The Historical Book of Mormon

Six years of studying the profession of History must have some benefit. In an end-of-the-year party held by my undergraduate history department for departing seniors, the Head of the Department, Dr. Norman Jones, remarked that the study of history is primarily learning how to interpret and weigh evidence. It is not, strictly speaking, scientific, though it can and should be supported where possible with science; but nor is it a freewheeling art form where anything goes. History is the challenge to ponder the evidence of the past and weigh its reliability, biases, and utility for telling the story of a people. So, it would seem, I have learned something in all these years about reading texts.

Though we like to call the Book of Mormon scripture, and I believe it is that, it is also a historical text as the Bible is. With that assumption, what does the Book of Mormon tell us. I have often found myself reading the text of the Book of Mormon like I would a primary source for historical research. This has actually increased my faith in the Book of Mormon; for a work of fiction would not carry those subtle, stray artifacts that make a document ring true.

Being the skeptical sort by nature, I have often struggled to understand and accept some aspects of our past and our story as Mormons. However, I believe so strongly in the Book of Mormon that I am drawn to accept even when I don't understand. I feel like Peter after Jesus gave his masterful discourse on the Bread of Heaven (see John 6). When Jesus expounded doctrines and made claims that many of His disciples found difficult to believe, they turned away from Him, but Peter, though he could not understand replied:

Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
(John 6:68-69)

So it is with me. I don't understand the former ban on Africans from the Priesthood, nor do I really comprehend polygamy or all the ordinances of the Temple, but the Book of Mormon and the Prophets of this Church have the words of eternal life and that keeps me here. So, in between my travel adventures, I hope to start posting some essays and explorations of the Book of Mormon as a historical text and what I have learned from reading it this way.

My first observation is not some grand truth, except about human nature, but it is a testament to the veracity of the Book of Mormon and a defense against charges that it cannot be historical because the history it presents is too simple.

The Book of Mormon has three main authors and a few minor authors (excluding the lengthy quotations from such persons as Isaiah, Alma, Captain Moroni, and so on): Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni son of Mormon. Jacob could be added to the list as well. In fact, my first evidence comes from Jacob.

In a class I took in college on the History of the Celts, we looked at the identity of these persons and groups and realized that tribal nomenclature is a tricky business. We use the name Celts, from the Greek Keltoi, to describe the peoples of Europe who inhabited vast swaths of land from the Danube to the coast of Ireland until the invasion of the Romans and later the Germanic tribes pushed their culture to near extinction leaving on pockets of Celtic language and traditions in Brittany, Cornwall, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. The Romans called these same people Gauls. What they called themselves is actually somewhat of a mystery; assuming they had a sense of "Pan-Celtic" consciousness rather than just tribal identities. The same holds for the Germans, who to this day don't call themselves Germans, a name the Romans adopted from a tribe that lived along the Rhine River. Germans call themselves Deutschen, which is related to the words Teutonic, Dutch, and so forth and roughly translates as "people." Greeks, of course, are not Greeks, but Hellenes in their own language and Greece is not Greece, it is Hellas.

How does this touch the Book of Mormon? Many critics of the Book of Mormon have said that since we have no records aside from the Book of Mormon, mentioning peopled called the Nephites and the Lamanites, then the book must be a modern fabrication. However, this critique is built on the false assumption that the names Lamanites and Nephites were in widespread use. The Nephites were soundly destroyed and most of their records destroyed, according to Mormon and Moroni (see Mormon 6:6). It is highly unlikely that the Lamanites called themselves Lamanites as a people. In fact, Jacob drops this highly interesting hint in his book:

Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites. But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

Jacob 1:13-14

Mormon echoes this statement hundred of years later in 4 Nephi 1:36-37:

And it came to pass that in this year there arose a people who were called the Nephites, and they were true believers in Christ; and among them there were those who were called by the Lamanites—Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites; Therefore the true believers in Christ, and the true worshipers of Christ, (among whom were the three disciples of Jesus who should tarry) were called Nephites, and Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites.

The key passage, highlighted above, shows that Jacob knew there were more complexities than Nephites and Lamanites, but frankly did not care to distinguish at that level of complexity because his purpose was a spiritual one and he did not care to get bogged down with politics.

These sorts of incidental references provide a strong sense of authenticity to the Book of Mormon account. The authors refer almost parenthetically to the world around them with which they are intimately familiar and hence feel no need to elaborate on such obvious givens. Furthermore, we know from these accounts that the Nephite/Lamanite duality is, in some sense, an artificial simplification of a far more complex world full of various tribes. Keep in mind, furthermore, that none of these names should be assumed to have been used by the groups to which they refer, just as one would not find an ancient Greek source referring to "Greeks." An Greek author would talk about Hellenes and a person reading Roman sources alone would not be able to find records of "Greeks" in the land that the Romans called Greece.

This parallel is not, of course, precise, because both Greeks and Romans were highly literate and thus the records speak repeatedly of each other, whereas the Nephites were literate, but most of the Lamanites were not. No records, aside from the Book of Mormon, exist to document the history of Central and South America prior to the Maya and the Aztecs, both of whom came hundreds of years after the demise of the Nephites. The Incas, interestingly, were not literate and left no records; neither did the Olmec, Toltec, Moqui, and many other groups whose names, it should be rememberd, are mostly exonyms, i.e. names applied by outsides. What these groups called themselves, as with the Lamanites, is unknown. The same is true for ancient ruins in Central and South America. For the most part, their names are unknown and the names applied by archaeologists are modern.

There are two things to be gleaned here. First, the writers of the Book of Mormon recognized they were using exonyms and we should not, therefore, be surprised that no other record uses them since these names were not used by anyone else. Secondly, the fact that the Book of Mormon mentions this detail and does so in a very cursory manner, contributes to the veracity of the Book of Mormon as a historical record.

On Being a Mormon Missionary: Faith and Reason

I wrote this in college:

Sometimes during my studies in college and graduate school I felt as though I were some sort of mythological beast like the fabled Yeti or -- to take something from part of the country -- a Jackalope. I am a faithful, believing, run of the mill Mormon. I am also a student at a major university studying history. In a sea of doubt, pessimism, and agnosticism my colleagues find my faith both baffling and strange and have sometimes remarked in passing how sad that such a capable person should be under the sway of such delusions. My native shyness often led me to avoid confrontation and debate, but here I wish to reply to those people to all the others who have made similar comments over the years. Most of the discourse I see relating to Mormon missionaries on the internet and in the media is cynical and critical. The authors highlight the minority of cases where a missionary hated his mission experience or where missionaries clashed with ministers of religion or seers of secularism. I want say the seemingly unsayable: I enjoyed my mission.

Like the majority of young Mormon men, I served as a Mormon missionary when I turned 19. Since my sixteenth birthday, I had been saving money for this foreseen event. My meditations and my prayers over this future were generally one and the same, or at least they flowed so naturally one from another that I was never quite sure which I was undertaking. I determined that I would not go unless I felt and knew in my heart that is was the right thing. The Prophet Joseph Smith said once,

[T]he things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity-thou must commune with God. How much more dignified and noble are the thoughts of God, than the vain imaginations of the human heart! None but fools will trifle with the souls of men. (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 Vols. 3:295)

In Mormonism, God is not to be found simply through mere musings as in Natural Theology, but through experiences with Him and those experiences come from service to God and to mankind. As Joseph Smith said, what are needed are time, experience, and ponderous thought. The truth of a thing is to be found in the doing of it. So, I studied and lived what I read and in time, there came a conviction that God lives and that the Book of Mormon was true. As a Mormon missionary I spent two years teaching that to everyone I met. Another essay at another time will perhaps deal more fully with my basis for theism, but here let me say that faith is not irrational. It is not illogical. It arises from a spiritually yearning and understands that sometimes, to be understand, a fact must first be accepted and placed in the best light or in the most charitable regard. Logic, as my professor of philosophy at college said repeatedly, is merely a tool that constructs a priori assumptions and like a machine computes the necessary conclusions. It is not knowledge in and of itself, but a framework for organizing knowledge. A person of faith is just as capable of reason and inquiry as the most ardent adept of Positivism.

What does a Mormon missionary do? This question no doubt bewilders some. Some, whose own lack of strongly held values so distorts their perception of the world, refuse to believe that someone would truly devote two years of his own time; delay school, career, dating, and friendships; and at his (or her) own expense spend day after day sharing a message he knows most will reject. It seems a quixotic errand and perhaps it is. But, let me place myself on the witness stand as one who did it and does not regret it. For two years I wore out shoes and grew calluses from daily walking and labor. I was rejected, spat at, pelted with rocks (and once with ketchup packages), insulted, harassed, nearly arrested twice, and once threatened at gun point.

I will not try to claim that I enjoyed this negative treatment. Sometimes, though, I could understand the person’s frustrations and anger. It can be irritating to have someone approach you and try to steer you into a conversation about something as deeply personal as religion. However, my experience has taught me that most people, once my fellow missionary and I could sit down with them and discuss frankly one another’s beliefs enjoyed the conversations even if they chose not to believe in what we taught. Some were devotedly antithetical to our beliefs or practices and would likely have been upset my mere presence in their vicinity. To all who were willing to listen I taught my beliefs and bore somber testimony to the influence God and my commitment to Him have had in my life. In those two years I learned more about myself, my God, and my fellow men than in any other comparable period and it is not unlikely that I will be mining these experiences for the rest of my life.

Among my most cherished memories were many pleasant discussions with people of every walk of life from the educated to the ignorant, from the deep-rooted American to the most recent immigrant. I learned quickly that debate and disputing were worthless ventures. I am convinced, and my subsequent life has convinced more of this, that truth and understanding are the greatest victims of forensics. The result is usually the same: both sides become more convinced of the truthfulness of their own position and the issue becomes more polarized than before. In confessing that insight, I feel as I am committing a sin against modern society where debate has become per se a value. Let me clarify that I am not referring to disagreement or discussion, but rather to that puerile variety of parallel argumentation that so dominates our public discourse where speakers, who cannot truly be called interlocutors, speak so singly and disconnectedly that there is no exchange of ideas or even a recognition of the other’s point of view. It is rather the solipsistic pontificating of pundits and spokesman.

As Mormon missionaries , we were taught -- and I aimed -- to share our message, invite others to consider it, pray about it, and live it, but nothing more. True, we were sometimes goaded into debate and I succumbed to too many such baitings, but more often than not I and my fellow missionaries testified and warned and invited others to hear our message without ill feelings. Some have tried to argue that our reticence to debate evinces some deeply harbored fears on our parts about the veracity of our message; but such criticism is misguided. We merely recognize that rarely does any good come from such debate and the casualty of such battles is usually the good relations among people. Most of those who wished to debate us were so lacking in the ability to listen and grasp another’s point of view, that debate would have been merely a battle of wills and egos.

So, you might ask, why do we do it? Why do we risk stirring up such controversy and rancor? I am convinced after much experience that it the missionary work of this Church that inspires such vehement diatribes against us more than any peculiarity of practice or principle. Many groups similarly have divergent beliefs about God and salvation, but no other group makes such an effort to ensure that everyone else knows about them. I can only answer by saying that our belief compels us to do so and were we to ignore the imperative to share this message we would wallow in enervating hypocrisy. We believe that our message can soothe hearts, strengthen relationships, and enable all people to understand and worship God. This belief will cause controversy and earn us the ill assessment of many who hold that truth and values are relative, but to cease to share our message would be as good as denying that we believe it and that we cannot do; I cannot do that, for I have had too many experiences which have confirmed to me the truthfulness of this message and the necessity of sharing it with others. I have seen faith, both in God and in self, work too many miracles for me to step aside now and say I will not work to help others because I might offend some. Life has taught me this: someone will be offended no matter what I do, so I will live so as not to offend my conscience for that will be my constant and eternal companion.

My plea is for this: that people take more time to understand one another in our public discourse, particularly with regard to religion. This appeal has been made before and will be made again. I suffer no delusions that this little essay will have some grand effect on society, but hopefully someone will listen. True discussion and true communication about ideas and values requires that first we understand our interlocutors views and beliefs. Too many people assume all too quickly that they know what someone else believes about this or that. Such intellectual mondegreens stifle our ability to communicate for language and discourse is fluid and highly dependent on socioeconomic conditions. It is not enough to know what God and grace and values mean to us, we must understand what they mean to others. If not, we will blithely and arrogantly attack straw men of our own creation because, as Cervantes said, “they might be giants.” Then when we have bested our chimerical adversary, we will proclaim unilaterally and pointlessly our hollow victory.

Go to the source and ask a Mormon what a Mormon believes. Those who devote their energies to tilting at Mormon windmills and slaying Mormon chimeras will no doubt continue to claim that all Mormons lie about their own beliefs or hide the truth about what Mormons really believe. No doubt they will continue asserting that Mormon missionaries are highly skilled propagandists and purveyors of misinformation (nothing could be farther from the truth), but such claims are circular and rely on the assertions of prejudiced and blind eyes. As a former Mormon missionary who was proud to serve his faith and still follows that tenets of his religion, let me say that while we in America and the West will most likely continue to disagree, the first step toward improving our discourse, is by improving our listening.

Unless we first seek to understand, we can never be understood. I have grown weary of the prejudices, the casual slights, the quick dismissals and the self-righteous indignation of those who attack not just my faith, but all faiths and beliefs systems. These willfully ignorant and prejudiced attacks come not only from other religious leaders, but also from secularists who are so isolated in their own belief systems that they believe anything else must be irrational. Such dismissal of even the ability of others rationally to disagree with you and rationally to believe something you find fantastic will only serve to divide and exacerbate our public discourse. Let me end as I began by saying the unbelievable: I believe in God and in the message of Mormonism and I do so with full understanding and with every faculty of my mind. I do not ask any readers to suddenly convert to my faith, but rather I hope they will with an open and inquisitive mind seek to understand those of us who still believe in faith and hope through a living God.

The Mormon Temple and Temple Ceremonies: A Pattern for Everlasting Life

I recently found a few old essays I wrote on the Gospel that I thought I should share. Not that I think my thoughts are all that valuable, but they might be of interest to someone other than myself:

The Temple

The ancient Israelites called their temple, the House, the Sanctuary, or the Edifice (Bayith, Miqdash, and Heykal, respectively). When and how the word temple was chosen to refer to the sacred structures built and dedicated to God, or to gods, is likely lost in prehistory, though we can speculate. Temple comes from the Latin templum, the same root from which we derive template. The signification of both words being that something is measured and patterned. Ancient Roman temple precincts were often used for "measuring" the flights of birds or looking for other omens. Though of pagan origins, this word can appropriately be applied to Mormon temples and the sacred, Christ-centered temple ceremonies that are performed within them. Mormon temple ceremonies and the temples themselves lay out a pattern for life, including pre-mortal, mortal, and post-mortal, as well serve as a school for integrating one's life and for understanding the purpose and direction of one's life within the eternal world. It is also a place set apart from the world where worshippers can go to seek in quiet meditation, cut off from all distractions, answers to their prayers.

Perhaps nothing else about Mormonism evokes so much horror ignotium as do Mormon temple ceremonies. Professional anti-Mormons scour their thesauri for every dreadful and sensationalist adjective they can find in order to provoke those who know little or nothing about Mormon ceremonies into developing a primal fear toward Mormon temples. In a day and age such as ours I cannot understand this, though certainly fear-mongering has always been present in this country’s public discourse, used and exploited by those who want power, but have no ideas or platforms to support them. Instead, like school-yard bullies they intimidate and provoke because, as any teacher will tell you, they are themselves afraid and must divert attention elsewhere to assuage their weakened self-confidence. Mormons need not stoop to attacks, though sadly some have, but I will not dwell any longer on such puerile and vicious attacks. My message is a positive one.

For Mormons, the temple is the utmost goal of spiritual life and the symbol of their belief in life beyond death and of this life's relevance to our eternal existence. Worshippers of God have always had temples, or at least have striven to erect them. Jacob, the father of all Israel, resting in a place called Luz, saw in vision a ladder that reached to heaven at the top of which stood God who there renewed the covenant with Jacob which He, Almighty God, had made with Jacob's fathers. Upon awakening, Jacob called the place Bethel, meaning “the House of God”. Covenants and temples, then, have a long history. When buildings were not available, the Lord's people used mountains and thus the temple was called the "Mountain of the Lord's House" (Isaiah 2:2). Jesus taught frequently in the temple and after His death, the Apostles continued "daily with one accord in the temple" (Acts 2:46). Malachi prophesied that the Lord would come suddenly to His temple (Mal. 3:1).

Mormon Temples today are built for the purposes of providing ordinances and covenants. According to Mormon beliefs, covenants are central to man's relationship to God. Through covenants, man enters a relationship with God through which he (or she) will be saved. There is no doctrine taught in Mormon temples which is not taught publicly, but the ordinances and covenants made within the sanctuary are guarded and kept sacred. Some are offended by this supposed secrecy about Mormon temples, but it is well to remember that Jesus himself commanded such reticence in divulging certain things. Time and again, when Jesus healed people, he commanded them not to tell anyone and to his disciples he enjoined, "neither cast ye your pearls before swine" (Matt 7:6), meaning that sacred things should be given or shown to those who stand outside the law, compared here to "swine," the archetypal animal forbidden by Mosaic law. Then as now, no doctrine is taught secretly, but certain ordinances and rites should be held sacred and not performed publicly lest they be mocked or trivialized.

Mormon temple ceremonies are rooted in Mormon understanding of Deity and man’s relationship to Him. These fundamental doctrines regarding God and man’s identity and destiny are what most distinguish Mormon beliefs and practices for they are the starting point from which the Mormon concept of life and man’s destiny must be understood. Without understanding these fundamental beliefs, no one can understand the Mormon doctrines which are dependent upon them. Too many people studying Mormonism, whether honestly seeking to understand its beliefs, or else trying to discredit them outright, neglect to begin with these fundamentals. As they build their picture of Mormonism beginning with the branches and neglecting the roots, they merely construct an anemic straw man which reflects their own preconceived notions and prejudices more than Mormon doctrine.

It must first be understood that Mormons believe that all mankind are literally the spirit children of Heavenly Parents. Paul referenced this in his address on Mars’ hill where he states that we are God’s offspring (Acts 17:29). For Mormonism, belief in a pre-existent life as spirits living in the presence of God is vital to understanding our life here. Personal identity is as eternal as are our spirits, but it would be more correct to state that we are spirits, inhabiting tabernacles of clay which are mere coverings to our true self. In a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord declared:

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be…For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy (Doctrine and Covenants 93:29,33)

In that primeval childhood we had the power to learn, grow, and ultimately to decide. Every man and woman who has or every will live upon this earth made the choice to come here to be tested. In another revelation it states:

[A]nd he [Jesus] said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate [i.e. the pre-existence] shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate [i.e. this life] shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever (Abraham 3:24-26).

It is important moreover to note that Mormonism does preach the inherent sinfulness of man; there is in Mormonism no original sin. The same revelation quoted above further teaches that, “Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God. And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the traditions of the fathers” (D&C 93:38-40). Man’s nature can, in Mormonism, be described as weak and susceptible to sin, but not inherently evil. Sin in this sense corresponds to the original Greek word used in the New Testament and often anglicized as hamartia, which literally means missing the mark, or erring. Fallen man is estranged from God by our weakness, but we choose to become either good or evil since both impulses exist within every person.

Furthermore God, our Heavenly Father, is an embodied, glorified, and perfected spirit and seeks to help His children become perfect just as He is perfect (see Matthew 5:48). This perfection is not simply to be void of sin, but to be perfected by having a perfect, resurrected and glorified body, just as He has. Jesus set the example in this and made this perfection possible by this atoning sacrifice which began in the Garden of Gethsemane, continued through the cross and the tomb and reached its culmination with His resurrection which opened the doors for all mankind to be resurrected with a perfect, immortal body. He is thus the central figure of human life, pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal. God and man are in one sense very close and yet still so distant. God, man, and the angels, in one sense, are of the same species, but of varying degrees of perfection, mankind being the lowest. This doctrine does not denigrate or lower God, but rather exalts man. The Psalmist says in wonderment:

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels[literally: the gods, the Hebrew word here is Elohim], and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet (Psalms 8:4-6).

We are God’s offspring with the potential to be like Him. John said, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). God and Christ are two separate, glorified beings united in all things. Jesus taught that we must become one just as the Father and the Son are one (see John 17:20-21). This unity is no metaphysical confusion of substance and essence, but a union of minds and hearts, glory and power, toward which all mankind should strive.

Man’s relationship to God is governed by covenants, two-way promises which bind hearts and souls together in sacred communion. God, who cannot lie or fail to fulfill His promises, extends the gift of Eternal Life to those who fulfill their covenant of faith and faithfulness. This is not to say that man earns his salvation by fulfilling his covenants. Far from it. Rather, God has established basic actions which must be fulfilled in order for God to grant the gift of Life to His children.

It is the relationship of a Father to His children. The child, incapable of meriting anything of himself whereby he can earn what he desires, asks his father for help. The father, fully capable of granting the child’s wish, instead desires that his son or daughter grow and develop. Any parent knows that if you simply give a child everything he or she wants, the child will grow up spoiled and immature. So, rather than simply granting the child’s wish, the father requires something from him. He requires that the child clean his room or help with the dishes. In doing so, the child grows and develops. The desire is granted, but the deeds did not truly merit the reward, just as our paltry righteousness does not merit salvation. What brings us salvation is our covenant with God who promises to cleanse us and purify us and bring us back to Him in exchange for our humility, our faith, our repentance, and our continuing to improve ourselves through righteous living. Through this covenant God grants us the power and opportunity to become perfect just as He is perfect, but such perfection will not occur until the resurrection and the final judgment. The crux of all this is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, which enables us to be forgiven and to return to God’s presence. Elder Dallin H. Oaks, an Apostle in the Mormon Church said this:

[W]e conclude that the Final Judgment is not just an evaluation of a sum total of good and evil acts—what we have done. It is an acknowledgment of the final effect of our acts and thoughts—what we have become. It is not enough for anyone just to go through the motions. The commandments, ordinances, and covenants of the gospel are not a list of deposits required to be made in some heavenly account. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a plan that shows us how to become what our Heavenly Father desires us to become (Conference Report, October 2000).

How does this relate to the Mormon temple and its ceremonies? It is the central message and focus of all temple activities and ordinances. The temple represents a microcosm of man’s journey through life from pre-mortal to mortal to the unimaginable glories of eternity. In the temple this journey is taught through symbols and allegory much as Jesus taught through parables so that different people at different stages of spiritual and personal growth could listen to the same message and learn what is most needed for them at that particular point in the spiritual growth.

The Mormon temple ceremonies consist of a symbolic presentation of man’s journey coupled with the covenants and promises God makes to man and the covenants and promises man makes to God. Thus the pre-existence, the creation of the world, our journey through life and our eventual return to God are all depicted and promises and covenants are made. In the temple, all Mormon teachings about life, its purpose and direction, about families, and about our ancestors and descendents are brought together and unified. Through temples, links are forged which can bind families and generations together.

Since Mormon belief teaches that man is an eternal being with a pre- and post-earth life, it makes sense that temple ceremonies are performed for those who did not have the opportunity to accept them. If, as the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach, Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, then what of those who died with no opportunity to hear of Him? Three possibilities exist:

• They will be eternally damned
• They will be saved
• They will have an opportunity to accept Jesus

Choices one and two are damaging to the Christian message. (1) means that God will unjustly condemn those who for no fault of their own could not learn of Him and (2) weakens the very foundations of Christianity by asserting that salvation is possible without Jesus. The Bible teaches that:

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water (1 Peter 3:18-20).

Christ taught the unrighteous spirits living in prison so that they “might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit” (1 Peter 4:6). Mormon temples provide places where the necessary ordinances of baptism both by water and by the Holy Spirit can take place and thus give those spirits in prison a chance to accept Jesus. They will not be forced to accept either Him or the ordinances, but through the temple ceremonies, they have the opportunity thus showing that God can be both just and merciful toward His children. Temples also provide a place where husbands and wives can be married for eternity and be bound to their children by the power of God through all eternity. Thus the human family is united, both past, present, and future in the ceremonies of the Mormon temple.

The Mormon temple and its ceremonies represent the very essence of Mormon belief about God, Jesus Christ, and the eternal nature and destiny of all mankind. Within the temple, the ceremonies seek to bind the human family together and to God through covenants with Almighty God. Mormon temple ceremonies cannot be understood in isolation from Mormon beliefs, but when studied together they show the beauty, the power, and the faith that impels Mormons to share their message with the world. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, that He died and was resurrected in order to redeem all mankind, is the greatest message of hope in this world and the Mormon temple reflects the culmination of Jesus Christ’s and man’s covenantal relationship.

Mormons Invade the Arab World

Mormons are often the subject of conspiracy theories. Usually, however, those theories are confined to the United States and maybe to a lesser extant the UK, Canada and perhaps Mexico. Other places simply do not know enough of Mormons to extrapolate detailed conspiracy theories about them. Typically, in my own experience, we are confused with the Amish or the Jehovah's Witnesses or some such group. I recall once seeing an article in a German newspaper about Mormons around the time of the 2002 Olympics which included a photo of "Mormons" going to church. The picture showed a small log cabin with various people in pioneer dress entering. Where that picture came from I have absolutely no idea.

So imagine my surprise - to use an overly trite phrase - when today I read an article in Al-Majalla, an Arabic weekly news magazine from Saudi Arabia which has ties to The Economist, and discovered therein proof that Mormons were attempting to corrupt the youth of Morocco and make war against Islam.

In the March 23-29, 2008 issue (number 1467), on page 94 there is an article by Muntasir Hammada called The Arabic Maghreb . . ِA Christianizing Attack Cloaked in the Slogan of Religious Liberty. Maghreb, for those unfamiliar with the term, refers to the Arabic speaking portion of North Africa minus Egypt (and sometimes Libya). Mr. Hammada declares:

International evangelizing groups are undertaking a Christianizing assault aimed at the children of North Africa [. . .] Other groups attract youth from the region who are seeking to immigrate to the European shore from Mediterranean neighbors by distributing financial enticements which the missionaries offer to encourage the youth to apostatize from their religion in exchange for an entry visa to Europe . . .

[Note: all translations are my own]

The article goes on to say that Christian missionaries are attempting to entice the ignorant and the poor in Morocco and Algeria with promises of visas and money into embracing Christianity. It claims that these converts are then used as spies, for America and Israel, of course, and that many are reduced to slavery. Missionary tracts and visual aids are sneaked across borders into Muslim countries and fake companies and fake charities disguise evangelizing activities. To be fair, the article says that native Catholics and Orthodox are not involved. He pins the blame on evangelical protestants from Europe, but mostly from America.

After discussing various studies by Islamic scholars in the Maghreb which claim that hundreds of secret missionaries with American funding are infiltrating Morocco and Algeria, Mr. Hammada argues that most of the converts will return to Islam because these "conversions" (quotes in Mr. Hammada's text) were made under duress and therefore will never divert true Muslims. He concludes by wondering whether this phenomenon is part of a Western Strategy to create in the Arab World a Fifth Column that will dilute the strength of Islam. He notes with horror that representatives of what he calls the "Secular Current" have called for renaming the "Ministry of Waqfs (a type of Islamic charitable foundation) and Islamic Affairs" as the "Ministry of Religions." This, he concludes, is just the tip of the ice berg of what is being done in the name of "respecting the doctrines of 'Freedom of Belief,' and 'Freedom of Thought,'" phrases that conspiracy minded Muslims believe mean inevitable Americanization, destruction of their cultures and traditions, and the destruction of Islam.

It is in his discussion of the American-funded, doubly duplicitous spies masquerading as missionaries masquerading as charity workers that he makes the following statement:

In order to accomplish this work there have been here in Morocco for more than three years at least, Christianizing Americans, whose number has been estimated at around 900 Christianizers (according to 2006 statistics), undertaking concerted Christianizing assaults in the cities and villages under the guise of fictitious and real companies such "Global Education," which has been accused of spreading American Evangelicalism. Moroccan security reports, according to what appeared in the francophone "La Gazette Du Maroc", have revealed the duplicitous work these missionaries have undertaken: namely, Christianizing on the one hand and spying on the other hand for various countries, including Israel. (Moroccan censors note that on the side of a philanthropic shipment overseen by American forces in the city of Tantan (Southern Morocco) under the auspices of the administration for a school for elementary education, school supplies were distributed and placed in the container was a piece of paper bearing the name and address of a church in Salt Lake City, Utah in the United States for the Church of Jesus Christ of Last Day Saints!."

[parentheticals and exclamation point in original; note also that the author uses the Muslim form of Jesus' name, Issa, instead of the Christian name for Jesus, Yasu'a, he also says last day instead of last days]

To say I was startled is an understatement. I have never run across the Mormon Church in an Arab publication ever. Period. I have seen some literature published by the Church in Arabic and two websites about the Church in Arabic, one of which I had a hand in establishing, yet never have I run across Mormons in a purely Arab context. I did, incidentally, hear a rumor that the Egyptian paper, Al-Ahram, ran a really biased article on the Church, but still. Arab news sources are generally Mormon-free zones. I wholly suspect that these school supplies were nothing more than school supplies. I feel confident in saying that no attempt was made to subvert the youth of Morocco in the name of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Last Day Saints," which I am sure is related the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints somehow.

Let me say, however, that I have no doubt but that there is truth in some or even many of his accusations in general. During my mission, I met various protestant Christians who admitted to sneaking Christian books and pamphlets into China, Turkey, and various other countries. I read a blog by a girl who was with the Peace Corps in Morocco who admitted to sharing Christian literature with people in Morocco, a deed strictly forbidden, I might add, by the Peace Corps. The Mormon Church, however, only goes in the front door. It is counterproductive and immoral to do missionary work on the sly.

So some of his accusations do not surprise me greatly. It is mostly his style and his habit of using insinuation that disturbs me. He implies that these Christianizers, as he calls them contrasting them with Muslim missionaries, are funded by the Western and part of a conspiracy to dilute the Arab World and weaken it. He calls Christian converts a "Fifth Column," though he contradictorily asserts that there are no real converts just confused teenagers who have been tricked by Westerners into betraying their "Mother Religion", as he calls it. They will return in the end.

This led me to think about cultural dialog and the missionary spirit generally. Mr. Hammada undoubtedly is well-read and well-educated. He can easily distinguish amongst the various branches of Christianity, unlike some Arab writers I have read who make the same error Americans do when they discuss Islam, namely, lumping a diverse and often dissenting mosaic of faith traditions and cultures into something called "Islam." However, he stills find it licit to see the worst in those outside his tradition and see only the best in those with whom he agrees. Standford did a fascinating study on this showing that people are more critical if they are told that the person whose speech they are watching belongs to a different party, whereas they accept those same things said by a person who they are told belongs to their party.

I have written earlier about the concept of listening more than speaking and of the importance of seeking to understand before speaking. This seems a prime example of that error, only seen from the other side of the looking glass, which makes it so much more apparent. It is easy to see the exaggerations, the fear-mongering, the over-simplifications, and so on when one's culture is the one being dissected by an outsider. It is much more difficult to see this fallacy when looking out and assessing another culture. It is healthy, I believe, for everyone to read a critique of their own culture from an outsider. One should not head, necessarily, these criticism. That is not the point. The point is to understand both how others perceive you and to understand how people often misconstrue and misunderstand others. This will lead to self-reflection in the way we criticize and evaluate others. We can also learn the unintended consequences of our own thoughtlessness.

As I shared this article and my thoughts about it with a coworker, he responded with a critique of missionary work and evangelizing. He feels, if I understood him, that while he cannot accept total cultural relativism of the utterly permissive strain, he is uncomfortable with the idea of trying to convert others to your point of view. I am intrigued how secularists often see such a stark contrast between religious and secular ideologies as if trying to convert someone to liberal democracy or secularism were any less evangelistic than religious missionary efforts. I asked him if felt we should therefore accept Female Genital Mutilation or ritualized murder both of which are still practiced in some parts of the world. He said he didn't and recognized where I was going. His struggle, he said, was where to find those universal values by which to judge which acts are licit and which illicit.

The trouble is, however, or as Shakespeare called it, "the rub," is that there can be no universal standards without a God. Appeals to common humanity and the need to live in harmony have some merit, but only some. One could argue that no stealing means that everyone can securely own and use property and thus if all obey that we can live in some measure of peace. No murdering, of course, is essential for us to trust one another. The difficulty, however, seems to be that none of these have any emotional efficacy. If, as we are told, man is merely an animal and the mores we follow are dictated by the necessity of living together, then there is really nothing wrong with these acts per se, merely associated social opprobrium and therefore, if I can get away with it, then why not lie, cheat, and steal for my own benefit. In this system, the individual has no intrinsic worth, he is a creature in a society who must obey for the benefit of all. Of course, it is argued - and I believe rightly - that it is in our own self interest to cooperate. Working together is a social good in and of itself. However, this system does nothing to stay the hand of those who think they can "get away with it." Religion comes at this same problem from a completely different angle arguing that there are eternal verities and laws which man must obey regardless of whether he can "get away with it." I will discuss in some future article the contrasting frames of reference that make cross-cultural dialog so difficult, but not today.

However, by rejecting the last hope of the secular humanists, i.e. morals derived from social science, we are left with either anarchism or theism as the only alternative that I can reasonably see. Please, correct me if there are other options! It seems that we are left with eternal conflict between ideologies. As a libertarian, I advocate a vibrant market of ideas where everyone, no matter how odious his words, can try to convert people to his banner. I do not, however, believe that truth will inevitably win out, nor that there will come an end to strife amongst the various parties of this world. I do not even believe any one group (my own faith included) has a monopoly on truth.

The American poet James Russell Lowe said:

Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, --
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.

I used to think he was speaking of martyrs whose ideals would eventually come to fruition and the rest of the poem, "The Present Crisis," is a romantic paean to tragically fighting on the side of right, though its "chosen heroes" often suffer as Christ did. This implies, sadly, that wrong will, at least in this world, be "forever on the throne." This constant babel of ideas and values will not cease while the world stands. Truth will be forever on the scaffold and wrong forever on the throne of this world. We are left as strangers and pilgrims in a hostile world.

Lehi said there must be opposition in all things and we learn further that the greatest gift given to man is his agency. If, then, we make agency the highest goal, we must maximize freedom. Freedom to disagree, freedom to hate, freedom to believe, freedom not to believe. We must be free to think that someone else is wrong -- something our politically sensitive times finds distasteful and which has lead to some strange bedfellows as Western liberal secularists go to great lengths to defend conservative Muslims, while at the same time attacking conservative Christians. I believe fiercely in what the Muslim theologians call "Ta'jil," which refers to delay of judgment until the Day of Judgment when only God would judge and make clear those things we now disagree about. Jesus said the same thing: Judge not! So my humble advice comes from the Desiderata of Max Ehrmann --often erroneously ascribed to that prolific author Anonymous:

Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.

Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs;
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals;
and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love;
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment
it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.

You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.

Communitas et Vanitas Vanitarum

For one who is by nature a sullen and solitary soul, who frets and fusses about every social engagement however so trivial, I have strangely been preoccupied with the concept of community in the past few months. Difficult thought I find socializing and human interaction (see my prior essay, "On Human Insufferability"), I have come to believe it is essential to health, happiness, and even to salvation.

I have come to believe that there was more than chance behind the founders of Christianity selecting the word "ekklesia" for their community. Ekklesia means "an assembly," or a type of exclusive community. Paul refers again and again to the ekklesia of Smyrna or of Rome or any one of the various early communities. He is referring to real communities of believers who were one in heart and mind and, for a time in the Acts, in substance. Church, I might add, comes also from Greek from the word Kyrios, meaning Lord. It referred to the building belonging to the Lord (in Greek: kyricos) and eventually became the Germanic Kirche and the English Church (and Kirk in Scotland).

Returning to my theme. I believe now that community is what church is to be; not a mere gathering of individual and separate souls, but a real communion of souls. That is the ideal to which we so rarely arrive. We are all striving together toward a common goal: perfection. We will not obtain in this lifetime, but the Atonement of Christ and His mercy and grace afforded thereby, bring us over the chasm that separates us from God and gives us the chance to become as He is.

This belief in the necessity of community, for what else is Zion if not a community, has some very real effects on our attitudes and behaviors. Joseph Smith once said that he was not perfect, but that as he was merciful to others in their infirmities, he expected the Saints to be merciful to him in his weaknesses, thus lifting up the whole community together. My experiences with roommates have taught me that forgiveness and tolerance and the related virtues of mercy and love, are essential for a community to live together in peace. The lo and behold! We find these are some of the very virtues most stressed by the scriptures.

Related to mercy and forgiveness is confession. Confession, being an aspect of repentance, is therefore essential for salvation, but I submit that it is essential, too, for health and for community. It is interesting that so many of the commandments require social interaction. One cannot love thy neighbor without socializing with your neighbor. You cannot forgive as we are commanded without a neighbor. You cannot help the needy, visit the sick and the fatherless, pray for struggling souls, or forgive the sinner, without socializing. In fact, I am hard pressed to find any commandment that applies to a solitary person isolated from society. Even the commandments to pray and read the scriptures include injunctions to pray and read together and we have already seen that to fulfill the basic commandments of the Article 4 of the Articles of Faith, all require other people.

This brings me back to confession. Most people have a slightly negative view of confession and, indeed, of repentance generally, viewing it as something you do when you mess up. This makes it seem a type of punishment rather than a mercy. Confession, I believe now, applies not just to sins, but to all the secret burdens and even temptations that have not yet led to sin. How much better would the world be if people did not hide their weaknesses and mistakes, but shared them openly with friends and family and could thus be helped in overcoming these very problems. Two scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants make this clear. One is in D&C 121 which states that the Spirit withdraws when a man seeks to cover up his sins. The second one - and I forget off hand the reference - states that you know a man has repented when he confesses. In my life, I find that when I have truly dealt with a problem, I find the burden of talking about with loved ones far easier. It is the duty of all 0f us to bear with our friends' and loved ones' infirmities and weaknesses, to strengthen them where they are weak, to restrain judgment knowing that we, too, have a beam in our eye, and to forgive and love them always.

How many despairing souls weighed down not only with sin, but also with illness, financial worries, loneliness, and so many other burdens for which they have no fault, could be comforted and helped to thrive. Depression may not be a sin in and of itself, but it prevents us from partaking fully of the blessings of the spirit and of the community and is therefore damning in every sense of the word. We need each other. We need mercy, tolerance, forgiveness, forbearance, understanding, faith, compassion, and, most importantly, love.

Meditations Part I

The purpose of these missals will be entirely personal and whether I have an audience or not is frankly unimportant. Words are the central and consuming pursuit of my life. The Word, the Logos, in all its shades of meaning semantic, christological, philosophical, and so on. These are the private musings of one who finds it easier to write than to speak. Words come bubbling up inside of me and will have an outlet. This will include dialogues, essays, fictions, poetry, and the unthought-out meandering jeremiads of my mind.

I have called this site Mormon Meditations because I am a Mormon, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. My purpose is to explore my experience and my beliefs through my writings. Often I have had the experience that not until my words are cogently written down do my ideas begin to crystallize. I am hoping through these writings to explore and understand my own experience.

However, I will not confine myself to "Mormon" specific targets, but will range upon the whole spectrum of my experience including my diagnosis some years past with Asperger's Syndrome, my personal interests in history, religion, language and linguistics, culture, literature, philosophy, physics, and current events.

I invite readers to comment and challenge my ideas so that I will be forced to reconsider them. Without opposition, there is no growth and with growth, there is slow decay and death. I follow the philosophy of the Muslim scholar Ibn Hanbal who said (and I am paraphrasing) I believe my beliefs are correct, but I am aware they could be wrong. I believe my opponents' beliefs are incorrect, but I am aware they could be correct. Truth, as I once heard it said, is larger than any one man's conception of it and as we grope and fumble in the darkness of this world, we all stumble over the truth occasionally, but fall more frequently into error. I subscribe somewhat resignedly to the Weltanschauung of Alexander Pope:

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind and body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Whether he thinks to little, or too much;
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself, abus'd or disabus'd;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world.

Still, there is hope -- the final thing that remains to man after he loses everything else. Hope remains when all else flees. It is the basis for faith and charity and the sustainer of the soul. I will write a great deal about hope; a topic that has occupied me lately. Until later...