That Peculiar Logic of Darkness

Darkness has a logic all of its own that is shaped to the contours of the boundary between the seen and the unseen. Here, at the liminal extreme of our knowledge, reasons breaks down as if in a moral singularity. Maybe there is some truth after all in my mother's adage that the Holy Ghost goes to bed after midnight. It seems that as one goes away from the Light, the Logic of Darkness takes over bit by bit. It begins with rationalization. As the Poet said:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,

As to be hated needs but to be seen;

Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

~Alexander Pope, from "Essay on Man"

This is because logic is a tool and not an end of knowledge. It constructs our thoughts as a blue print guides a mason. It is however, no more the edifice than that lined paper is. With logic we can see the ends of thoughts and their relationships with one another, but we cannot know through logic.

Knowledge is a priori and can only be organized. Truth exists in and through itself independent in the universe, though each of us can only grasp a small portion of it. Ultimately, logic is limited in its ability to convince, because the assumptions that our beliefs, independent of any intellectual framework, are deeply held and difficult to change. Argument is so often doomed to failure because people cannot agree on the very epistemology that would permit them to discuss an issue within a shared logical framework. A theist and a secularist fundamentally disagree on what constitutes truth and the source for deriving truth and so can not easily discuss any topic unless one or the other yields to the epistemology of the other. In our society, it is often the theist that must yield to the secularist.

Hence, the logic of Darkness is not really different from the Logic of Light. Rather, the same framework houses very different buildings. The same logic can lead to very different conclusions when different ideas are plugged in. Consider a simple arithmetic formula. 2x=y. The value of y is dependent on the value of x. If x were 2 than y would equal 4, but if x were 450, the y would be 900. So it is with logic. Two conclusions can both be equally valid logically, but completely contradictory. Consider the simple syllogism: All tall men play basketball well; Jon is tall; therefore, Jon plays basketball well. This is logically valid, but utterly false since I play basketball abysmally. The error lies not in the logic, which is correct, but in the assumption that all tall men play basketball well.

Such errors can compound themselves. Joseph Smith once remarked that if a person starts right, it is easy to continue right, but if that first step is wrong, it is all the more difficult to get on the correct path. He was speaking of arguments. It is the fundamentals that matter most. Our conclusions are only as good as the assumptions that go into them.

We read in the Book of Mormon, in chapter 4 of Alma, that the Prophet Alma gave up the Chief judgeship to become a missionary among his people because he was afraid they were going astray. This well educated, erudite man of business and government, however, did not try to argue the people to his side.

And this he did that he himself might go forth among his people, or among the people of Nephi, that he might preach the word of God unto them, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty, and that he might pull down, by the word of God, all the pride and craftiness and all the contentions which were among his people, seeing no way that he might reclaim them save it were in bearing down in pure testimony against them. (Alma 4:19)

Alma saw that only bearing testimony could turn people around. The only people with whom you can discuss things logically are those with whom you share enough common assumptions to make your logic accessible to your interlocutor. Only the meek and humble will listen to someone whose basic assumptions about the truth are at odds with their own. Thus Paul tells us that faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:14-17) preached by those who are sent. The Doctrine and Covenants tells us, "of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost. (D&C 19:31). This is not that we should hide our beliefs, but rather it is an acknowledgment that debating doctrine and tenets is a futile spinning of one's wheels.

So, as always, let me end by saying that we should listen more than we speak, and ask more than we answer.

Of Darkness and Light

As far as I am aware, man is the only animal with a conscience. This is not that animals do not feel bad from time to time. Anyone who has every been around a dog knows that they can evince something that resembles shame when you get mad at them. However, like Robert Burns said of that ill-fated mouse whose cozy winter home the Poet's plow so rudely overturned:

Still thou are blest, compared wi' me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But och! I backward cast my e'e,
On prospects drear!
An' forward, tho' I canna see,
I guess an' fear!

Man is doomed by his intellect to suffer for the pains of the past and fear for the future. That is why, perhaps, so many of the world's mystical traditions encourage their initiates to put the future in God's hand, the past in His mercy and become immersed in the present. So taught the Taoists, the Stoics, the Sufis, the Christian Mystics, and even Jesus Christ Himself. Consider these words:

Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself ~Matthew 6:34

A few years ago, a heard what was a paradigm shifting sermon for me by Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It was October of 2000 in the Saturday Afternoon session of General Conference. Elder Oaks spoke on Becoming. He said:

[T]he 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.

Not long before this I had encountered as a missionary for the Mormon Church an angry minister of another faith who accused me of believing that each good deed somehow got me a certain number of "points" with God and that I need only achieve a particular threshold in order to enter heaven. Having only said, "Hello," to him, I was startled by this brazen declaration and no manner of refutation on my part could dissuade him of his error. However, I though a lot about his words and about the perceptions our words and actions can give to others. I have addressed this topic many times before in this site.

Elder Oaks' talk, however, gave me great clarity. Many more scriptural passages became clearer like Jesus' parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16), which Elder Oaks cites. It is not the things we do that matter, but the effect of the things we do on our soul. This is at once comforting and frightening.

On the one hand, it means that where we labor, whether it be as Prophet, Relief Society President, or the guy who vacuums the Church on Saturdays, does not matter at all because the ultimate goal is the effect of our work on our soul. Elder Oaks notes as an example that, "the pure love of Christ" (Moro. 7:47), is not an act but a condition or state of being. Charity is attained through a succession of acts that result in a conversion. Charity is something one becomes. Thus, as Moroni declared, "except men shall have charity they cannot inherit" the place prepared for them in the mansions of the Father (Ether 12:34; emphasis added)." Doing charitable things does not matter nor does the size of the charitable deed; it is that we become charitable beings. Thus repentance makes more sense. We can never truly ameliorate or mitigate the bad effects of our poor choices and sins. Indeed, we may be forced, as Paul with his thorn in the flesh, to suffer for our bad choices all the days of our probationary mortality. However, we can become better in our souls and through the mercy, grace, and charity of God and Our Savior, we can return and be sanctified though this ultimate end may not come for many years even after our mortal deaths.

On the other hand, we learn here that only true repentance that wrenches the very roots of our souls will ever suffice to obtain God's grace and mercy. The Prophet Joseph Smith said that we would all be tried as Abraham and our very heartstrings would be wrenched. The purpose in all this is not to torture us, but to purify our desires. Hence there are scriptures that say we will be judged by the very desires of our hearts.

The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh. (Alma 5:41)

And yet, throughout all the days of our erring mortality, we are all full of darkness and light warring within us. Each of us has different strength and we fall to different temptations according to our desires.

It is overwhelming sometimes. I often feel beset with my failures and weaknesses. In quiet moments when I should feel peace, I hear only the voice of self recrimination. I am convinced that cynics and idealists are really the same class of being, but we cynics, though we hope for perfection and beauty, see too often the failure. We over emphasize the bad perhaps to justify our own failings.

Light and Dark are continually at war within us. The more I ponder this, the less I am inclined to judge any man for his sins. I cannot do it. He is tied to me in the same ultimate endeavor. At stake is the very integrity of an immortal soul. How can I dare to cast one of those aside? C. S. Lewis remarked that when he looked upon suffering souls, he saw gods. The Bible tells us that we are gods (see Psalms 82:1-6). But fallen so far we little resemble what once we were when we walked with Angels for a time. We are as much now like God as a pebble resembles a mountain.

Lately I feel that I have been trying to compensate for what Hemingway called, "the burden of a happy childhood." Through this, I have come to understand the wisdom of what Jesus told the Pharisees who endlessly debated the measuring of tithes and the "deep doctrines" of God's presence in the Burning Bush as if such could possibly affect their souls while they omitted the true "deep things of God" as Paul termed them. Jesus said:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Matthew 23:23)

Mercy, faith, judgment, hope, charity, peace. These are the doctrines upon which it is our duty to meditate. Oh be sure to pay your tithes, as Jesus said. He never advocated neglecting these temporal duties, but rather He cautioned us to look at what underlies the Law. In doing so, the very powers of heaven distill themselves upon our souls.

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.

So now what?

Just a note to let you know that I have not ceased being the Roving Royal Researcher I said was going to be, there has just been some bureaucratic delays. I am essentially waiting for the paper work and the contracts to be processed and as any one who has worked in the Middle East can testify, this may take some time. The difficulty, I believe, lies in different attitudes towards time. Westerners like to think of time as a commodity that can be purchased, saved, spent, wasted, squandered, and compensated. In Arab culture, time is something outside of us that flows like a river around us sweeping us along. In English, we say we will meet at 3:00 o'clock. In Arabic, one says, we will meet in 3:00 o'clock. Time is often viewed less precisely. I recently ran across a list of "You Might Be Arab If ..." statements. One read: "You might be an Arab if you show up two hours late and still think its early." I shared that with a few Arab friends, both of whom confirmed the truth of this.

So, now what. I continue working for the Mosaic Foundation until my contract comes through and then its off to the wide world of researching archives throughout the wide, wide world. I will keep you posted.

In the Year 20878 AD/AH

I can still do basic Algebra! Hurray!

I discovered this recently as I attempted to solve a problem that had plagued me for literally minutes. That was this: The Islamic Calendar and the Gregorian (i.e. Christian Calendar) have different lengths. The Islamic Calendar is Lunar and has twelve months. It begins in what is 622 AD in the Western Calendar (on Thursday July 15, to be precise, according to some calculations). In 622, the nascent Muslim community in Mecca fled persecutions and took refuge in the city of Yathrib, thereafter renamed Medina. This flight is known in Arabic as the Hijra, an Arabic word meaning migration or flight.

Ten Lunar years later, in 10 AH (Anno Hegirae, Latin for In the Year of the Hijra), the Prophet Muhammad revealed that God told him that each year should have twelve months and that they should stop adding extra days every year (know as intercalation). The intercalation had been done to keep the months in the same seasons; however, Muhammad stopped this and Muslims today view this as a great blessing since Muslim feast days, such as the fasting of Ramadan and the Pilgrimage to Mecca, are calculated according to the Hijri calendar, the seasons of the festivals change over time.

Since that time, the Islamic world has followed this Hijri calendar. Days, as in the Jewish tradition, begin at sunset, and new months begin with the first viewing of the crescent moon. Today, rather than rely on plain eyesight, mathematical algorithms are done to determine the phases of the moon. This concern for the phases of the moon and the necessity to determine the direction to Mecca for prayer drove Islamic scholars to become masters at astronomy and it was through their work that the world got the astrolabe and the compass; those inestimable tools of navigation.

The problem becomes, however, in this global world, that going between these two systems can be difficult and complex. The following formulas help one convert dates:

AH = 1.030684(CE-621.5643)

CE = 0.970229AH + 621.5643

Where CE equals the Common Era (or the Christian Calendar) date and AH equals the Hijri or Islamic date.

There are difficulties in this calculation though and dates are frequently disputed. An Islamic date recorded in a manuscript in the middle ages, for example, can be extremely tricky to determine precisely in the Western calendar for a variety of reasons. Firstly, in those times, determinations of new months required visually seeing the new crescent moon; though mathematical formulae existed even then. Furthermore, there have been, over the centuries, different Islamic calendars in use in different parts of the Islamic world. This, of course, is not surprising. Europe has only had a unified calendar for a few centuries. In the middle ages, some regions had their own calculations and there were constant debates about which one was best even though there was general agreement on the months (holdovers from Roman times). I can also through another wrench in the gears: namely, that the moon recedes from the earth every year by a couple of centimeters and hence the length of its rotations subtly change. Of course, this has virtually no impact in the short run even including centuries, but over millenia this might affect things. And let's not even discuss the horrors of leap years which exist in both systems!

So, the other day, my coworker and I were discussing these facts. He asked me what year it was in the Islamic system and I replied: 1429 AH. That means that 1429 lunar years have passed since the Hijra; however 1386 solar years have passed (2008-622=1386). Furthermore, in the first year of the Islamic Calendar, the difference between the two systems was 621 (a thoroughly meaningless number by itself since it is a combinations of two systems). Today, the difference is 579. The Islamic calendar is catching up to the Christian calender at a very slow rate. Indeed, it has gained by only 42 in 1386 solar years. Eventually, the years would be the same, I realized. But when? So, I did the following math:

Let x=CE
Let y=AH
x=0.970229y=621.5643
y=1.030684(x-621.5643)

Since I wanted to find the point at which x=y I substituted x for y and set the two equations as equal, hence:

0.970229x + 621.5643 = 1.030684(x - 621.5643)

I proceeded to calculated as follows:

0.970229x + 621.5643 = 1.030684(x - 621.5643)
0.970229x + 621.5643 = 1.038684x - 640.6363789812
0.970229x + 1262.2006789812 = 1.038684x
1262.2006789812 = .060455x
0.060455x = 1262.2006789812
x= 20878.350492

That means that in the year 20,878 AD it will also be the year 20,878 AH. Christianity and Islam will finally come together and peace will reign upon the earth. Now we need only wait 18,870 years (19,449 lunar!) for peace. At the current rate of the peace process in the Middle East, this might be early.

Stranger things...

Just a short entry today. I have been trying to find some traditional Saudi children's clothes for my sister's kids, but to no avail. I have asked several people and I always end up being directed to stores that sell blue jeans and "the Gap" t-shirts. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the tradition clothing of Saudi Arabia consists of blue jeans and baby Gap. That, however, is only the frame of the story. During my meanderings in the market I saw a store that sold movies and music and decided to check it out. I really have only two interests when shopping: books, the older the better; and music. Everything else, like food, clothing, and deodorant, are optional and waste money that could more profitably be spent on books. As I wondered the much editted selection of the store, which consisted mostly of Bollywood movies and American pop albums with black marker covering up the women (Shakira's album was, in fact, completely blacked out), I saw the recently released movies. There was "Enchanted" in Arabic, lots of Hollywood and Bollywood fare and, most surprising of all -- so surprising, in fact, that I am tempted to return to the store, camera in hand, just to take a picture if I thought they would not chase me out for doing so -- was the complete "Work and the Glory" series. Who marketed that here?! The box did not say whether the movie was translated or even subtitled in Arabic, but there it was right on the "Hot New Releases" shelf. Weird. It is a small world afterall.

A Night Out on the Town

One of my new bosses, and there appear to be several, all of whom are princesses -- a sign, perhaps, of future problems, assigned her assistant, Ra'id to show me around a little. The national pasttime of Saudi Arabia appears to be shopping. I visited both the old Thumairy Market by Al-Masmak fortress, which I keep mistakenly referring to as a palace, and some modern malls and shopping districts. There are no clubs and restaurants are often segregated into single (i.e. men), and family sections -- even the McDonalds I passed had two seperated sides separated by a wall. The malls have levels with signs reading: "Entry forbidden to single men, families only." It was interesting to see that many people shop as families, though this may also have something to do with the fact that women cannot go out without an adult male relative accompanying them. Indeed, in most of its outward appearences, Riyadh scarcely differs from many American cities with strip malls, freeways, ubiquitious cars, fast food chains, and so on save in one aspect: the lack of women out and about.

The picture above is, I should mention, my hotel by night. This picture is the Faisaliyah tower all aglow. Returning to women. It is interesting to me to see men doing most of the errands. One of my bosses, a princess, has a male assistant who does all her errands. We visited a modern mall, which, minus the Arabic signs, looked as though it had been transported from suburban Washington, D.C. (the rich part, of course). The women in their long black abayas, not all of whom wore hijabs and veils by the way, suddenly brought to my mind the Harry Potter films with everyone swishing around in long black cloaks.

The other difficulty is that during every prayer time, every shop must close. The locals are accustomed to it and plan accordingly, the few foreigners like myself, and there were very few especially in the Thumairy Market where I saw none whatsoever, do find it somewhat difficult to interrupt one's shopping and site seeing continuiously throughout the day. I don't complain of course; it would be beyond rude to do so. The best time to go shopping is after the evening prayer around 8:00 pm because there are no more prayers until morning and the stores stay open until 1 or 2 in the morning. I past a KFC that was open until 3:00 am.

Here is Kingdom Tower by night from Olaya street where we visited Jarir bookstore, the Barnes and Noble of Saudi Arabia. It really is. You can buy everything from the complete sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (which I did for an unbelievably low price by American standards), to the latest Stephen King novel both in English and Arabic. It also had a Starbucks cafe in the corner. It was a good place to visit. I was able to purchase some novels to help improve my Arabic. Again, I was the only non-Arab I saw and was a source of curiousity to many children.

Photography is discouraged in many parts of Saudi Arabia and I have been warned not to take pictures of women nor of anybody without their permission. This made it all but impossible for me to photograph the old market or the mall. I even did a google search to see if any braver souls had done it and found none at all. My verbal pictures will have to suffice, I suppose.

My favorite place in the old market was an antique store that puts any antique store in America to shame. When I visited with Princess Maha, she lamented to me that too few of the Saudis appreciate the remants of their heritage and so books, documents, artefacts, buildings, and so forther, unless they are Qurans, (her words) are razed or tossed. In this store I saw cardboard boxes full of hand illuminated manuscripts some of them dating back to the sixteenth and seventeenth century. There were rust canckered swords and daggers. I bought the dagger at the left, a book (see my previous entry), and some jewellry. There were lots of ivory and coral items for sale. Can't buy any of them, of course. It's illegal to bring them back into the States. There were old globes, a rusted astrolabe, hundreds of daggers just sitting in a box, old shields, jewellry, and so on. Some were no doubt fakes or reproductions and I am not expert enough to tell the genuine antiques from the real things (except, of course, for the books). Since, however, this was no tourist trap dump like those that surround the Pyramids of Giza (no offense, but it's true), I was less suspicious than I would normally be.

So, basically a night on the town in Riyadh is shopping and eating. Not really all that different than back home the social dynamics are a little different. I quickly learned, however, that creative locals find ways around it mostly involving cell phones. Tomorrow I meet once more with the princesses and the gentlemen they are hiring to organize the materials already here in

Riyadh. I will also finally visit the exhibit on King Faisal which was part of the main reason for my trip. However, we delayed visiting at first because Princess Haifa wanted to meet me at the exhibit and then the exhibit was close for much of the weekend open only for a few hours at night for families only. We unattached men can only visit in the early morning. Until then.