Sean1427

HoosierGuy, in response to my post that Mormons have a favorable image among Muslims, you wrote: "And why would that be? Possibly the beliefs of the next life and the "P" word and both focus heavily on a prophet? I've also heard LDS mention similarities between Islam and LDS." Let me share some thoughts I had as I read your reply. First, I'm unsure what you mean by suggesting that perhaps "beliefs in the next life" is one of the things that makes Mormons popular among Muslims. Most every religion has a belief in the next life, so I'm not quite sure how Muslims would find our beliefs more to their liking than the beliefs other faiths might have. Second, it's doubtful that Muslims are thinking about a common focus the two religions have on a prophet. This, of course, brings up an interesting point. Muslims consider us Christians right along with all the 1,000s of other Christian denominations. They also believe that God has spoken to all His children. But because they believe the Mohammed is the seal or last of the prophets, they believe that any religion founded after Mohammed would be a false religion. It's obvious what this means for Mormons. And if Muslims were thinking about this and were strict about its implications, we would be excluded from Christianity and from being among the People of the Book. Yet despite this glaring disconnect, they accept us as Christians and have a higher respect for us than they seem to have for any other Christian denomination. But again, they're not focused on our common belief in prophets. But more to your point, I've never had any Muslim in the ME ever talk to me about our common focus on prophets. The opposite is actually the case. When I share with those who admire us our belief in prophets, they're actually quite surprised that we have similar beliefs on this point. As for the "p" word, which I assume is a reference to polygamy, it's unlikely that the typical Muslim is even thinking of the "p" word. Polygamy is actually quite rare in the Muslim world for a simple reason most Americans can figure out if they take the time to think about it--economics. It's simply too expensive to have a second wife, much less a third or fourth. It's not just the expense of having another wife, it's also the expense of having another family. Any American male who has re-married after a divorce, has had children from both marriages, and has to pay alimony to his first wife and child support for children of his first marriage while at the same time try to support his current wife and family could certainly understand how difficult having more than one wife is. Supporting a second, third, and fourth wife is even more difficult in third world nations, where it's hard enough to support just one wife and family. Muslim lands are all third world. And it would be a very great mistake to think that Saudis, for instance, drive BMWs and Mercedes. Most Saudis are poor and have great difficulty just providing for one wife and family. The way they survive is the same way families do in all third world nations--everyone in the family pitches in financially to provide for the family. The reality is that the vast majority of Muslims are monogamists just like us. What they like about us is something other than polygamy, prophets or the afterlife. Naturally, when they found out about these things, the affinity and admiration they have for us might become stronger. But these things are not what they admire about us in the first place. Rather, it's our common lifestyle that's results from having similar beliefs. They admire our focus and emphasis on family. They admire our modesty in dress, which is similar to their emphasis on the same. They admire our clean living because of the Word of Wisdom, which is similar to their dietary laws. When we live in their lands, they don't have to worry about what problems might result. They appreciate the fact that we're respectful of their wishes not to proselytize in violation of their laws after we are in the country. (We even have an arrangment not to proselytize anyone from those lands who might be returning.) They admire and respect what the Church as a Church has done for the Muslim people, how we have worked with them continually and done so in a respectful way. The Church has a good name in the ME because of what it's done and has been doing for a long time. But when I speak of the Church, I speak of it collectively, as an organization directed from SLC, not individually. And the Church, along with BYU, simply has a very good reputation in the Muslim world. My point was the irony that while Mormons in the US have a bad image among some fellow Christians and Americans, we do have a good image among Muslims in the Middle East and beyond, who obviously are not Christian, and most of whom are not American.

Interestingly, Mormons have a very favorable image among Muslims. Even more interesting is that one of the biggest problems Mormons face in the ME is not really from Muslims but rather from fellow Christians. Two or three examples, perhaps. One I was conversing with a Saudi colleague about Mormon and Muslim views on various topics. A third colleague, who was Christian and had spent a number of years living in Utah, had been listening in on our conversation from another table. As he got up to leave, he approached Essam and me and told Essam that when he was conversing with me about religion, Essam needed to understand that Mormons are not Christian. When it comes to attending church in Saudi, it's the fellow Christians you have to keep an eye out for. And in Egypt, where Christians meet openly, again it's our fellow Christians who are creating problems for and spreading disinformation about the Mormons. I suspect this particular phenomenon in the ME is just a matter of carrying our baggage with us. While one may be in a foreign land, he is still the same person he was before, having the same mindset, attitudes, views, and behavior that he had back home. Nothing really changes within an individual just because he crosses a border.

Ah, the beauty of being bald, Urban! And for everyone, Brandi says that her parents made some good investments! She's 28 and evidently living off her parents money. She's certainly not the norm.

Good point, SanctitasDeo, regarding the Muslim view of the Christian Trinity. While Muslims consider Christians as People of the Book (which does not mean the Qur'an, by the way) and therefore one of the three great monotheistic/Abrahamic faiths, they do consider the concept of the Trinity as a form of polytheism, a view which is actually shared by religious Jews. Of course, Christians will say it isn't.

UrbanFool, the answer to your question might be in my initial post where I pointed out that some Muslims are partly to blame in that for them the Arabic language is truly sacred since it's viewed as the literal language of God. It's similar to our capitalizing "God" in English when we write or the Jewish practice of not saying the name of God or omitting the vowels in writing such as The Traveler does. So you're correct that many do use the Allah when speaking English. It's done out of respect and reverance for the name of God. (Of course, that makes me think of another thread I might start that involves taking the name of God in vain, but perhaps later on that one. I don't want to veer off track on my own thread!) Believing that Arabic is the language of God is a view hard for many of us to understand. But for Muslims this means that the language, as I've said, is sacred. This is why no Muslim would do to the Qur'an what most of us do to the Bible, BOM, or D&C--they would never mark it up, highlight it, or place it on a booshelf with other books. This is also why most Muslims read and recite the Qur'an in Arabic even if they do not understand Arabic very well. There is a belief that saying the words themselves is important, even empowering. Believe or not, one of the problems foreign teachers have in Saudi is that many students believe cheating is OK as long as it's not done in Arabic. This, to me, is similar to Christians who believe it's OK to lie to get a visa into a Muslim country or break the laws you've agreed to obey since they are Muslim, not Christian. (I've even read that this was one of America's justifications for breaking every treaty we ever made with the Indian nations.) So while many of us might laugh at what Muslims are doing, we need to realize that we probably have things we do or think that other's might laugh at as well. BYU Arabic language and Islamic studies professor Daniel Peterson has a great article at Meridanmagazine.com that discusses how intelligent people everywhere have certain beliefs that might make others wonder how an intelligent person could actually believe such. If you're interested in reading the article, let me know and I'll get you the URL. However, not all Muslims say Allah when speaking English, German or some other non-Arabic language. Most of the ones I speak with in the US, Europe and the ME do like anyone else would do who's speaking in a foreign language--they use the name for God in the language they are using at the time. This is certainly true of their media in the ME when the targeted audience are English speakers. My question, however, is why our media won't do so. We certainly have editors and journalists who have a decent background in Arabic and the ME and know what's going on. If they don't have the background, they could easily find out. But it seems to be the rule that the US media--whatever the reasons might be (ignorance, fear of angering the audience, propaganda, or whatever)--will not translate the word.

Dravin, when I ask how much a woman spends on her hair, I'm not limiting it in any way. As I mentioned, I've read that over the course of a lifetime, women in the US spend about $50,000 on their hair. I do not know what that all includes. I doubt that figure takes into account someone like Brandi Irwin, whom I mentioned. Brandi coughs up $10,000 for high-end hair extensions three times a year. Added to this are coloring sessions every six weeks for $300 a pop, etc. But the $50,000/lifetime for the average American woman probably includes everything. In any event, when I ask the question, I'm thinking about anything and everything a woman would use for her hair.

Thanks, UrbanFool. I suspect there are a lot of men out there who likely spend much more than you.

Ok, I'm doing a bit of research on culture (remember, I live and work in the ME) and would be interested to see how the women on this site answer the question I've got for them. I just recently read that the average American woman spends about $50,000 on her hair over the course of her lifetime. That would be just under $700/year for a 75-year lifetime. Of course, this figure is dwarfed by what 28-year-old Brandi Irwin of NY spends annually for her hair, $47,000, most of which goes to hair extensions. My question is simple. How much do you think the women you know spend annually on their hair?

Regarding your comment, Traveler, in essence I agree with you that what matters is changing so as to please God. I also understand why you choose to where your church attire on Sunday. But I do the same thing in Saudi where our church attire is much more casual than is likely your church attire which is probably different than the church attire of many Polynesian men who still wear lava lavas as part of their church attire. Dressing appropriately for the Lord varies depending on one's circumstances and culture. (I just remembered an Indian member who had problems at the entrance of a temple near my home in the US--she went in best dress, a khamis sawaal, which is very modest, but didn't fit the idea of best dress for those at the front desk.) This gets back to the question of what is appropriate church attire, which varies across culture and time. Of course, we still follow the handbook of instructions which simply states to wear best dress to church, which includes cleanliness and modesty. As you've alluded to, however, it all comes down to a personal decision, whether it's proper attire for the sabbath or long hair on men. While I'm not anxious to get there at the moment, I'm curious as to what dress and grooming is like in the spirit world! Moreover, what's best dress for those in the Celestial Kingdom?

I really enjoy the stories about Gambia. Believe it or not, it sounds a lot like parts of Latin America. One of the airports I'm familiar with in the Peruvian Andes had to herd the cows off out of the way for a plane to land or take off. And in Mexico today you still find places where today's train will arrive tomorrow and the one arriving today is yesterday's train. Regarding Germany, have those of you who've been to Germany read Enzio Busche's book? He wrote: "I always smile when I read things today from people who do not know better and who write that German boys were forced to become a member of the Hitler Youth. At birth we enrolled. That was part of the system. When we turned ten years old, we were not asked, we just became members of that organization. To us, however, it did not seem like being forced. Every boy or girl wanted to be a member. There was tremendous enthusiasm built into the idealistic vision and dream world of youth. As a nine-year od, I could not wait to become ten because then I could put on the uniform. As Hitler Youth, we became part of something bigger--even to become saviors of the decadent world, we were taugh. We were educated to believe that we were going to bring fulfillment of the dreams of mankind, that we would bring righteousness, honesty and dignity to mankind." While America doesn't have a Hitler Youth, what he writes about how they viewed their mission to help the world reminds me a lot of the attitude many Americans have. I've never been to Germany, other than the airport, but I've spent time in Ausrtria. I remember a wonderful time I spent with a three-generation family who had a trout farm in the mountains. The patriarch had been a Luftwaffe pilot. They were great--they gathered together in the evenings, pulled out the accordians and brightened up the night. I got in trouble with the sister missionaries in Austria for greeting members in church by the common expresson in that area, Gruess Gott, roughly "greetings from God" or "God bless you." They chastised me and told me that members were taught not to use that expresson because it was using the name of God in vain. I wish I'd been quicker on my toes because later, as I thought about it, I came up with all kinds of words and expressions in other languages that incorporate the name of God and no one in the Church is advising members or investigators not to use them (e.g., adieu, adios, goodbye, etc.) Turkey's a great place. The biggest complaint I have, however, is that everyone smokes, everyone! It's just hard for me to breahe all the smoke. Given you were there 25 years ago, Over43, you might like to know that there are LDS service couples in Turkey and have been for quite some time. Beginning in the late 1800s, there was a mission that included Turkey, and the area southwestwards. President Booth, who was from Alpine, UT, and who served as a missionary as well as a mission president, served there for about 17 years. He is buried next to one of his missionaries just outside Aleppo, Syria. (Aleppo is one of the three Christian cities in Syria, the other two being Homs and Damascus.) My first encounter with culture shock was really in the US. I was 16 and picked pineapple for Dole on Lanai. My very first experience was our first day on the job. We ate breakfast about 4 a.m. at a huge company messhall, where they gave us our lunch in a small lunchpail for each of us. When we sat down for lunch later that morning, we were shocked to see that our lunch consisted of rice and sardines It took us a week or so to talk them into making sandwiches for us. But the entire experience was a shocker, especially with all the fighting among the various cultures. It certainly wasn't the Hawaii tourists read and dream about. By the way, Lanai was where the LDS Church first located in Hawaii. The name of the small community was something like Joseph Smith City. It's no longer there. After the troubles they had among themselves, the community faded away and later took root in Laie.

Sorry for my delay answering your question, Yorkiebeebs. I've been in Saudi off-and-on since three years before 9/11. I arrived in Saudi shortly after the bombing of Khobar Towers, which is about 7 miles from my apartment. One thing that makes my views different, for good or bad, is that I have never lived on a western compound where most westerners live. I live among the Saudis which means there is no buffer zone between me and them. Whenever you learn about Saudi from an expat, you have to be aware of what they were doing in Saudi and how they lived. If I were military or a government employee, my views and experiences would be different from those of others not there in that capacity. Moreover, those who live on western compounds have different views and experiences from those who live off the reservation, so to speak. So our views and experiences are very much colored by where we live and what we do in Saudi. I do need to forewarn you, however. My views are not the typical American or Mormon American views. I sometimes get in trouble saying something fellow Mormons that they really don't like to hear. One actually exasperated with me and told me that my problem was that I didn't really understand what Muslims were like because I'd lived among them too long. So be careful!

Intersting question and thoughts. One particular point I rthought of as I read the thread is the fact that many Christians will criticize Muslims because when God speaks the Qur'an, sometimes when He speaks it's in the singular and at other times it's in the plural. Yet this is the same thing we see in the earliest chapters of the Bible as previously mentioned here. Also previously shared by Changed is the Heberw Elohim, which, as he pointed out, is a plural, the singular being Eloh. Incidentally, Eloh and Ilah/Allah are related, one being Hebrew, the other Arabic. For Mormons it's clear that in the Pearl of Great Price the plural nouns and pronouns are not a mistranslation. All this, of course, reminds me of what Christ said in the NT: "Have ye not read the scriptures, 'Are ye not gods?'" While we could debate whether the plural term in that passage has any relation to how the plural is used in Genesis and the Pearl of Great Price, I suspect that there is a relationship even though I certainly doubt that the antecedents are the same. I will share a story that's amusing for me, but it's one that shows how even Mormons can be a bit confused. My mother served for decades in the primary. When she first started teaching in the primary, her class was assigned to give a presentation later in the month. So my mother prepared her class. She simply had the children memorize passages that supported the topic of the presentation. During the presentation, each child stood in front of the class and recited the passage that child had been assigned. All was fine until one little boy got up and recited one of the passages from the Pearl of Great Price which spoke of the Gods' role in creating the world. At that point, the primary president stopped everything and pulled my mother aside. When my mother asked what was wrong, the primary president told her that the little boy could not say what he said. My mother then replied that he was only quoting from our scriptures. The president's reply was that while he might have been quoting a scripture, we certainly didn't believe that. As I said, I found it amusing that my mother would be cautioned about quoting our own scriptures!

I hope you know, Cassiopeia, that I was trying to say that I ageed with what you posted. When I wrote that I didn't know what had led to your comment that was in the context wherein I mentioned that while what you wrote had caught my eye, I hadn't yet read the other posts in the thread that led up to yours. I also agree with what you wrote in post 39. I was simply explaining one of the reasons I believe that we can't blame Satan for everything. In response to your two questions, Snow, let's start at the beginning. In the garden, God told Adam and Even they could eat of all the trees but the tree of life, for if they ate the fruit of that tree, the penalty was death. When Satan approached Eve tempting her to eat of the tree of life, Eve responded that God had said that they were forbidden to do so upon the penalty of death. Satan then told her that she would not surely die but would know good from evil. Both the lie and the truth of what he said should be obvious as well as the way in which he did it. And if he can do it once, he can do it repeatedly, and will, I suspect, continue to do so as long as it works.

I openly admit that I have not read this entire thread, but something Cassiopeia wrote in reply #33 caught my eye and I have to share the thought that flashed through my brain as I read what she said. I did, however, check out the original question, and my response would be that I believe that Satan will do anything within his power to deceive and mislead us. One of his best tricks is mixing truths with a lie. If he can do that, I suspect he can also mislead us by using good feelings. Too many times we want to act on our feelings alone. And yet the D & C teaches us that revelation is something that comes to our mind as well as our heart. In other words, feelings alone are insufficient. I’m reminded of what others have taught it’s misleading to tell others to trust their instinct if they haven’t taken the time to educate their instinct. In sum, I think our feelings can often mislead us, even good feelings. Now for Cassiopeia’s statement wherein she wrote “I don't disbelieve in the existence of Satan. I just think we tend to give him too much credit for our own choices.” While I do not know what led to this statement, I do wish to say that I am in full accord with what she wrote. I firmly believe that we give Satan too much credit for the poor choices we often make. After all, according to LDS beliefs and teachings, there was a time prior to our coming here when Satan was an individual of high authority who later fell. He himself fell because of choices he made, unless, of course, we want to believe that someone else tempted him to rebel in the pre-existence. My view is simple: he made the choices that brought about his fall, and he used his agency to do it. Moreover, the third of the host of heaven were his contemporaries, yet they choice to go with him. I do not believe we can blame what they chose to do on Satan. I’m reminded of D&C 58:26-28 which states, in part: “For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; . . . “Verily, I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass must righteousness; “For the power is in them, wherefore they are agents unto themselves.” Since opposites are a fact of life, I believe that the opposite of this truth is also real and that man is, and always has been, an agent unto himself. And just as men can do many good and righteous deeds of their own free wills because the power is in them, and do so without anyone commanding or persuading them, they can also do many evil and unrighteous deeds of their own free wills, without any assistance or temptation whatsoever from anyone else. In other words, I believe that each of us can sin on our own without any influence whatsoever from Satan and those who followed him in the pre-existence. Blaming him is often a copout or a convenient scapegoat for what we choose to do or think freely. This does not mean he and his followers are unreal; nor does it mean they don’t have the power to tempt, mislead, and deceive. But I think that we can do the same thing and that not everything we do can blamed on his and his followers influence. Neither he nor his followers needed him then to sin; we don't need him now in all instances.

Before weighing on this topic, I wish to share four statements by David O. Mckay and J. Reuben Clark. As most know, J. Reuben Clark had a wealth of experience in government service prior to the time he served in the First Presidency. His experience in government included his time as an attorney in and the Under Secretary for the US Department of State, where he authored the “Clark Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine,” wherein he repudiated the idea that the US could arbitrarily use military force in Latin America. His government experience also included the time he spent as a US ambassador to Mexico. Regarding Clark’s service as ambassador, Hoover stated that “[n]ever had our relations been lifted to such a high point of confidence and cooperation.” Clark later served in the First Presidencies of Presidents Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, and David O. McKay. He served under David O. McKay until Clark’s death in 1961. The statements below were made when Clark and McKay were counselors in the presidency of President Smith. While lengthy, they serve as a preface to some thoughts I’d like to share later regarding the topic of this thread. In general conference of 1942, David O. McKay, in speaking of when war is justified, stated: “Nor is war justified in an attempt to enforce a new order of government, or even to impel others to a particular form of worship, however better the government or eternally true the principles of the enforced religion may be. In 1944, toward the end of WW II, J. Reuben Clark stated: “As the situation now stands we of America have lost our own moral force in world affairs—a force which was once very great; we speak now only as our brute force may sustain us. There is indeed no moral force left in all the world to whose voice warring nations are as yet willing to hearken. WE are now living under the law of the jungle where in cataclysms every beast fights to the death for his own life. “Are we Christians? We act like pagans . . .” In 1945 Clark said: “We must give up this idea too many of us have [in America], that our way of life and living is not only the best, but often the only true way of life and living in the world, After WW II in 1947, he spoke in general conference of America’s early stance of political neutrality internationally and he stated: “Until the last quarter of a century, this gospel of the [America’s Founding] Fathers was the polar star by which we set our international course. In the first hundred thirty years of our constitutional existence, we had three foreign wars, the first merely the final effort of our Revolution, which made good our independence. During the century that followed we had two foreign wars, neither of considerable magnitude. During the next twenty-three years, we had two global wars. While the gospel of the Fathers guided us we had peace. When we forsook it, two global wars engulfed us. “It is not clear when we began our wandering, nor is it necessary to determine the time. President Theodore Roosevelt was hinting our straying when he uttered the dictum ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick.’ We were to force others to do our bidding. President Wilson had the full departure in mind when he declared: ‘Everybody’s business is our business.’ Since then we have leaped ahead along the anciently forbidden path. “In our course under the new gospel of interference with everything we do not like, we have gone forward and are going forward, as if we possessed all the good of human government, of human economic concept, of human comfort, and of human welfare, all of which we are to impose on the balance of the world,--a concept born of the grossest national egotism. In human affairs no nation can say that all it practices and believes is right, and that all that others have that differs from what it has is wrong. Men inflict an unholy tragedy when they proceed on that basis. No man, no society, no people no nation is wholly right in human affairs; and none is wholly wrong. A fundamental principle of the operation of human society is to live and let live. (i.e., the Golden Rule) “Yet, to repeat, we have entered into new fields to impose our will and concepts on others. This means we must use force, and force means war, not peace. “What has our apostasy from peace cost us? . . . “. . . America should again turn to the promotion of the peaceful adjustment of international disputes, which will help us regain the measureless moral force we once possessed, to the regeneration and salvation of the world. We now speak with the strong arm of physical force only; we have no moral force left. . . . “Our whole international course and policy is basically wrong, and must be changed if peace is to come. Our policy has brought us, and pursued, will continue to bring us, only the hatred of nations now—and we cannot thrive on that, financially or spiritually—and certain war hereafter, with a list of horrors and woes we do not now even surmise. If we really want peace, we must change our course to get it. We must honestly strive for peace and quit sparring for military advantage. We must learn and practice, as a nation . . . , the divine principles of the Sermon on the Mount, There is no other way.” –CR, 1947 This final quote by Clark is from 1945: “. . . we must come to acknowledge and accord to every people, the divinely given right to live their own lives as they wish to live them. We claim this right for ourselves; we must yield it to others.” Next time I post I’ll share some of my thoughts on the topic, assuming, of course, I don't lose my way somewhere. Till then, may you all enjoy the debate! PS Traveler, thanks for what you sent me. Be aware that I still very much intend to send you a personal reply regarding the goodies you shared. Thanks!

I appreciate the thoughts shared by Ozzy and Changed, but I think I need to shed a little light on my background, especially since I haven't really created a profile. I'm LDS, as you can guess from my first post, but I am one of the few Americans who actually lives and works in the Middle East. I have been there since several years before 9/11, and I'm probably more familiar with Islam, the Middle East, and Arabic than the vast majority of Americans are, both because of experience and research. Hence, a lot of my comments, and this thread in particular, are based on my experiences both there and in the US. I'd like to touch on one of Ozzy's thoughts on why the US media will not translate the Arabic name for God into English. He wrote: "because at present there is enough animosity between radical muslims and radical christians that they are afraid of the potential uproar." I agree that this is part of the reason. However, I also believe that it's simply one more blatant example of how the vaunted US media is doingn a great disservice to everyone, including its audience. Because of their fear of an uproar, those in the media leave everyone uninformed as to the truth, something which is easily verified. Hence, we end up with all those in the middle in the dark. My experience has shown me that the vast majority of American Mormons are as much in the dark as are the majority of non-Mormon Americans on this particular point. While understanding this point is not something one needs to go to the ME to learn and understand, it does require some study and good thinking outside the box by those who live in the US, something that very few seem to do. For me to mention something like this in my ward in the US is still very difficult because many American members get upset and I'm viewed as a trouble maker of sorts. But let me clarify my question. Those in the media can't all be blind to what is happening. Hence, at some level, someone has to be making a decision not to translate from Arabic to English. So I'm curious about who are making this decision and how the decision is made. Is it an example of self-censorship by journalists and reporters, or is there some kind of official policy that states that Allah will never be translated into English, or . . . ? I suspect that the only ones who can really answer this kind of specific question are journalists, reporters or editors who deal directly with this kind of issue. But it remains something I've always been curious about. By the way, Changed, thanks for what you shared. I agree with you that God speaks to all His children. The First Presidency has certainly made that clear as have the scriptures. Interestingly, Muslims believe the same thing. As for the tree of life you quickly touched on, ask The Traveler about the story he shared with and reminded me of regarding how Muslim Arabs in the area of the Arabian Peninsula view the Tree of Life as applied to Lehi's dream. It's a good story, one you'll really appreciate.

In part I very much agree with you, Ozzy, that it's likely because of animosity and is certainly something that public would not allow. However, this has been happening for decades, long before 9/11. Ironically, English newspapers in the Middle East have also been translating God's name into English for decades. I also agree with the second point you made. While many Christians do not view Mormons as Christian and think that we believe in a different god, the reality is that this is true for numerous Christian denominations, where all have different notions as to who or what God really is. All the different religions represented in my family certainly have very different views of God. (I sometimes think that in this sense, Christianity has a lot in common with Hinduism!) But again, what I find amazing is that this has gone on since Islam's been a topic of discussion in the West, which actually goes back to the Middle Ages. Nothing's changed. I'll share something with you that very much fits what you've written--one of the biggest problems Mormons have in the Middle East are not the Muslims, but rather Christians from other denominations. Wherever we go, we just carry our baggage with us. Thanks very much for your comments and your thoughts.

The first article of the LDS faith begins: “We believe in Allah, the Eternal Father, . . .” Before any fellow Mormons stone me for heresy or blasphemy, let me point out that, with one small change, I am correct. The change would be that all the other words in this sentence should also be in Arabic. I’ve simply used the English since very few in the audience would know what I’m referring to if I didn’t use the English to show the context. (Source: the Arabic translation of the Doctrine & Covenants) Not only is Allah used in the first article of faith, but the Arabic translations of LDS scriptures, as well as all Arabic translations of the Bible, use Allah as the Arabic equivalent of the English word God. This would mean that were there an Arabic speaking ward within the LDS Church, in say NYC or LA, the sacrament prayers would also begin by invoking the name of Allah. Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. Spanish speakers refer to God as “Dios,” French speakers as “Dieu,” and Germans speakers as “Gott.” For native speakers of Arabic--whether Jew, Muslim, Christian or other--Allah is the name for God. This being so, I have a question. Why is it that the American media fails to translate the name Allah into English? (This might be the same in other English speaking countries, but as an American, I’m more familiar with American media does.) The American masses follow the media’s lead and refer to God of Islam as Allah. I can’t fault them too much in this since most Americans aren’t very good at foreign languages. But those in the media—journalists, reporters, anchors, editors, and even authors—who write or speak about Muslims and Islam have to know what’s going on. If they do not, they are certainly failing to both do their homework and accurately inform the public. Granted, we can lay part of the blame, perhaps, at the feet of some Muslims, who in English conversations will use the Arabic Allah out of respect for the name of God. (Muslims believe Arabic is the literal language of God; hence, there are Muslims who would use Allah out of reverence even when speaking another language for same reasons religious Jews won’t spell out the name of God in writing and all English speakers capitalize the first letter of His name in writing, the latter being something you can't do when writing Arabic since Arabic has no upper-case letters.) But the American media certainly is not using Allah out of respect to Islam or Muslims or God. English newspapers published in Muslim Middle Eastern lands always translate Allah to the English God for their English readers, but the US media does not do this. If a journalist interviewed someone in Spanish and media translated that interview into English, Dios would, of course, be translated along with every other word in that interview. But this does not happen when the topic involves Islam. I suspect that one reason for this failure is rooted in simple ignorance. Most reporters don't get to the Middle East and most probably aren't any better at foreign languages than most of their audience. But for any reporter actually reporting from the Middle East, or even those working with Muslims in the West, this should not be an excuse as they have a duty to either know their subject or get out of the business. A second reason deals with money—the media is a business, and profits are the goal of any business. Hence, the media simply gives the audience what the audience and their advertisers what both of the latter want to read and hear. There may be other reasons. But my question again is this: why do those in the American media fail to translate the Arabic name for God into English?

Thanks for the comments, SanctitasDeo. It's good to read that someone finds some of what I share interesting. Since 9/11 it's been quite hard to share my experiences with fellow Americans, even with fellow Mormons. In church in the US I've learned that it's often better to be quiet since what I share doesn't usually fit the groupthink. So it's always a refreshing boost to read that someone finds what I share interesting.

I tend to agree with Nibley who taught that while the Gadianton Robbers were a nuisance to Nephite society as criminal organizations such as the mafia, Mexican coyotes, or biker groups, as previously mentioned, they certainly didn't pose an existential threat to Nephite society. It goes far beyond them as they simply remained robbers in the hills causing problems every now and then. But once the Gadianton Robbers became well entrenched in government itself, once they knew how to market themselves and their ideas better by wearing three-piece suits and having degrees from Ivy League schools; once they were seen as charismatic, were considered great speakers and were people admired by the masses; and once the people at large subscribed to their principles and policies, then Nephite society was on its way out. The problem is never the small criminal gangs It's us, it's society. This is as it's always been. This doesn't so much give you a source to read, other than to include Nibley's writings on the Gadianton's, but it does give you more to think about as you read the Book of Mormon when it describes the Gadianton Robbers, the principles they lived by, and how they contributed to the desctruction of Nephite society.

I enjoy the post, one I've got to chime in on. Let me start by saying that if contemporary America and the Palestine of Jesus and his followers were in the same time period, I seriously doubt that Jesus could easily clear US customs! As many here know, I live and work in Saudi Arabia, the heartland of the ME, where beards are the norm for at two reasons. First, Gillette hasn't yet changed the cultural views of what a handsome, sexy, or professonal man should look like such as it has in the US. (Yes, technology does change culture and can do so quite dramatically.) Second, Muslim men wear beards for religious reasons. In fact, they use the same words we use when we discuss how we should dress and groom--we both do many things to "follow the prophet." Perhaps, it's a good think we can't take the gospel to the Muslims at this point. Just think of the problems associated with conversion! For years they've worn a beard to show that they are following the prophet, and then they convert to Mormonism and have to shave it off to show they are following the prophet! Of course, shaving the beard might be interpreted by other Muslims among whom they live that they've publicly abandoned their religion, which is haram (forbidden). At the very least, it would create tremendous peer pressure where a man's having a beard is about the same as a woman's wearing a veil. Sometime I think that the time for taking the Gospel to the Muslims won't be until a day when Gillette, the power of advertising, and the media no longer have such power over the minds of men and women! (I hope everyone knows I say much of this tongue-in-cheek and yet . . . ? By the way, the Amish and Menonites wear beards because, as they've told me repeatedly, God gave men facial hair for a reason.) When I wrote of clearing customs, one of the things I thought of was the beard. Many Americans living in the ME grow beards. But when they come back to the US where beards can actually scare people, they often have problems clearing customs. Friends of mine who have this problem have come to a solution. Just before coming back to the US, they shave their beards. This makes things easier at customs. Once they are here, they begin to let the beard grow again, and after about three weeks here, they have a beard that fits in nicely back in the ME. Interestingly, in the 1970s, when the Church was still pretty much an American religion, a man with a beard and long hair couldn't go to the temple. That, of course, is no longer the case, but in the 1970s it was much like BYU's been for a long time. Of course, at BYU you can have a beard (unless they've changed it since I was there) if it alleviates certain skin problems. Hence, everyone knows that the guys with the beards have a certain skin condition. When I was a student in the 1980s, we had an inactive member who we in the EQ presidency debated extending a call to--he was not a BYU student but lived in an apartment complex, and almost all housing in the valley was BYU approved, which meant BYU dress and grooming standards applied to all even those who were not students. He didn't have skin condition so . . . For a time, it didn't look like he'd be getting a call because of his beard. But while it was the norm that you couldn't go to the temple if you had a beard or long hair, this did not apply to Navajo men, many of whom had hair almost as long as that of Navajo women. The Church certainly took culture into account--what the practice symoblized in one culture differed from how it was seen in another, which fits well with what Elder Oaks said that it was a cultural not a moral issue. The problem is that it's hard to divorce ourselves from our cultural do's and don'ts. (Of course, I've often wondered what dress and grooming is going to be like in the next life!) I'd like to expand on some things many have mentioned here have touched on, but I do so from the field, so to speak. Every year in Saudi Arabia the unit leaders (bishop or branch president) will read the same letter regarding church policy for all members in the Kingdom. In that letter we are told to "dress down" when we go to church. From then on, things become confusing! Most of us dress down as we are told to do. But there are exceptions--while everyone else attending church has dressed down, those in the bishopric/branch presidency always dress up in a white shirt, tie, slacks, and possibly a full suit. It gets better, however. For example, one Friday (the equivalent of Sunday here), the EQ president, who was dressed down, approached me before church and asked if I'd be willing to bless the sacrament. But just as I was saying yes, he corrected himself and said, "No, you can't do it--you're not wearing a white shirt and tie." Well, of course not, because I was dressed down as we've all been instructed to do. It really struck me as odd--the one asking me, who is dressed down, is telling me I can't bless the sacrament because I'm dressed down, which is what we've all ben told to do. But . . . it's got to the point that there'll always be an extra tie someone brings just in case. But then there's the problem of what about an extra white shirt? And one that fits? One of the members actually went too native for the other members. He started wearing a nice white "thobe" (what looks like a long dress you'll see on men) to church. It wasn't long before he was told that it wasn't appropriate. Later at the airport in Manama, Bahrain, I ran into the EQ president and reminded him of the experience I've shared above. He told me that while he disagreed with the way things were done, that was what our branch presidency wanted. Once after 9/11, I was back in my home stake in the US and was asked to give a sacrament talk on the Church in the ME. I wanted to share something with the members in my talk, but I first wanted to see what the Church handbook of instructions said, so I approached the bishop before sacrament. I asked him whath the handbook said about appropriate attire for church. He told me that all the handbook said was that people should wear their best dress. I then asked if this applied to those administering the sacrament. The response was the same. But he then added that despite what the handbook said, he personally would never allow anyone to bless or pass the sacrament if they weren't wearing a white shirt and tie. The Church membership in Saudi are all foreign nationals, coming from numerous lands. But everyone is following the example of how things are done in America. But I suspect that once the Church gets into the ME, things will change dramatically. I've found that the general authorities are far more accommodating of cultural differences than is the general church membership. Someone mentioned a lava lava. In the island of the Pacific where lava lavas has long been the norm of those cultures, men quite often wear white shirts, ties and lava lavas to church. They also administer the sacrament in the same. Men in the ME don't wear white shirts, business suits, ties, etc. . . . That's all western garb. When the church does get into those lands, I suspect many of our ways of doing things will be done away to accommodate those coming into the Church. Right now, the church units there are in essence "little Americas" in that most members, while not American, defer to the local leadership, who are almost always American. But once Arabs enter the Church in large numbers, the local leadership will likely change and you'll see men wearing beards and thobes in church and administering the sacrament. The problem is that we don't realize how much our culture influences us. It has a tremendous hold on us and this leads to many of the challenges we face. And I'm a firm believer that for most of us, we let our culture inform our religion, rather than the other way around. But we really need to move beyond things like beards & long hair and white shirts & ties to more important things like this--when we prepare the sacrament, do we use white or brown bread; store bought or homemade; sliced or unsliced; western-style bread, peta bread, or crackers? Um? Just look at what beards and long hair on men can lead to! Everyone here can count their blessings that most don't have to deal with the latter. At least not yet.

Initially I wanted to entitle this thread "Saudi Lite," but I don't want it to be about life in Saudi Arabia for an American Christian. Liking the old cartoon strip "The Far Side" I thought of calling it "The Far Side of Living Abroad," but I wasn't sure that everyone would understand why I would use such a title. So I settled on "The Bogeymen Beyond Our Borders," which I did for a purpose. I believe that most Americans are too tightly wound and that we really need to loosen up. The media, which makes its money off the sensational, does an excellent job keeping us scared about everything. One of my favorite children's books is "There's a Nightmare in My Closet," by Mercery Meyer. Most of us are not kids anymore, but we certainly live with nightmares about all the bogeyment hiding beyond our borders. And yet many of us have traveled and lived abroad and know that the way our media portrays things often has very little to do with reality and that people on the other side of that border are really not much different than you and I. So the point of this thread is simple--I think it would nice to share experiences we've all had that show the lighter, more human side of life beyond the borders. They can be experiences which have made us laugh, which have helped us understand something we never really understood before, or something dealing with the misuse of a new language. This is not just for Americans. Many of those on the site are from countries other than America have their experiences about visiting or living among Americans. Their stories would be just as interesting, perhaps even more so. Let me share a story of my own. Life in Saudi can be quite comical in many ways if you just learn to loosen up. This story involves what I call the bacon-smuggling technique. Like the Jews and Mormons, Muslims have a dietary code. Certain things are "haram," i.e., forbidden. (Don't confuse this word with "hammam" which is the "bathroom," which, of course, might also be haram if you walk in on someone else!) Saudi has all kinds of western compounds, many of which actually have bacon. I love to visit the branch president house because his wife has a freezer full of bacon. My reward, of course, is always a nice juicy BLT. But many of us Yanks don't live on a compound that has bacon. So we have to get our pound of forbidden flesh another way--smuggling. (Yes, I'm LDS, and I know there will be those who say I should obey the laws of the land, but many cultures don't look at law the way we do as something carved in stone, and I've seen enough to know that LDS leadership is far more flexible than are many of us, so . . .) To smuggle bacon you must do it properly, according to the rules of the game. After a visit to say nearby Bahrain and before returning to Saudi, you walk into a butcher shop and ask for a pound or two of bacon. The butcher will ask if you're going to Saudi and you say yes. He'll then slice your bacon in nice thin strips, wrap it up in white butcher paper, and slap a sticker on it that reads, "Veal, thinly sliced." You place the package on the front seat of your car, right in the middle, in plain view. Do not place it anywhere else such as the jockey box, under the seat, in the trunk or hidden in luggage. When you get to the border, you'll go through customs where your vehicle will be checked, sometimes with dogs. A good inspection requires looking in the trunk, the glove compartment, under the seats, etc. You just stand outside the car, act normal, and patiently wait. Once it's done, you're on your merry way back to Saudi. Now, as long as you've put the bacon in plain view in the middle of the front seat, you'll be taking that bacon home with you as well. For some strange reason, as long as it's in plain view, the officials with never see it. These are the rules of the game, and as long as there's no cheating, everyone wins--you have your bacon and the agents have done their job. But if you try to cheat by hiding it and they find it, then they have no choice but to confiscate it and you'll be going home empty handed. By the way, this works for Christians and the color of your iqama will identify you as Christian or Muslim for anyone who's illiterate. If you're Muslim, I wouldn't advise playing this game. It's a Christian/Muslim game, not a Muslim/Muslim game. The rules change for Muslims and you'll have to find out what the rules to your particular game are. But relax, as a good Saudi friend once told me, once you know what the rules are in Saudi, you can do about anything you want. I look forward to the stories of others as I find the world a fascinating place in which to live. And who knows, maybe the thread will help rid our minds of some of the bogeymen living there.

I’d like to share some thoughts with you on your question and some of your comments regarding the Book of Mormon. But I would ask you to be patient and allow me to do so in a slightly different way that other posts. Moreover, what I’d like to share will be done in several parts given that it’s hard to do in a shorter post. Please be patient, but remember that each part is part of the whole and needs to be read in context with the part preceding it. This part involves your initial post wherein you wrote that a major issue for you was that while you could visit some places named in the Bible, you couldn’t to the same for places named in the Book of Mormon. You also wrote that “we have not clue . . none, where these places are, or if they even existed.” Please note that what I share will end differently than it begins, but I want to start with this major issue you’ve mentioned. One of the most interesting sights in the world is from certain vantage points on the eastern slopes of the Andes. From these points, you can look eastward over what appears to be a sea of green The green, of course, is from the treetops of the Amazon below and before you, a vast wilderness that stretches far beyond what the eye can see, covering a distance that's about the same as that from California to Washington, D.C. It was into this vast wilderness that the legendary British explorer Percy Fawcett ventured and vanished in 1925. Much of his adult life, Fawcett had been obsessed with finding a fabled civilization he believed in the Amazon just waiting to be re-discovered. The educated of his day and even into our own time believed that the civilization he had searched and died for was merely a fool’s dream. After all, there was no evidence for such a civilization. There was nothing such as ancient cities in the Andes with names such as Cuzco or Tiahuanaco. There was nothing such as Macchu Picchu or Pachacamac. Nor were there cities such as were well known from much farther north in Mexico and MesoAmerica such as Tikal, Teotihuacan, or Chichen Itza. There were no magnificent stone structures or ancient highways. All that was there was what was known as a “Green Hell,” a jungle so harsh, deadly, and inhospitable that it could not possibly sustain life in large numbers. In fact, the only ones living there were but a small number of primitive tribes who were barely able to survive themselves. Yet despite what everyone said, Fawcett truly believed he was right. But all he had to go on were the stories told by the early European chroniclers. What they said they personally witnessed no one but Fawcett believed. Their writings were considered fictional at best, tales only the feeble minded could possibly believe. TAs a result, their chronicles were left buried and long-forgotten in the dusty basements of churches and libraries across the globe. Fawcett spent years gathering many of these chronicles and based on what he read, he came concluded that he knew just where to look. Using the information he’d gained, he made his last trip into the Amazon in 1925. In the past few years, Michael Heckenberger, an archaeologist from the University of Florida, has been excavating and mapping what he and his team have discovered in a remote part of the Amazon known as Xingu. This is the same area where Fawcett disappeared. Heckenberger is the world’s expert in this part of the Amazon and his findings are amazing. He points out that most archaeologists avoided it because of the prevailing notion the Amazon was a counterfeit paradise. “They presumed it was an archaeological black hole” and that Fawcett, an amateur, was the exception and a crank. Making it even easier to dismiss Fawcett was the fact that he lacked the proper tools and the discipline of a modern archaeologist. “But even thought Fawcett was an amateur, . . . , he was able to see things more clearly than many professional scholars” both then and now. So what has Heckenberger and his team found? They’ve found moats or defensive ditches. One of these moats was a dozen and sixteen feet deep and about thirty feet wide and was nearly a mile in diameter. Next to these moats is evidence of palisade walls. “All around the moat, you can see these funnel shapes, equally spread apart. There are only two explanations. Either they had traps at the bottom or they had something sticking into them, like tree trunks.” He mentions that when he first discovered them it didn’t seem to make sense to build moats and defensive walls in a wilderness. He’s found broken potter everywhere, so much so that the broken potter was used as a form of landfill in creating mounds. In fact, on certain high areas in the Amazon, “very little scratching will produced an abundance” of ancient pottery. He points out that “[t]here isn’t a lot of stone in the jungle, and most of [the settlements were] built of organic material—woods and palms and earth mounds—which decompose. But once you begin to map out the area and excavate it you are blown away by what you see,” the massive remains of a man-made landscape. One settlement he found had the remains of three moats around it, arranged in concentric circles. The former inhabitants, whoever they were, had roads, causeways, and canals. Some of the roads had been nearly 150 feet wide. “We even found a place where the road ends at one side of a river in a kind of ascending ramp and then continues on the other side with a descending ramp. Which can only mean one thing: there had to have been some kind of wooden bridge connecting them, over an area that was a half mile long.” All the settlements, the roads, the causeways and the canals seemed to fit into an elaborate whole, like an abstract painting whose elements only cohere at a distance. “Once my team started to map everything out, we discovered that nothing was done by accident. All these settlements were laid out with a complicated plan, with a sense of engineering and mathematics that rivaled anything that was happening in much of Europe at the time.” Susanna Hecht, a geophysicist at UCLA, called Heckenberger’s finds extraordinary. Other archaeologists and geographers have described them as monumental, transformative, and earth-shattering. But even more startling is that these unknown people took the infertile land of the Amazon and transformed it into fertile land that could sustain large populations. Scientists have uncovered throughout the jungle large stretches of terra preta (“black earth”) which is soil that has been enriched with organic human waste and charcoal so that the land becomes exceptionally fertile. And these tracts of land have remained fertile to this day. Since the Amazon is one large flood plain, these fertile areas were raised to form large squares or blocks of land for agricultural purposes. This kept them above the annual floodwaters and allowed the inhabitants to work the land throughout the year. Roads and canals ran parallel to the farmlands, and all was laid out on a grid, with roads running north-south, east-west. What they did the soil, which remains even today unlike the surrounding land, and the massive amounts of earth that needed to be moved are absolutely mind-boggling. Heckenberger states: “Archaeologists made a mistake of coming into the Amazon in the twentieth century and seeing only small tribes and saying,’Well, that’s all there is.’ The problem is that, by then, many Indian populations had already been wiped out by what was essentially a holocaust form European contact. That’s why the first Europeans in the Amazon described such settlements that, later, no one could ever find.” This ends part one of what I wanted to share with you. The next part will continue from here. Please know that I do not mean to imply by what I've written here that what has been found in the Amazon is rooted in the Book of Mormon. I simply use this as an example for what I’ll share later. My apologies for its length. If it's too overwhelming for you, just let me know. Hopefully, the next one will be shorter.

You mentioned the long road ahead. Rest assured that you're not alone. Remember also that we're not judged really by where we are on the road or by how fast we're moving down the road. What matters most is that we are consistently heading in the right direction. This doesn't mean we haven't had detours along the way. Nor does it mean that sometimes we haven't got off course. Consistency means that over time, and despite our momentary failures, we keep trying to head in the right direction. You're doing that and that's what matters most.

Based on what you wrote, it sounds as though whatever you're dealing with isn't something that happened when you were under the age of accountability, but rather began about that time and has continued to the present day. Once it continues into adulthood, we do have the responsibility of doing our best to overcome the flaws in our nature. To me, it sounds as though you know what to do; it's just a matter of doing it. I can't tell you not to be too hard on yourself simply because I don't know what you did. But it sounds as though you've put a lot of thought, study, and prayer into it and you feel that you need to talk with your wife and your bishop. Hence, you should follow through with your feelings and conclusions. As for your fears, I'm reminded that courage is not the absence of fear, but doing what needs to be done despite our fears. And if it comes to being excommunicated, which it may not, understanding what excommunication is may help. Most of us consider excommunication a punishment. But in reality excommunication is an act of great love, mercy, and kindness because it releases us from covenants we are unable fulfill. Where much is given much is expected, and without the blessing of excommunication, we remain bound by the covenants we've entered into and are therefore under far greater condemnation for not living in accordance with what we have promised to do. By releasing us from the covenants we've made, excommunication allows us the opportunity we need to put our lives back in order and regain our strength in the hope of helping us get to the point where we are better able to once more re-new our covenants and live in accordance with them. This doesn't mean it's easy in terms of how we feel about ourselves initially. Nor does it lessen how other might react or what we think they might think of us. But it does allow us to move on by putting things back together again and doing so without being held accountable to higher laws we may be unable to fulfill at a particular time in our journey. It takes character to own up to what we have done, be willing to fall on our sword, so to speak, ask forgiveness, and seek advice as to how to best move on. It seems as though you're on the right path and already know what to do. Rest assured that those who know and love you will remain true, stand by you, and still love you. I wish you the best.