer “in the name of the God of Israel,” “in the name of the God of Abraham,” or some other variation that is synonymous in LDS theology with Jesus Christ (who Mormons believe was both the God of Israel and the God of Abraham). I tend to prefer the latter approach, though I think that both are valid.

The most difficult talks for me to give are presentations on the LDS faith in a Jewish setting, usually a synagogue. As Joseph Smith said, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” If I were to make an honest presentation on LDS theology, I’d spend about 90% of the time talking about Jesus Christ. However, for obvious reasons I don’t think that would go over too well with the target audience. I usually mention that we’re a Christian church headed by Jesus Christ, whom we accept as the Savior of the world, then move on to other topics. I’m open to suggestions from Mormons who have made similar presentations on how to incorporate Jesus into the discussion without sounding too preachy.

In the spirit of interfaith understanding, I’d like to take this occasion to wish my readers a Happy Passover and a Happy Easter.             

4 Comments — Leave your comment

April 1, 2012 | 8:17 pm

Dump Starbucks over gay marriage? Not this Mormon

Posted by Mark Paredes

I’ve been contacted by several people this week who want me to endorse the “Dump Starbucks” campaign sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Starbucks’s sin? According to the campaign’s website, the socially-conscious company has “taken a corporate-wide position that the definition of marriage between one man and one woman should be eliminated and that same-sex marriage should become equally ‘normal’.” My correspondents have also made me aware of a Starbucks memo issued in January that said same-sex marriage “is core to who we are and what we value as a company.” Readers of this blog know that I do not support gay marriage and that I personally boycotted Marriott hotels for years due to their revenue from pornography channels. In this case, I will choose to pass on the “Dump Starbucks” campaign.

The primary reason that I will continue to patronize Starbucks is that like many Jews, I have high expectations of my LDS coreligionists but do not necessarily expect others to adhere to the same standards. I boycotted Marriott because the company was founded by and bears the name of a prominent LDS family that still sits on its board. That it took in revenue from pornography was completely unacceptable to me (note: the company has since changed its policy). Did I consider boycotting other porn-offering hotel chains? I did not, because they weren’t run by Mormons.

If I were not LDS, I would be in favor of gay marriage. While there are valid religious objections, I have yet to find a secular one that makes sense. I can’t bring myself to fault someone who does not share my theology for supporting gay marriage. The CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, happens to be a non-Orthodox Jew. Why I should expect him to have the same beliefs about marriage as a devout Mormon is beyond me. If a Mormon were to become CEO of the company, I might think about taking my business elsewhere because the idea of a Mormon actively promoting the sale of coffee and tea, two drinks expressly prohibited by our dietary laws, is unacceptable to me. However, I can’t fault Mr. Schultz & Co. for going to the mat over what they believe is an issue of fairness and equality, even if I don’t see things the same way.

Indeed, as a survivor of the Prop 8 battle in California, I don’t think it is advisable for either side of the gay marriage issue to start targeting people or companies for punishment. Several people unsuccessfully tried to get me fired from my job with a Jewish organization after Prop 8 passed, and I know of several Mormons who did in fact lose their jobs or suffer other career setbacks thanks to bigots who took revenge on them. The First Amendment is still alive and well in this country; firing people and boycotting companies that disagree with you on moral issues seems rather petty and small-minded to me in this day and age.

Another concern that I have is consistency. Both Microsoft and Google have also expressed strong support for gay marriage. Is the NOM planning to target Bill Gates and encourage people to give up Windows and close their Gmail accounts? If not, why not?

My final point is that Starbucks is not an advocacy organization, it’s a coffee shop. When I walk inside, I don’t have to pass by rainbow flags and banners advocating gay marriage. No one asks for my political preference or my signature on a petition. All I need to do is place my order, pay, and pick up the warm croissant and grande hot chocolate at the counter. I’m willing to bet that Mormons aren’t a huge slice of Starbucks’s customer base, and we are known for our opposition to gay marriage. That said, I’d be very surprised to see many Mormons join the “Dump Starbucks” campaign. You don’t have to support gay marriage to believe that people with different theologies who act on their beliefs shouldn’t be punished for doing so.       

21 Comments — Leave your comment

March 26, 2012 | 5:10 pm

Messi the Greatest Ever? Sorry, wrong Argentine

Posted by Mark Paredes

I’ve decided to write today on another of my passions, soccer. I figure that if a serious writer like George Will can dedicate one or two columns a year to a boring sport like baseball, I can post an essay on the world’s most beautiful game. If you’re not a soccer fan, read no further. If you are a student of the game, then I’m sure that you’ll agree with me that the campaign currently underway to crown Barcelona’s Lionel Messi as the best soccer player ever is both premature and lacking in historical perspective.

There’s no question that Messi is scoring goals right and left for Barcelona, the world’s best club team (and quite possibly the best team of any category on the planet). In every game he’s fed passes by world-class players like Xavi, Iniesta, and Fàbregas, and he performs brilliantly. I have no objection to his designation as the world’s best player right now. But better than Pelé, Maradona, and Cruyff? If he is, it’s way too early to tell.

Pelé’s athleticism was certainly superior to Messi’s: he ran faster, jumped higher, and netted more goals (1281) in his career than Messi could ever dream of scoring. Indeed, Messi advocate Kevin Baxter of the LA Times recently pointed out that even if Messi has an equally long career (21 years) and continues to score goals at his current pace, he’ll score just over half of Pele’s total.

That said, the Pelé/Messi comparison is a difficult one to make. Brazil declared Pelé a national treasure and didn’t allow him to play club soccer outside the country, depriving Pelé of the chance to play in the world’s best professional leagues against the best club teams. Had he done so, it’s highly unlikely that he would have scored nearly as many goals in Italy or Spain as he did in the Brazilian league. In addition, Pelé’s contribution to Brazil’s three World Cup wins in twelve years is questionable. In 1958, he was unquestionably the revelation of the tournament. In 1962, he was injured in the second game and sat out the rest of the World Cup. However, Brazil won without him. In 1966, he was injured in the first round and Brazil was knocked out of the Cup. In 1970, a healthy Pelé played on what is probably the best team to ever win a World Cup. The Argentine national team, with Messi, has never won any kind of tournament.

Johan Cruyff, my nominee for most brilliant soccer mind, was voted European Player of the Century in 1999. He performed wonders for Ajax, one of the world’s best teams in the 60s and 70s, and led Holland to a second-place finish in 1974 behind a talented German team playing at home. Cruyff was the personification of the total football philosophy, which he successfully implemented as the coach of Barcelona. Indeed, without Cruyff there would be no super Barcelona team to prop up Messi. The reason why Cruyff does not rank at the top of soccer’s pantheon is that although he did not participate in the 1978 World Cup, Holland finished second anyway. I firmly believe that Holland would have beaten Argentina if Cruyff had played in that game, but we will never know. At any rate, it’s hard to make the case that Cruyff was indispensable to the Dutch team if they achieved the same World Cup result with or without him.

It is when we compare Messi to his compatriot Diego Maradona, whom I once took around Disney World, that we see just how much more Messi has to accomplish before his name can legitimately be mentioned in the same sentence with the all-time greats. Maradona is lauded for two major accomplishments at the club and international levels. First of all, he took Napoli, a club that was in 12th place in the world’s toughest league, the Italian Serie A, and led it to two national championships (the only ones it has ever had) and two second-place finishes. He also led Argentina to a World Cup victory in 1986 with what is arguably the weakest team to win the Cup in modern times, then led another mediocre Argentina team four years later to the World Cup final against Germany. In short, Maradona was the ultimate franchise player that you’d want to build a team around. If you want to hire someone to score goals, choose Messi or Pelé. However, if you’re looking for someone who can not only score goals but take your team from the bottom of the table to a league championship, I can’t think of any player in history more capable of doing that than Maradona in his prime.

In order to compare Messi to Maradona, the question to ask is not what he is currently doing for Barcelona, a team of superstars, but what he could do for 12th-place Rayo Vallecano if given the chance. Would he be able to lead them to two championships? Based on Messi’s performance on teams that are not filled with stars, the answer is “not a chance.”  Until Messi leads Argentina to a World Cup victory and/or demonstrates the ability to play brilliantly while surrounded by teammates not named Xavi or Iniesta, soccer writers have no business mentioning him in the same breath as Diego Maradona, the greatest player to ever play the game.

14 Comments — Leave your comment

March 11, 2012 | 11:45 pm

Santorum’s hitman and the racist LDS Church

Posted by Mark Paredes

It’s easy to see now why the voters of Pennsylvania gave Rick Santorum the boot six years ago. Now that he’s decided to play the same Mormon card that worked so well for the equally bright Rick Perry, I hope his defeat in the upcoming primaries is even more humiliating. Tomorrow morning the honorary chairman of Santorum’s Florida campaign, Rev. O’Neal Dozier of the WorldWide Christian Center, plans to hold a press conference in Pompano Beach with a group of other bigoted African-American pastors. Their purpose? To ask Mitt Romney to “openly renounce his racist Mormon Religion” in order to “foster and maintain good race relations here in America.” Their unstated purpose, of course, is to benefit Santorum by reminding Southern voters of Romney’s faith before they cast their ballots the following day.

Now let me get this straight. The Rev. Dozier has labored for decades in his ministry, and has all of 2,000 souls to show for his efforts. I don’t know whether he knows the definition of chutzpah, but it takes a considerable amount of it for him to presume to label a church “racist” that has over 350,000 members and 1,000 congregations in Africa (the LDS 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 my last blog post, I profiled a black Mormon who is running for the presidency of Mali. As a biracial Mormon, I laugh at the pastor’s ignorance and arrogance.
 
The good book tells us that by their fruits ye shall know them. The Mormon Church is building chapels and temples in Africa and Brazil at a record rate, sealing black couples together for eternity, calling blacks to leadership positions (including callings as senior Church leaders and spokesmen), bringing blacks into the Abrahamic covenant, and keeping black families together throughout the world through gospel-centered teachings. As far as I can tell, the good reverend is living off his flock (he reportedly drives a Mercedes and likes expensive suits) while preaching that homosexuality “makes God want to vomit” and that Islam is a terrible religion. It’s actually a badge of honor for Mormons to be on Santorum’s religious hitman’s list.

There’s no need for me to revisit LDS Church history here, because Santorum and his proxies should be looking to the future instead.  Romney has won the overwhelming share of the Mormon vote everywhere, while Santorum has lost the Catholic vote in every major state. I guess his coreligionists can spot a fraud when they see one. Things must be going badly for Rick if he’s nominating bigots as honorary state campaign chairmen. This country deserves better, and so does Rev. Dozier’s flock. If he wants to see black Christians who are enthusiastic about their faith, he should do as I did and visit Mormon congregations in South Africa. Heck, maybe he can hold a similar press conference in Johannesburg featuring his “racist Mormon Church” message.  I’ll pay his airfare if the Mormons there buy it.     

17 Comments — Leave your comment

March 4, 2012 | 11:09 pm

First Mormon president to speak at Claremont—and his name’s not Mitt

Posted by Mark Paredes

Mayor Niankoro Yeah Samake. Photo by Wikipedia/Maris783

Jews and Mormons who want to meet a future Mormon head of state should head to Claremont Graduate University this Wednesday. There they will hear a handsome presidential candidate with a master’s degree and picture-perfect family articulate his vision for the future. His name? Yeah Samaké, the front-runner in next month’s Malian elections.

Yeah has a rags-to-riches story that would put any American politician to shame. One of 17 children born to a family in the village of Ouéléssébougou, he was encouraged by his parents to get an education and make something of himself. He became a volunteer teacher and Peace Corps interpreter, and was eventually invited to continue his education at Brigham Young University. He completed an M.A. in Public Policy and married Marissa, an Indian who was born and raised in Bahrain. They and their children lived in Utah for a few years, then moved to Mali, where Yeah became mayor of Ouéléssébougou. Here are several articles on Yeah with more career highlights of this remarkable man:

Malian presidential candidate Yeah Samake to visit Claremont Graduate University on March 7

The Other Mormon Candidate

Niankoro Yeah Samake

Needless to say, unlike with Mitt Romney, all Mormons can unite around Yeah’s candidacy (though I’m pretty sure that the LDS Church will not endorse a candidate in the Malian elections). He’s the personification of the phenomenal growth of Mormonism in Africa, the church’s fastest-growing region. Moreover, he’s a proud Mormon who speaks often and openly about his faith. This openness is all the more remarkable given that he and his wife are the only Mormons in the 90% Muslim country.

Yeah is so committed to transparency and to fighting corruption in Mali that he has refused to raise money there, since there would be many favors expected in return for financial support. Instead, he raises money abroad. I don’t have a lot of money to give him, but I can what I can do is promote his upcoming speech, which is sponsored by Claremont’s Mormon Studies program. Here’s the 411:

Wednesday, March 7
7:00 p.m.
Albrecht Auditorium (Stauffer Hall of Learning)
925 N. Dartmouth Ave, Claremont 91711

Yasher koach, Yeah. 

1 Comments — Leave your comment

February 27, 2012 | 12:29 am

Mormon Temples and Jews: The SWC Charade Continues

Posted by Mark Paredes

“FYI, discovered today: Posthumous baptisms for the parents of Simon Wiesenthal. I am collecting evidence, which will be e-mailed to you, if requested, as long as there is a public stink.” – e-mail sent by anti-Mormon genealogy researcher Helen Radkey to Rabbi Abraham Cooper, February 8, 2012

He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion. – 2 Nephi 26:29

——-

Last week the charade involving a group of leaders in the Jewish community and the LDS Church’s practice of proxy immersions reached a new low. Elie Wiesel, one of the towering moral figures of our age, found out that his father and grandfather’s names had been submitted by a disobedient member of the church for temple ordinances. The church quickly canceled the submissions, but not before Mr. Wiesel had called on the church (via the Huffington Post) to stop performing temple ordinances for all Jews, not just Holocaust victims. He then asked Mitt Romney to “speak to his own church” about the issue. With all due respect to Mr. Wiesel (and considerable respect is due), he would probably do more good by suggesting to certain Jewish leaders that they mind their own business.

I’m giving Elie Wiesel a pass on this because he’s 83 and – more importantly – because he was born in Romania, my new wife’s homeland, and she’s a big fan. However, I can no longer cast a benign eye on the nefarious goings-on at the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) in Los Angeles. SWC Rabbis Hier and Cooper have greatly overplayed their hand with their latest temper tantrum, and I’m going to call them on it. This is easily the most painful article that I have written for this blog, and I regret very much that I need to address this topic again. However, there is a limit to everyone’s patience. I have reached mine.

Many an Orthodox rabbi has complained to me of the liberties taken with Jewish law by their colleagues in more liberal movements. Whatever the sins of Reform rabbis may be, they pale in comparison to the SWC’s unwarranted extension of halachic authority to the olam ha-ba (afterlife).

A basic recap of the issue is necessary, though I have already written several articles on the practice and feel no need to repeat myself. In the early 90s, a group of Jewish leaders approached the church after discovering that a few members had submitted – in violation of church rules – names of Holocaust victims for LDS temple ordinances. Although these ordinances do NOT confer membership in the church, the leaders claimed to be offended. They even made the bizarre claim that if this issue were not addressed further, future generations might think that Mormons, not Jews, were killed during the Holocaust (I am not making this up).

Had I been in charge of the LDS delegation to the initial meeting, it would have been a short one. I would have started off by asking the leaders what authority they had to represent dead Jews. The answer? None. One of them, Ernest Michel, headed up a Holocaust survivors’ group, but representing the living was as far as his writ extended. There is an interesting paradox in Jewish life that never ceases to amaze me. On the one hand, Jews freely admit that no one in the world can speak on behalf of all Jews. Judaism has no hierarchy, no pope, no president, no high priest (at least not for 2,000 years). However, this fact does not discourage Jewish leaders from seeking opportunities to represent the entire Jewish community to non-Jewish groups, especially churches, if there is some personal benefit in it for them.

In this case, Ernest Michel had every right to receive an explanation from church leaders as to why his relatives had been improperly submitted for LDS temple rites. However, he exceeded his mandate when he presumed to negotiate on behalf of the dead. In the 1995 agreement, Mr. Michel stated that his group, the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, “considers its members as guardians of the rights of Jewish Holocaust victims.” This was, of course, untrue. No one on earth has the authority to represent the 6 million victims. 

Thankfully, the people in Salt Lake City are much nicer than I, and church leaders generously signed a memorandum of understanding in 1995, promising to do what they could to prevent the unauthorized submission of Holocaust victims’ names to LDS temples (members are only supposed to submit names of their ancestors for the ordinances). They also promised to delete such names from the church’s database if/when they were found.

It’s important to note here that the church offered at that time to “freeze” names of all known Holocaust victims for purposes of temple work if the Jewish leaders would agree. Unfortunately, they chose the second option of taking upon themselves the responsibility of notifying the church whenever they discovered the submission of a Holocaust victim’s name. The Jewish leaders knew from the beginning that the option they chose would mean that many names, and sometimes the same names, would continue to pop up in the database. In a stunning moment of candor, someone with detailed knowledge of the early discussions acknowledged to me that one of the reasons that the Jewish leaders chose this option was so they could continue to hold church leaders’ feet to the fire on this issue and eventually reach their ultimate goal: to have the LDS Church declare that Judaism was sufficient for salvation, and temple ordinances were not necessary for Jews.

What is also often lost in this discussion is the promise that the Jewish leaders made in the agreement. After the church agreed to take certain steps – which it did long ago – the Jewish signatories agreed to “exercise their best efforts to communicate and persuade the other Jewish organizations as to the sufficiency of this agreement.” Furthermore, “It was agreed that differences between friends should be reduced and eliminated.” While many of the Jewish leaders have taken this obligation seriously, Rabbis Hier and Cooper have not. 
 
Last week the rabbis’  hit pay dirt. According to the Washington Post, she sent the following e-mail to Rabbi Cooper last week: “FYI, discovered today: Posthumous baptisms for the parents of Simon Wiesenthal. I am collecting evidence, which will be e-mailed to you, if requested, as long as there is a public stink.” Well, there was, beginning with this pompous press release by the rabbis: “We are outraged that such insensitive actions continue in the Mormon Temples. Such actions make a mockery of the many meetings with the top leadership of the Mormon Church dating back to 1995 that focused on the unwanted and unwarranted posthumous baptisms of Jewish Victims of the Nazi Holocaust. The only way such insensitive practices would finally stop is if Church leaders finally decided to change their practices and policies on posthumous baptisms, a move which this latest outrage proves that they are unwilling to do. We are grateful to activist Helen Radkey for exposing the latest outrage.”

First of all, anyone who knows the SWC rabbis knows how they react to people who use material provided by anti-Semites to defame Jews. Why are they using an anti-Mormon to help them defame the philo-Semitic LDS Church? Have they no shame? If we judge people by the company they keep, the rabbis don’t come off so well here. At least they were honest enough to identify their ultimate goal: to get the church to change its “policies” and “practices” on proxy immersions.

I have met and spoken with the SWC rabbis on several occasions, and on a personal level I have always enjoyed working with them. When I was the executive director of a Jewish non-profit, they came through for me in a big way when I needed them. When the SWC needed help setting up a genealogy exhibit, the LDS Church helped them free of charge. They know that I have enormous respect for the work that they do for Jews worldwide. While I am under no illusion that I will be spending next Friday night at their shabbat tables after posting this article, it is important to me that readers know what the rabbis already do: this is a most painful article to write, and I regret very much that the rabbis’ outrageous actions through the years have forced me to do so. 

Rabbis Hier and Cooper have no standing whatsoever to demand that a church change its religious practices because they’re offended by them. They tried that with the Catholics (e.g., the resurrected Good Friday prayer), and were politely told to mind their own business. I long for the day when the rabbis’ latest temper tantrum will be met with a shrug by both Mormons and Jews.

I wish to conclude this essay by making two important points. First, the rabbis are demanding a standard of perfection from LDS leaders that they would object to if demanded of the Orthodox community. There are 14 million Mormons, and in the idealized world of the SWC, computers at LDS genealogy centers would somehow be able to detect when even one of them is about to improperly submit a Jewish name for a temple ordinance. This is ridiculous, and they know it. I have a question for them: Why can’t they do something to address the problem of agunoth in the Orthodox community worldwide? Everyone knows that it’s outrageous, and rabbis throughout the world denounce husbands who refuse to grant divorces to their estranged Jewish wives. Why can’t Rabbis Hier and Cooper force every Orthodox husband to toe the line on marriages? Because the husbands have free will, that’s why. The requirement that husbands grant divorces can’t be eliminated, because that would violate Jewish law. So basically the solution is for the Orthodox community to declare the correct principle of husbands being mensches to their wives, then work to shame and sanction violators of that principle. That’s what religious groups do all over the world to bring their members into line.   

The second point is to highlight the unfortunate way in which the SWC rabbis and a few others have worked hard to reframe this issue in misleading terms in the Jewish community. Even The Forward calls temple ordinances “proxy conversions,” an intentionally false and misleading term. The only reason that people like Elie Wiesel are “outraged” by LDS temple practices is because the SWC rabbis have told him that evil Mormons are trying to convert his departed relatives. They know that temple ordinances do not make someone a Mormon, but in a misguided effort to shore up their donor base they pretend to defend Jewish souls by issuing arrogant press releases every time a prominent Jewish name is found in LDS databases. There is no logical reason for the rabbis to devote so much time and attention to the actions of a few disobedient Mormons, unless their goals are dishonorable. If they were smart (and honest), they’d adopt the attitude of the Catholic Church: we don’t like the fact that prominent Catholics are baptized, but in the end we don’t believe it has any effect on their souls.

In the past week, I have convinced two LDS teachers and an entertainment executive to cancel trips planned to the SWC’s Museum of Tolerance. It is my hope that Mormons and people of goodwill of other faiths will choose not to visit an institution that is using an anti-Mormon mercenary to dig up material in an attempt to embarrass a church that has always been very friendly to Jews. The rabbis have also threatened LDS leaders with protests on more than one occasion unless their demands were met. This is a violation of both ethics and decency that is beneath the dignity of rabbis of their stature.  In spite of this persecution, Mormons can take consolation from the fact that Jews, even Holocaust victims, are still not exempted from the requirements of LDS temple ordinances. As LDS Church spokesman Michael Otterson pointed out a few days ago, direct descendants of Holocaust victims (an admittedly small group) are still able to perform these ordinances for their ancestors.

Mormons are answerable to God concerning their performance of proxy ordinances. In addition, Jews who find out that their ancestors have had their names submitted to LDS temples are certainly entitled to an explanation of how and why this has happened. However, the day will never come (a favorite phrase of Rabbi Hier) that Mormons will owe an explanation to the SWC and others on the lunatic fringe of this issue in the Jewish community. Rabbis Hier and Cooper would do well to devote their considerable talents to helping Jews in this world instead of attacking a church that means them no harm in the next. 

——

NOTE FROM THE JEWISH JOURNAL: In a previous version of this blog entry, Mark Paredes made a statement to the effect that the Simon Wiesenthal Center paid Helen Radkey for her information.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center has categorically denied that any such payments were made, and we have removed the allegation from the blog.  You can read the letter from the Simon Weisenthal Center below:

The Jewish Journal violated the basic standards of journalism and did a disservice to your readers when you posted a blog that impugned the integrity of Simon Wiesenthal Center officials and that of activist Helen Radkey.  This attack was posted with a prominently displayed picture of Rabbi Marvin Hier, Founder and Dean of the Center, next to the title, “Mormons and Jews, the SWC Charade Continues.”

You didn’t ask, but for the record, Ms. Radkey is not a paid informant, and she and the Center are owed an apology by the Journal.  Had the editors even bothered to check, we would have debunked this libelous assertion.  Helen Radkey isa continuing source of accurate information about the posthumous baptisms of victims of the Shoah and prominent historic Jewish figures by members of the Church of Latter Day Saints.

The Jewish Journal had earlier reported the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s protest following Ms. Radkey’s revelation that the parents of Simon Wiesenthal had recently been posthumously baptized. Since then, Dr. Elie Wiesel protested the presence of the names of his parents on a preparatory list.

As the person who represented the Wiesenthal Center at numerous meetings with senior LDS officials on this issue dating back from 1995 to a meeting in New York in 2010, I, along with Holocaust survivor Ernst Michel and other officials of Jewish organizations dealt with the LDS representatives with appropriate and earned respect. We also recognize the steps the Church has taken to try to address the matter. Unfortunately, recent incidents show that more must be done within the Church to deal with those individual Mormons who still view such actions as appropriate. Any further moves to address this matter must come from within the Church and cannot and should not be dictated by others.

And now comes word that Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped and butchered by Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan 10 years ago, was also recently posthumously baptized. We can assume that those who performed this rite did so out of love and concern for the soul of Daniel. But at what cost to the living? Last week, Dr. Judea Pearl, Danny’s beloved father, presented the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s annual State of Anti-Semitism lecture in New York.  In dialogue with the audience Dr. Pearl declared that, “Danny was murdered because he was a Jew.”

To those who posthumously baptized Danny, we ask more in sorrow than anger: ” Haven’t Danny’s parents suffered enough?”

Signed Rabbi Abraham Cooper
Associate Dean
Simon Wiesenthal Center
 
                   

38 Comments — Leave your comment