Jews and Mormons

8/12/2019 Jews and Mormons

1/22

J M :S D

Background

My topic, Jews and Mormons: Similarities and Differences, isnot an obvious choice or an Israeli visiting America. Jews areoverwhelmingly ignorant o and indifferent to Mormonism, even Jewswho know something about other Christian religions or Islam. Indeed,a riend o mine, who is a highly respected Israeli scholar and who re-quently lectures abroad, when he heard that I had begun teaching atBrigham Young Universitys Jerusalem Center or Near Eastern Studies,asked me whether it were true that Mormons still practice polygamy.

o a large extent, Jewish awareness o Mormonism, however mini-

mal, remains negative, due mainly to two Latter-day Saint practiceswidely regarded as offensive in the Jewish community: Missionarywork (or proselytizing) and baptism or the dead (namely, posthumousbaptism by proxy o non-Mormons, usually ancestors o a Mormon).Most Jews are unlikely to be aware, however, that the Church o JesusChrist o Latter-day Saints has attempted to respect Jewish sensitivi-ties on both these issues, which are, afer all, undamental practices oMormonism. In an agreement submitted to Israeli authorities when theJerusalem Center or Near Eastern Studies was opened, the presidento the church (Ezra af Benson) and the president o Brigham YoungUniversity (Jeffrey R. Holland) signed a solemn commitment (hungprominently next to the centers dining hall) orbidding Latter-day Saint

Raphael Jospe


2/22

402 FARMS R / ( )

proselytizing in Israel, and threatening any student, member o the ac-

ulty, or staff violating that commitment with immediate expulsion romthe Jerusalem Center and rom the country. Similarly, respecting Jewishsensitivity, especially afer the Shoah (Holocaust), the church agreed in1995 to stop the practice o baptism or the dead applied in a wholesalemanner to Jews (although reaffirming the right o individual Latter-daySaints to baptize their own direct ancestors). 1

1. Given their experience o centuries o Christian missionary and conversionaryactivity, including orced baptisms, Jews are unlikely to appreciate the idealism, devo-tion, and commitment (what Jews would call mesirut nefesh) o Latter-day Saint eldersin their late teens or early twenties, who spend a couple o years serving their church indistant regions, usually supporting themselves or being supported by their amilies. Jewsare likely to resent the intrusion in their lives or the implication that they are in need o yetanother gospel. It is precisely because missionary work is such a undamental component oMormonism that the commitment by the church and Brigham Young University to re rain

rom proselytizing in Israel is so solemn and should be taken seriously. Nevertheless, some-time afer the center was closed, the inuential Jerusalem Report published an article inwhich the antimissionary organization Yad LAchim expressed glee at the closure (RonitZimmer, Anti-missionary Group Rejoices at Closure o Mormon University, 10 February2003, p. 7) and then published my response (24 February 2003) de ending the centers scru-pulous en orcement o the commitment and unparalleled record in bringing hundreds ostudents a year to study in Jerusalem. Baptism or the dead tends to be an even greaterproblem in terms o Jewish sensitivity, particularly when applied to Jews murdered in theShoah (Holocaust), including Anne Frank, and also reportedly to such gures as TeodoreHerzl, David Ben-Gurion, and Golda Meir (according to YediotAaronot, 5 October 2003,and HaAretz, 31 December 2003). In 1995 the church, once again, demonstrated sensitivityto Jewish concerns by agreeing to stop the practice o baptism or the dead applied whole-sale and indiscriminately to Jews, although maintaining the right o individual Latter-daySaints to continue to baptize their direct Jewish ancestors. Tere continue to be periodicJewish complaints about widespread violations o that policy, with the church, in turn,claiming that it cannot control all local and individual initiatives, nor can it lter mil-lions o names. Hope ully, increased sensitivity on local as well as national levels, and moresophisticated computer techniques or review and control, may reduce i not totally elimi-nate this source o tension between Jews and Mormons. Nevertheless, while I ully andunconditionally identi y with Jewish concerns on both these issues, I believe it is important

or Jews to recognize that the Latter-day Saints, who have not yet met all Jewish expecta-tions, have come a long way in showing understanding or Jewish sensitivity, and have made

great compromises o what are or them undamental tenets and practices, in their desireto respect Jewish opinion and improve relations with the Jewish people. ruman Madsenhas in ormed me that when Latter-day Saint microlmers rst came to Israel to copy Jewishrecords and met with resistance, the eminent scholar o religions R. J. Zvi Werblowskywas consulted; he suggested differentiating between what people do and why they do it.Copying and preserving genealogical records provides a valuable service. Since Jews do not


3/22

J M (J ) 403

Tere ore, given that Mormonism is not a signicant actor in the

concerns o most Jews, why do I believe that Jewish-Mormon dialogueis important or both sides? My answer is given on three levels: gen-eral, Jewish, and Mormon.

First, in general, many people o diverse backgrounds today increas-ingly recognize the urgent need or increased interreligious dialogue andunderstanding, all the more so in our era o the global village and at atime when the whole world is threatened by anatical and undamental-

ist religiopolitical terror. As radical Catholic theologian Hans Kng hassaid, without peace among the worlds religions, there will be no peaceamong the nations. 2 In my part o the world in particular, it is an un or-tunate act that religion is rarely a orce or peace and is usually used (orabused) to exacerbate conicts that are basically national and political,and not theological, in nature. We need, there ore, to encourage inter-religious dialogue wherever possible, and with whomever possible.

Second, looking at interreligious, specically Jewish-Mormon rela-tions, rom a Jewish perspective, the Jewish people in general and thestate o Israel in particular do not have many riends in the world. Someo the decades-old Jewish alliances with mainline and liberal Christianchurches over domestic American agendas such as civil rights and civilliberties are now increasingly strained due to some o these churchesinvolvement with overt criticism o Israel, support or Palestinians, andcalls or divestiture and even boycotts o Israel, o Israeli universitiesand academicians, or o companies doing business in Israel. Moreover,given the resurgence o European anti-Semitism, it seems to me an obvi-ous Jewish interest to oster relations with churches, like the Church oJesus Christ, that have extended their hands in riendship to the Jewishpeople and the state o Israel and that have no history o consistent anti-Semitism. Various Christian churches are struggling with, or overtlyrepudiating, the supersessionist theology that typied so much o their

believe that Mormon ceremonies in their temples can actually affect the redemption o aJew, dead or alive, Latter-day Saint motivation is not a problem. 2. Hans Kng, World PeaceWorld ReligionsWorld Ethic, in Caring for FutureGenerations: Jewish, Christian and Islamic Perspectives, ed. Emmanuel Agius and LionelChircop ( wickenham: Adamantine, 1998), 6981, especially 74.


4/22

404 FARMS R / ( )

historical attitudes toward the Jewish people and Judaism. Te Latter-

day Saint record is ar more positive. For example:Ye need not any longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game othe Jews, nor any o the remnant o the house o Israel; orbehold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them, andhe will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn.(3 Nephi 29:8)

Specically, given the diminishing numbers o Jews in America (inabsolute terms, and all the more as a proportion o the American popu-lation), and in light o the act thatcontrary to Arab propagandatheJewish-Israeli lobby does not control the American Congress and hasnever been able to stop sales o advanced weapons to Arab countries(like Saudi Arabia) hostile to Israel, it seems clear that the only truepower the American Jews possess is the power o moral persuasion.Persuasion, however, requires reaching out in dialogue to a broad spec-

trum o communities with whom the Jews have not previously hadextensive dialogue, including the Latter-day Saints, who are growing innumbers and inuence.

Tird, though o course I cannot speak or Latter-day Saints, itseems to me rom my encounters with them (including serving as thepro essor o Jewish civilization at the Jerusalem Center or Near EasternStudies), that there is growing interest among Latter-day Saints or

dialogue with Jewish people, who occupy a special place in Mormonthought. Latter-day Saints, seeing themselves as physically descendedrom ancient Israel (primarily rom the tribe o Ephraim), ofen eel

a special kinship with the Jewish people, whom they sometimes re erto as cousins o the house o Israel o the tribe o Judah,3 leadingthem to regard themselves and Jews as two houses o Israel. In manyrespects this sense o kinship is rein orced when Latter-day Saints por-tray themselves as a new Israel, suffering persecution and wanderingon the Great rek in the wilderness until they came to an AmericanZion. We shall return later to this LDS notion o physical lineage. But

3. Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Tree Books on Jewish and Mormon Temes, FARMSReview 15/1 (2003): 403.


5/22

J M (J ) 405

what is no less important or Jewish-Mormon dialogue is the growing

LDS effort to relate to Jews, not as an Old estament tribe but as a liv-ing religious community. 4

So or different and legitimate reasons, Latter-day Saints and Jewscan recognize not only the general need or religious encounter, butalso a specic common interest in a special dialogue with each other, adialogue that will not eliminate the undamental differences betweenthem, but will, rather, enhance those differences with greater mutualunderstanding and respect.

Tat special dialogue suffered a setback some years ago, when thesecurity situation in Israel led to the closing, or the time being, o theJerusalem Center or Near Eastern Studies, despite valiant efforts o theBYU administration in Jerusalem and Provo to keep it open under di -cult circumstances. Te center was a major locus or Jewish-Mormondialogue.5 o the best o my knowledge, no other university in the worldbrought some 850 young people annually to study in Jerusalem over anumber o years. Indeed, ew, i any, Israeli universities have programs

or overseas students coming rom all over the world that can approachthat number. In act, ew o my colleagues in Jewish studies around theworld, who are ofen lucky to teach a ew dozen students a year, taught,as I did, 850 students every year, all o whom were potential ambassadorso goodwill in the relationship between Jews and Latter-day Saints.

When, in the all o 2001, just a ew weeks afer the tragedy o

9/11, I came to Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, to partici-pate in the celebration o the publication o the book I helped to con-ceive and edit, Covenant and Chosenness in Judaism and Mormonism

4. Arnold H. Green, Gathering and Election: Israelite Descent and Universalismin Mormon Discourse, Journal of Mormon History 25/1 (1999): 195228. Green here(p. 221) is describing the work o Steven Epperson (see below, note 25). 5. Afer the ailure o the Clinton-Barak-Ara at summit at Camp David in 2000,there was a sharp quantitative and qualitative rise in Palestinian terror. Unlike the Inti-

ada o the 1980s, which was an uprising starting on the ground while Ara at and thePLO leadership were still in unisia, the violence beginning in the all o 2000 was notspontaneous but was organized and sustained as low-intensity war are by Ara ats ownFata as well as byamas and Islamic Jihad. So long as the U.S. State Department offi-cially advises Americans against travel to Israel, Brigham Young University has beenunable to obtain American insurance coverage or its students in Jerusalem.


6/22

406 FARMS R / ( )

(based on a con erence held at the University o Denver in the winter

o 1998), a reporter or the BYUDaily Universe newspaper asked mewhy the dialogue between Jews and Latter-day Saints is important,and I responded, Because o the similarities and because o the di -

erences between us.6

Having explained why I think Jews and Latter-day Saints need toengage each other in dialogue, I would now like to describe some exam-ples o their similarities and differences, on a general level, and thendeal with two specic issues, each exempli ying both similarities anddifferences between the two communities. Understanding each othersterminology and rame o re erence is an obvious requirement or effec-tive communication.

Similarities and Differences

In many cases, the same point serves as the basis or both similar-ity and difference between Jews and Latter-day Saints, beginning withthe most basic act o all, size o population. Tere are roughly thesame number o Jews and Latter-day Saints in the world today, sometwelve to ourteen million in each casea point o obvious similarity.But the population gures are simultaneously a point o differencesince the number o Jews in the world is generally decreasing (pri-marily through intermarriage and assimilation), whereas the numbero Latter-day Saints in the world is generally increasing (primarilythrough a high birthrate and proselytes). Indeed, with the exceptiono the Orthodox sector o the Jewish community, which represents asmall minority o the Jews in most countries, the only country in theworld in which the overall Jewish birthrate exceeds the 2.0 replace-ment rate and in which a higher birthrate, combined with immigra-tion, results in regular net annual growth is the state o Israel. Since1939, the population o the world has probably tripled or quadrupled,

and yet the Jewish people, which numbered some eighteen million6. BYU Daily Universe, 17 October 2001. Tis particular quotation does not appear

in the article. Te occasion was the publication o Covenant and Chosenness in Judaismand Mormonism, ed. Raphael Jospe, ruman G. Madsen, and Seth Ward (Madison:Fairleigh Dickinson University PressAssociated University Presses, 2001).


7/22

J M (J ) 407

be ore World War II, remains not much larger than it was in 1945 afer

the loss o one-third o the Jewish people in the Shoah.Another obvious similarity is that both these tiny communities

(in global terms) see themselves as chosen and categorize the resto the world as Gentiles. But here, too, there is a difference. Froma Jewish perspective, Latter-day Saints are usually seen (ofen igno-rantly) as another vaguely Protestant group o Christians, and thus asGentiles. Like many other Jews, I looked orward to my rst visit toUtah, joking that I looked orward to experiencing what it eels like tobe a Gentile. It was only some time later, when I became more seriouslyinvolved in dialogue with Latter-day Saints, that I ound out that theysee themselves as linked to biblical Israel (usually through the tribe oEphraim) and do not consider Jews to be Gentiles but as descendants

rom the biblical tribe o Judah and thus as a sort o cousins in thehouse o Israel.7 Indeed, a recent popular book, coauthored by a Jewand a Mormon, is called Jews and Mormons: wo Houses of Israel .8 So the similarity becomes a difference: both groups regard outsidersas Gentiles. But or Jews, there are only two categories: Jews andGentiles (including Mormons), whereas or Latter-day Saints, Jewsoccupy a third, special category, being neither Latter-day Saints norGentiles.

Both communities base their religious authority on revealed proph-ecy, but here, too, the similarity breaks down almost immediately. For

Latter-day Saints, prophecy remains an active category, the presidentsand apostles o the church being deemed prophets. Revelation is under-stood among Latter-day Saints to be continuing, and a later revelationcan actually overturn and supercede earlier revelations, as ( or exam-ple) the amous 1978 priesthood revelation, which opened the ranks opriesthood to all races. By sharp contrast, in Jewish tradition, authoritydecreases over time: the orah has the highest authority, ollowed by

that o the prophets, ollowed by the other books o scripture, ollowedin late Second emple times by the earlier tanaim, who were in turn

7. Chadwick, Tree Books on Jewish and Mormon Temes, 403. 8. Frank J. Johnson and William J. Leffler, Jews and Mormons: wo Houses of Israel (Hoboken: Ktav, 2000).


8/22

408 FARMS R / ( )

ollowed by the lateramoraim o the almud. Among the post- almudic

rabbis, the authority o earlier authorities ( rishonim) exceeds that othe later authorities ( aaronim ). Jewish tradition regards prophecy ashaving ceased with the destruction o the ancient temple in Jerusalem,and the almudic rabbis categorized people claiming to be prophets as

ools.9 In a amous incident, when Rabbi Eliezer invoked miracles andeven a divine voice (bat kol ) was heard to support his minority position,the majority sharply rejected the divine voice, stating that the halakhah

(law) must be determined by human reasoning and majority vote o therabbis because (citing Deuteronomy 30:1114) now the orah is not inheaven anymore, but is close to you . . . in your mouth and in yourheart, to do it. 10

As a result o their opposing views o the ascending or descendingnature o authority, Latter-day Saints and Jews tend to differ sharply inthe structure o their religious organization. A colleague at Brigham

Young University observed that the Latter-day Saint structure is, ianything, even more hierarchical and centralized than that o theRoman Catholic Church, and the clear emphasis is on convergenceand consensus. While some countries have official or sel -appointedchie rabbis, such rabbis are widely ignored by other rabbis and bymany or even most Jews. Te emphasis, going back to the almudicsystem o disputing and questioning virtually every point o interpre-

tation o law and lore, is on divergence and diversity.Tis difference in approach was overtly evident in the Mormon and

Jewish papers published in our book. Te ve Mormon participants,all distinguished scholars well versed in other religious literature,some o them also at home in Hebrew or Arabic, cited Latter-day Saintscripture as entirely authoritative, as a given revealed text. Te veJewish participants are all actively committed and religious Jews; yet

all o them, both personally and pro essionally, mani ested a critical9. Babylonian almud Bava Batra 12b: Rabbi Yoanan said: Since the day the

emple was destroyed, prophecy was taken away rom the prophets and given to oolsand in ants.

10. Babylonian almud Bava M ezia 59b.


9/22

J M (J ) 409

distancing rom the traditional sources, and they came rom diverse

ideological sectors o the Jewish community.Many other points o similarity should be explored, but in order to

ocus on two major points, I will simply mention some o them with-out urther analysis. Points o similarity (even i requently understoodor implemented in different ways) would certainly include an emphasison amily and a regard or the amily as a ocal point or religious li eand transmission o values. Consequently, both groups oppose mar-riage outside the community; both observe dietary rules, establishingboundaries between members and nonmembers; both have ritual garb(the Jewish tzitzit, ringes based on Numbers 15:3740; and Mormontemple robes and undergarments); both emphasize the centrality oSabbath observance; both groups reject the notion that religion is sepa-rate rom li e and relegated to the church or synagogue, but insist, rather,that it in uses all aspects o our lives; in both communities a high valueis attached to education and intellectual accomplishment, as reected inDoctrine and Covenants 93:36, the glory o God is intelligence, 11 andin the rabbinic statement, the study o orah counterbalances all therest [o the commandments]. 12

Tere are, however, also many points o difference that should beexplored but which I will also merely mention, such as the obviouspolitical differences between American Jews (the clear majority owhom, other than the minority Orthodox, consistently support liberal

causes) and Latter-day Saints (who are equally overwhelmingly sup-portive o conservative causes). Jewish and Mormon theologies andconceptions o God are totally different, beginning with the act thatLatter-day Saints affirm a corporeal God, whereas virtually all Jewssince the time o Rabbi Moses Maimonides (11351204) at least give lipservice to the notion that God is, and can only be, totally incorporeal(even i they do not necessarily understand the radical implications

o that doctrine). Latter-day Saint temples, like the ancient temple11. Te statement is the motto o Brigham Young University. In Seth Wards important

Appendix: A Literature Survey o Mormon-Jewish Studies, in Covenant and Chosenness, 203, the quotation is erroneously attributed to Brigham Young. 12. Mishnah Pe ah 1:1.


10/22

410 FARMS R / ( )

in Jerusalem, exclude outsiders (at least rom inner areas), whereas

the synagogue is not a temple and is open to all who wish to enter.Mormon rituals are kept secret rom outsiders, whereas Jewish ritu-als, although they apply only to Jews, are not secret. Another point odifference is the lack o symmetry between Latter-day Saint interestin the Jews, including the extensive work o such notable scholars asHugh Nibley, ruman Madsen, and Arnold Green, and widespreadJewish indifference to and ignorance o Mormonism, with the excep-

tion o a ew Jewish scholars who have studied Jewish-Mormon rela-tions (such as Rudol Glanz)13 or have related to Mormon themes insome o their writings (such as Jacob Neusner). 14

o sum up thus ar, the name o another book o Latter-day Saintscripture, Doctrine and Covenants, in a sense describes the differencesbetween Jews and Mormons. Note that the rst word, doctrine, is in thesingular, and the second word, covenants, is in the plural. Latter-daySaints can speak o doctrine in the singular, given their affirmation ocontinuing revelation and prophecy; a singular, authoritative body odoctrine can be revealed and proclaimed. Tey can also speak o cov-enants in the plural because they affirm multiple covenants: (1) whatChristians call the old covenant namely the Jewish Bible; (2) thenew covenant namely Christian scripture; and (3) the renewed,modern, or latter-day covenant revealed in the Book o Mormon,Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl o Great Price. For Jews, I thinkthe instinctive phrase would be doctrines and covenant multipledoctrines (as in the title o one o the rst books o Jewish philosophy,Saadiah GaonsBook of Beliefs and Doctrines), with no uni orm dogmaor single body o doctrine, but one everlasting covenant o the orah,which will not be superseded.

13. Rudol Glanz, Jew and Mormon: Historic Group Relations and Religious Outlook (New York: Waldon, 1963).

14. Jacob Neusner, Te Glory of God Is Intelligence: Four Lectures on the Role ofIntellect in Judaism, with an introduction by S. Kent Brown (Provo, U : BYU ReligiousStudies Center, 1978); Te Case o Leviticus Rabbah, in By Study and Also by Faith:Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (SaltLake City: Deseret Book, 1990), 1:33288; Jacob Neusner, Conversation in Nauvoo aboutthe Corporeality o God, BYU Studies 36/1 (199697): 730.


11/22

J M (J ) 411

Chosenness and Its Implications

Tis is not the place to explore in detail the concept o chosenness,which was the subject o my paper in our Jewish-Mormon volume. 15 Here I wish only to call attention to how the concept brings out simi-larities and differences between Jews and Mormons.

Chosenness can be understood as externally or internally directed;it can be based on truth claims or on patterns o behavior, and it canbe applied in inclusive or exclusive ways.

Chosenness is externally directed when it is used to assert somekind o superiority over others, to compare the chosen group avor-ably with other in erior groups. Although there are certainly sometexts in Jewish literature, beginning notably with several passages inDeuteronomy, that at least on a supercial level lend themselves tosuch an externally directed interpretation, they are generally condi-tional upon proper behavior and need to be understood contextually.Other texts, no less authoritative and traditional, modi y and coun-terbalance such externally directed readings and redirect the concepto chosenness internally: their intent is not to compare Jews to others,but to challenge the Jewsnot that the Jews are actually better thanother people but that they themselves should become better people,who have not a higher privilege but a higher responsibility.

Although my paper in Covenant and Chosenness in Judaism and Mormonism deals only with chosenness in a Jewish context, and there-

ore my expressed concern is only that Jews not adopt any superioritycomplex (spiritual or other), Mormon scholar Jeffrey Chadwick (in hisreview o three books o Jewish-Mormon interest) explicitly extendsthat concern to the Latter-day Saints as well. 16 Tus ar, all we nd isa similarity in terms o the need o both Jews and Latter-day Saints toexercise caution in their conceptions o chosenness, to avoid the dangero moral and spiritual arrogance. Ultimately, people who see themselves

as chosen need to remind themselves, in the words o Micah 6:8, towalk humbly with your God.

15. Raphael Jospe, Chosenness in Judaism: Exclusivity vs. Inclusivity, in Covenantand Chosenness, 17394. 16. Chadwick, Tree Books on Jewish and Mormon Temes, 410.


12/22

412 FARMS R / ( )

But when we move to the next aspect o chosennessnamely

truth claims, we see a marked difference in the two communitiesunderstanding o chosenness. Jewish chosenness is expressed in thecovenant at Sinai, with the injunction to live according to the orah,which is traditionally understood to contain 613 commandments 17 that apply only to the Jewish people and not to non-Jews. Te truthsimplicitly presumed or explicitly taught by the orah are potentiallyaccessible to anyone who recognizes them, but that recognition oracceptance does not, in itsel , obligate the person to observe the Jewishway o li e based on the orah. One can affirm, or example, beliein a God who created the world, without accepting the obligationto observe the Sabbath (certainly not in the traditional Jewish man-ner). One can affirm the exodus rom Egypt without observing thecommandments relating to the Passover estival and eating matzah .In all these respects, Jewish understandings o chosenness remaininternally directed and relate to certain patterns o behavior, not to

specic truth claims. As I understand Latter-day Saint conceptionso chosenness, however, although there is certainly also a behavioralcomponent, they tend to emphasize certain claims o truths revealedto the Prophet Joseph Smith and his successors, revelations recordedin Latter-day Saint scripture but also in later and even contemporarycontinuing revelation. Although Mormon teachings are, in some othese areas, characterized by multivalence and unsettled openness(in Arnold Greens terms) and are thus less unequivocal than classi-cal Christian notions o one truth, one way, and extra ecclesiamnulla salus (no salvation outside the church ), it seems to me that itis precisely such a basic belie in these exclusively Mormon truths asrequisite or ultimate or ull salvation that underlies the missionary

17. Te tradition that the orah contains 613 commandments goes back at least toalmudic times, although it was not unti l the Middle Ages that actual lists o the 613 were

compiled, most notably by Maimonides. See Commandments, the 613, in Encyclopedia Judaica, 5:76183. It should be noted that no Jew can possibly ulll all 613 command-ments, many o which are collective or national in nature and relate to the conquest andagriculture o the land o Israel, the temple, and sacricial cult. In the absence o thetemple and sacricial cult, many commandments cannot be per ormed either individu-ally or collectively.


13/22

J M (J ) 413

drive: i it is true that one possesses an exclusive truth required or

human salvation, the clear moral corollary is to attempt to share withothers these keys to salvation. 18

Jews and Mormons, each community similarly believing in its ownchosenness and in its having received a unique divine revelation, thusderive opposing conclusions rom a common premise. For the Jews,understanding chosenness primarily in behavioral terms, the conclu-sion is directed internally, namely that they alone are obligated toobserve the ancient commandments o the orah. For the Mormons,understanding chosenness in terms o truth claims, the conclusion isdirected externally, namely that they have an obligation to share withthe world the latter-day gospel o salvation. 19

In that respect, Jews and Mormons also have opposing conceptionso inclusivity and exclusivity. Jews see themselves as exclusively com-manded to certain patterns o behavior, which are not obligatory orany other people, but do not claim exclusivity o salvation. o the con-

trary, as Maimonides reworded a amous saying o the almudic rabbis:

18. ruman Madsen is representative o an inclusivistic trend in Mormonism, whichunderstands degrees o salvation in terms o progressive enlightenment and emphasizesthe existence o good and true principles in all religions and philosophies. Covenant isthus a matter o both truth claims and behavior (personal correspondence). Nevertheless,it seems to me that a dynamic, dialectical tension remains between Madsens inclusivismand various passages in the Book o Mormon, according to which ull salvation does notcome by the law o Moses (Mosiah 13:2729; Alma 25:16), but only to those who repent,are baptized, and have per ect aith (2 Nephi 9:23); without Christ all men must perish(2 Nephi 11:6), and Whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; andthey are they who shall inherit the kingdom o God (3 Nephi 11:33). 19. Again, it seems to me that there is an inescapable tension between the mission -ary impulse that is basic to much o Mormonism and the inclusivism o Mormons likeMadsen. Such dialectical tensions typi y much o religious thought, certainly in our era,as in Roman Catholic struggles since Vatican II, and are pronounced in such documentsas Dominus Iesus (2000) by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI,which simultaneously continues to maintain classical truth claims while recognizing the

value o interreligious dialogue. In a con erence in Jerusalem in 1994, Ratzinger askedwhether we can move rom mere toleration to mutual acceptancea question certainlyin tension with his later Dominus Iesus. Such tensions are characteristic o much oJewish thought over the ages. o my way o thinking, such tensions do not threaten reli-gions; to the contrary, they are spiritually and intellectually enriching and underlie anyquest or truth.


14/22

414 FARMS R / ( )

Te righteous o the nations have a share in the world to come. 20

Salvation is thus inclusive and does not require being Jewish, but onlybeing a decent human being. Conversely, because Latter-day Saintsunderstand ull or ultimate salvation in exclusive terms, as a unctiono belie in certain revealed truths that only they possess, they logicallyseek to share these keys o salvation with everyone else, and all othersare invited to become Latter-day Saints. Again, there ore, chosenness

or Jews is directed internally, and or Mormons, externally.

Te ension of Universalism and Particular Lineage

My riend, esteemed colleague, and coeditor ruman Madsen,pro essor emeritus o philosophy at Brigham Young University and

ormer director o the Jerusalem Center or Near Eastern Studies, iswell known or his prolic writings, which requently explore paral-lels and similarities in Jewish and Latter-day Saint teachings. He alsoopposes supersessionist theology, which delegitimizes contemporaryJudaism. I should like to adopt his comparative approach (but inreverse, beginning with Mormon teachings) and show how a dynamictension in Mormon thought has a remarkable parallel in Jewishthought, which will, once again, bring out similarities and differencesbetween the two communities.

In an important essay on Gathering and Election: Israelite Descentand Universalism in Mormon Discourse, 21 Arnold Green, an eminent

historian at BYU (and also a ormer director o the Jerusalem Center),has described the tension between universalism and physical lineage inearly and subsequent Mormon ideology. In contrast with other theologi-cal questions that are authoritatively and denitively resolved (in somecases by divine revelation, such as the 1978 priesthood revelation), thistension remains, and the question continues to be open and unresolved

20. Moses Maimonides, Mishneh orah (Code o Law), Book o Knowledge, Laws o

Repentances 3:5. Maimonidess phrasing differs rom that o the almudic rabbis in osefaSanhedrin 13:2, ed. M. S. Zuckermandel and Saul Lieberman (Jerusalem: Wahrmann,1970), 434; c . Babylonian almudSanhedrin 105a. See my discussion in Te Concept othe Chosen People: An Interpretation, Judaism 43/2 (1994): 12748, and in Chosenness inJudaism: Exclusivity vs. Inclusivity, 17394. 21. See note 4, above.


15/22


16/22

416 FARMS R / ( )

First, the emphasis on physical lineage, which still plays a major

role in Mormon thought, and which, as we have seen, represents abreak with classical Christian doctrine, has been an important ac-tor in Mormon philo-Semitism. Joseph Smiths interest in Jews wasnot merely one o religious curiosity. He criticized anti-Jewish legisla-tion in Italy and praised the emancipation o the Jews in the UnitedKingdom. 23

In his 1963 Jew and Mormon: Historic Group Relations and ReligiousOutlook, Rudol Glanz showed that in nineteenth-century Utah, Jewswere religiously and socially removed rom the ChristianLatter-daySaint tensions and animosity. Unlike other Christians, the Latter-daySaints did not exhibit specic anti-Jewish animus; unlike non-MormonChristians, the Jews were not involved in anti-Mormon agitation. Jewswere excluded economically, together with other Christians, rom theZion Cooperative, but there was no basic Jewish-Mormon quar-rel.24 Early Jewish travelers to Utah, Samuel Nunez Carvalho (1854)

and Israel Joseph Benjamin (1859), wrote avorably about LDS attitudestoward Jews and Judaism, and the Latter-day Saints gave early Jewishimmigrants a place to meet on the High Holidays as well as cemeteryplots in which to bury their dead. o add a contemporary note: Jews arecertainly not involved in the current dispute as to whether Mormonsare really Christians (since Mormons declare a belie in Jesus as Christand accept the New estament) or are not Christians (since they are

not rinitarian and since they affirm an additional, later revelation andcovenant constituting them as a separate religion with its own particu-lar scripture), nor are Jews involved in the question whether the WorldCouncil o Churches should include the Church o Jesus Christ oLatter-day Saints.

Latter-day Saints own experience o religious persecution, as wellas a sense o kinship with the Jews, may also have contributed to theirmore positive attitude toward Jews, which is reected in statementsaffirming the principle o religious toleration. Te eleventh Article oFaith o the Church o Jesus Christ o Latter-day Saints states: We

23. Green, Gathering and Election, 201. 24. Glanz, Jew and Mormon, 34.


17/22


18/22

418 FARMS R / ( )

pre-Vatican II periods. Tis also applies to early Latter-day Saint proto-

Zionism. Orson Hyde was sent by Joseph Smith to the Holy Land. Hydehimsel tended toward the universalism o Orson Pratt, or whom theultimate conversion o the Jews would take place prior to their nalgathering, or at least prior to the rebuilding o the temple in Jerusalem,because Jews and Gentiles alike have the same sins and require the sameredemption. 27 Nevertheless, as Stephen Ricks has noted, Orson Hydesprayer on the Mount o Olives on 24 October 1841 or the return othe Jews to the promised land and the rebuilding o Jerusalem, unlikeChristian expectations or the return o the Jews . . . did not include aprayer or affirmative preaching to them there. 28 Hyde expressed thedesire

to dedicate and consecrate this land unto Tee, or the gather-ing together o Judahs scattered remnants, . . . or the build-ing up o Jerusalem again afer it has been trodden down by

Gentiles so long, and or raising a emple in honor o Tyname. 29

Re erring to the nations and governments o the world, Hydeprayed:

Let them know that it is Ty good pleasure to restore the king-dom unto Israelraise up Jerusalem as its capital, and consti-tute her people a distinct nation and government, with DavidTy servant, even a descendant rom the loins o ancient Davidto be their king. 30

However, Hydes proto-Zionism and prayer or the restoration othe Jews and o the land o Israel did not prevent him rom also re er-ring to Jewish unbelie in terms amiliar rom Christian anti-Jewishstereotypes: Let Ty great kindness conquer and subdue the unbelie

27. Green, Gathering and Election, 2024. 28. Stephen D. Ricks, From Joseph to Joseph: Covenant and Chosenness in theRevelations and Writings o Joseph Smith, in Covenant and Chosenness, 99. 29. Te complete prayer is ound in Johnson and Leffler, Jews and Mormons: woHouses of Israel, appendix 1, 20712; quotation on 208. 30. Johnson and Leffler, Jews and Mormons, 210.


19/22


20/22

420 FARMS R / ( )

A similar tension continues down to our own day in Jewish teach-

ing. According to ancient rabbinic law ( halakhah ), Jewish identityis con erred to one born to a Jewish mother. It is, in the parlance othe nineteenth-century origins o Mormonism, a matter o blood(although, ollowing Nazi racist doctrine, most Jews today would havea strong aversion to such terminology). In that regard, Jewish identityis, or resembles, nationality. One is born a Jew; with the exception oconverts, no ceremony is required to conrm that identity. An in antboy does not become a Jew because he is circumcisedrather, he iscircumcised as a sign o his being a Jew and thus a member o thecovenant community. Girls at the age o twelve and boys at the age othirteen respectively become bat-mitzvah or bar-mitvah (daughter othe commandment or son o the commandment ), meaning legallyresponsible or their own behavior as adults and, as responsible adults,liable to observe the commandments, regardless o whether they cele-brated the occasion with some religious ceremony or social party.Conversely, Jewish identity, while a matter o birth, is also religiousin character (although many, perhaps most, Jews today, affirm theirreligion minimally, i at all). Te national and religious componentso Jewish identity, while organically inseparable, create a certain ten-sion, paralleled by a conicting emphasis on particularism and universalism in Jewish teaching. For all the concern or universal justicein the teachings o the biblical prophets o Israel, much o rabbinic

Judaism is overtly particularistic in its outlookwhich is not a value judgment (especially since I regard the universal and the particularto be correlative and not contrary concepts), but a simple recogni-tion o historical acts. In rabbinic teaching, the commandment tolove your neighbor is overwhelmingly understood to re er speci-cally to a ellow Jew, not in general to any other human. 34 In much orabbinic opinion, even the principle that saving li e ( pikua nefesh)

takes precedence over the Sabbath namely, that the Sabbath mustbe violated when there is danger to li etechnically applies only to

34. See the discussion by Ernst Simon, Te Neighbor ( Rea) Whom We Shall Love,in Modern Jewish Ethics: Teory and Practice, ed. Marvin Fox (Columbus: Ohio StateUniversity Press, 1975), 2956.


21/22

J M (J ) 421

saving the li e o a Jew (although virtually all authorities would extend

that technicality on other grounds to all people). So which elementmore truly represents Judaismthe particularist or the universalist?Who is correctthose thinkers, like Judah Ha-Levi, who regarded thecapacity or prophecy to be an inborn, biological trait only o Jews(what a riend o mine has termed hardware ), or those thinkers, likeMaimonides, who regarded the truth as essentially universal and whobelieved that Jewish identity is undamentally a matter o affirmingthe truth (what my riend has termed sofware )?

In short, Jews, like Mormons, continue to live with a dynamictension: at any given point in their lives as individuals and as a com-munity, which element becomes dominantbirth or belie , physicallineage or spiritual affirmation, or particularist ocus on the chosenpeople or universalist extension o concern to outsiders?

In all these tensions, we discern similarities between Jews andMormons. Tese similarities, however, at the same time illustrate the

undamental differences between the two communities. For Mormons,the unsettled openness exists only so long as continual revelationhas not yet decided the issue one way or the other, as it did with the1978 priesthood revelation. For the Jews, the tensions have remainedunresolved or many centuries, and the absence o revelation as anactive category precludes their being resolved. Tere ore, in the wordso the rabbis, an argument which is or the sake o heaven will con-tinue without end ( sofah le-hitkayyem),35 and these and those are theliving words o God (elu va-elu divrei elohimayyim ).36

35. Mishnah Avot 5:17. 36. Babylonian almud Eruvin 13b; Gittin 6b.


22/22

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ivan108
View:	237 times
Download:	0 times

Jews and Mormons

Documents