Sean1427

Thanks Justice! That was my problem, too. It's just not an option.

I do have one more thing to add regarding Snow's rhetorical quesiton, "If God wanted to help the Church, why wouldn't He do it himself rather than by manipulating well-intentioned seekers of truth?" I mean no offense when I write this, but this is similar to the question many Muslims ask Christians in the Middle East--if Christ were truly God's son, why would God do something so cruel as to allow His son to be killed? Moreover, since God is all-powerful, they point out, He certainly doesn't need a savior or anyone else to do the work that He could certainly do on His own.

Gwen, as I read your first sentence, I immediately thought of a quote that I wanted to send you. But then as I read further into your post I saw that you had posted the same quote that came to my mind as I began to read your post. Perhaps it's true--great minds do run in the same gutter! In some ways, I believe, the time has to be right for any given individual. And for many, perhaps this life is not the time. I believe the quote you shared supports that possibility. Not everyone is the same, not everyone has the same mission. Some are called to serve in the Church; others are called to serve outside the Church. I live and work in Saudi Arabia and have done so since before 9/11. Because of my experience among the Muslims and peoples of those lands, I have come to appreciate very much the 1978 statement by the First Presidency: "The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlight whole nations andn to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals . . . We believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation." Just as the time is not right for most Muslims, the time may not be right for many individuals. Christ revealed his message to the Jews first. Only later did he authorize it going to the gentiles. In these latter days, according to LDS beliefs, the focus of our missionary efforts are those of the tribe of Ephraim and Manasseh. The time for the redemption of others, including the Jews, based on LDS scriptural interpretation, will come later. Moreover, the way I interpret the above statement is that these individuals named in the First Presidency message, along with others, had a mission that took them outside the Church. If this is true for certain individuals in the past, it is likely just as true for at least some in the present and the future. In Saudi, we cannot teach, baptize or proselytize. We are instructed by the leadership not to even answer questions. Yet this does not mean that missionary work is not being done. And one of the greatest LDS missionaries is a Muslim Saudi who is a great friend of the members. On his own, without being asked and with encouragement any member, he freely does what we cannot--he distributes copies of the BOM among his Muslim friends, neighbors, and acquaintances. And they accept it from him. Interestingly, one thing that Mohammed taught his people is something Mormons also believe--that God has spoken to all his people and that everyone has been given a portion of the truth. This friend of ours does wonders for the Church. But I believe that he is one who will not become a member the Church in this life. His work, I believe, is best done as a non-member. In response to another post here and based on the LDS view of a life before we were born, the quote you shared may not have anything to do with God's cruelly using people to manipulate things. Calls were likely given and accepted just as they are here and people were free to choose. And these individuals will not be denied any blessings they are deserving of. Originially included in this was something more personal and specific on the question you raised that I would like to share. However, because it's more personal in that it involves my father, I would prefer not to post in public. Unfortunately, I see no way to send you a private message. Should you read this and are interested, just let me know how to send you a private message, and I'll do so. Aleikhem salaam . . .

I doubt this is the right thread to post to, but I'm unsure where to post this. Besides, since some have talked about veiling and at least one mentioned Saudi Arabia, I figure that I could justify it on those grounds, flimsy as they are! However, let me be clear, what I share mostly applies to veiling in Saudi Arabia. While the clothing goes by various names depending on where you are, I'll just use the Engish word "veil" to refer to the face covering, "hijab" to refer to the hair covering, and abaya to refer to the long flowing black robe/cloak you often see on Saudi women in the news. Men's clothing is similar and Islam teaches that both should be modest in their dress. But then there is the question of defining modesty and violations of the dress and grooming code and that's a whole new can of worms altogether. By the way, and I mean to insult no one from Utah, but living in Saudi Arabia reminds me a lot of living in Utah, even down to the religious police, who brought back memories of those faculty and students who worked for the standards department when I was a student at the Y. There are so many similiarties, with the emphasis on similarities. It's certianly not the same. With that as a preface, let's continue. Wearing the veil in Saudi is not part of any positive law. In other words, it is not mandated or legislated by the government. Nor is is dictated by Islam, which in Saudi Arabia makes sense given that the legal system is Sharia'ah, which is rooted in Islam. Rather, the veil in Saudi and throughout that part of the world, even for Christian and Jewish Arabs, is rooted in culture. Granted, many in those lands and elsewhere do not undestand this, misinterpret this and often confuse religion with culture. But in Saudi, it's common for religious leaders to point out that the veil is part of custom and not Islam. (As a side noted, I have seen men veil in the presence of women, and the earliest depictions of Mohammed show him veiled as well. Nioreover, there are Muslim tribes in North Africa where it's the men who veil and not the women. Just think of it, those Muslim women are forcing those poor men to veil!) One of the problems they have during hajj at Mecca is that women are not supposed to cover their faces on hajj. But many do and they are told again and again that they should remove their veils for hajj, and many don't want to. Not every woman veils in Saudi. Moslty, it's only Saudi women who veil as is their custom. ("Fiddler on the Roof"? Tradition!) Muslim women from other lands do not veil nor does any other non-Saudi women, with the exception of those who've perhaps married a Muslim man. For instance, I know European and American women who've married a Saudi and they veil. By the same token, I know other European and American women who've also married Saudi men and they don't veil. And in parts of the country where things are more relaxed, such as Jeddah, many Saudi women do not veil. But in other, more traditional parts of the country, such as Najd or the Quran Belt, women who look Saudi might want to veil so they're not hassled by people who think they might be an un-veiled Saudi. Regardless, the situation is certainly not black and white and is more complicated than we realize. Bank robbers in Saudi veil as do prostitutes. Saudi women who cheat on their husbands keep the veil on as it is a great protection since under Islamic law there need to be four adult male witnesses to the act of sexual intercourse before one can be condemned to death for adultery. Until fairly recently, border crossings were a problem for Saudi customs officials because they didn't have a way to ID the women crossing the border. In fact, Saudi men and women who were having an illicit affair would use this as a "cover" to go into neighboring countries for a fun night on the town. Border crossings have changed now, however. But police still often wave a car through a checkpoint on a highway if there are Saudi women on board--they simply don't want to have to go through the hassle of trying to identify the women. For those in Saudi who wear the veil, it's supposed to be for public use only. Hence, when they go home, they remove the veil. But in some of the more backward parts of the country, in the little towns and villages up some wadi, there are women who never remove the veil. This is interesting since men and women are allowed to see each other before agreeing to an arranged marriage. This means that when they do sit down and meet each other face to face, she is without her veil, the abaya and the hijab. After that, the veil is used in public except in the backward places I've mentioned where some women will keep it on even at home. Men and women from these areas will complain that they never see the face of their wife or mother until she dies and it's time to prepare her body for burial. I'm aware of one elderly man who tried to get a glimpse of his wife's face while she was sleeping but she caught him. She became upset, packed her things and went home to mom and dad. He pleaded with her to return which she only consented to do if he signed an agreement wherein he agreed never to try to see her face again. He did. But as time passed, he began to irritate her again by his constant attempts to get her to show him her face. She finally told him that if he wanted to see a wife's face that badly, she would go out and find a second wife for him who would be willing to satisfy his desires. One of the major problems they have in Saudi with allowing women to drive involves the veil. If the women won't or can't remove the veil, then it makes driving dangerous. Back in the late 1990s, the government tried to get people to go along with an attempt to allow women to drive but most were against it, in part because of the veil. Large numbers of men and women did not think it appropriate for women to remove the veil. The leadership then suggested a compromise where women who were older than 30 or 40 would be allowed to drive if they uncovered their faces. (At that point, I suppose the woman's beauty has kind of faded and no one needs to worry about all the accidents that might occur from men gawking at her!) That didn't go over well. For now, the only women allowed to drive are the Bedu women, who do so veiled, of course. Visiting nearby Bahrain can be interesting because there the tradition is more relaxed. But even there, you can pick out the Saudi women--they almost always veil. Once I saw two groups of women in an upscale mall. It was women's night out, so none of their mail relatives were anywhere near. There were five women in each group, and the two groups were approaching each other. All were dressed in black from head to toe except for the face. The group on the right were all veiled--they, of course, we're Saudi; the group on the left were not veiled except for one, and they were Bahraini. I saw the same thing over and over again even in movie theaters. I remember watching "The Runaway Bride" and seated four or five rows above me were 5 or 6 women, all veiled in this dark movie theater with almost no one else in the theater. By the way, one thing I found amazing was the fact that even though women are all covered up like this in Saudi, some even wearing black gloves with no peep holes in the veil, men are always gawking at them. And the hand gestures they use to show the woman's figure is not the hourglass gesture we use in America but it's more like an inverted funnel.

After my last post, I thought it would be appropriate to elaborate a bit on “Death of a Princess,” which The Passenger brought up and which I touched on in my most recent post. I do so simply to shed more light on something that future readers might be interested in. But again, let me remind anyone who might read this that what I share does not mean that beheadins and amputations no longer take place in Saudi. They still do as they are legal punishments found in Islamic Law. My focus here is merely to shed light on the video “Death of a Princess”, and I would hope that by doing so, I’m also able to give a few insights into Islamic law. “Death of a Princess” aired in 1980. It was a “fictionalized” docu-drama about a Saudi princess who fell in love with and had an affair with another member of the royal family and was beheaded for having done so. We need to remember, however, that the video was fictionalized. To use this as proof of how barbaric Muslims are in general and Saudi Arabia is in particular is unfair given it was fiction. One could say that it was no different than many of our movies that are purportedly based on history. Islamic Law (i.e., Shariah) is a complicated legal system which consists of four schools. Our own legal systems in the West are complicated. While in America we often speak of the American legal system, in reality there are many legal systems represented in America—federal law, state law (and there are 50 states), common law, civil law (as opposed to common law), Napoleanic law, criminal law, tort law, etc. Because we Americans can’t explain our own legal system(s), we should be very careful when we try to explain a complicated system that we, for the most part, know almost nothing about. But let me shed a little light on the case that is believed to have inspired “Death of a Princess” and a little more about Islamic law as it applies to this case. It is believed that the execution of the Saudi princess in “Death of a Princess” was inspired by the killing of Misha’il bint Fahad al Saud. But the fact is that Misha’il was not beheaded. She was shot. She was killed in 1977, which, ironically, is the same year the last legal beheading took place in Europe. Misha’il was the granddaughter of the older brother of the king of Saudi Arabia at that time, Khalid bin Abul Aziz. While attending school in Lebanon, Misha’il fell in love and began an affair with the nephew of the Saudi ambassador to Lebanon. After they returned to Saudi, they continued their affair in secret. They then decided to escape from Saudi, but before doing so, she attempted to fake her own drowning. She and her lover were caught trying to escape Saudi Arabia. This is where it becomes more uncertain and complicated. Many Saudis and non-Saudis, Mulsim and non-Muslims, who are well-versed in Islamic law believe that her death was illegal; in other words, they believe she was murdered. The reasons are as follows. First, Misha’il was not married, and therefore could not be guilty of adultery, the penalty of which is death. If unmarried individuals are having an affair, they are guilty of the crime of dating in Saudi, not adultery. The punishment for these individuals guilty of dating would be whipping, not death. Second, under Shariah, one cannot be convicted of the crime of adultery without the testimony of four adult male witnesses to the actual sexual penetration during intercourse. Hence, the definition of adultery is very narrow and adutla male witnesses are required. But there were no witnesses to Misha’il’s case at all. In fact, as I point out later, it’s not even sure there was a trial. However, if the accused confesses in court that they are guilty of a crime, then witnesses are not necessary. Miaha’il’s family urged her not to confess but instead simply promise not to see her lover again. If she had confessed, her punishment would have been 100 lashes as I’ve previously described the manner in which they whip someone in Saudi. But she refused to do as her parents advised and when she purportedly returned to the courtroom, she stated three times, “I have committed adultery.” (Note: three times is important; it’s similar to how a man divorces his wife. In any event, if she did this, it would be similar to “death by cop” in the US.) Third, Misha’il was then executed by gunshots to the head, which in itself is a violation of Islamic law. The same day she was executed her lover was also executed. You’ll note that I used the adverb “purportedly” in describing her return to the courtroom. Some say there was never actually a trial, which his required by law in Saudi. For instance, Antony Thomas stated on PBS the following: “It wasn’t even a trial. She wasn’t even executed in the Square of Justice. Sheh was just executed in a car park. I’ve witnessed executions in Saudi Arabia, I’m afraid. They’re always done in a special square. This wasn’t even done there. It wasn’t done with an official executioner, not aht that would make it any worse or any better. But this was not following the process of any law.” What Thomas says about where executions are done is accurate. Executions are not just done anywhere but in specific places and in public. They’re usually done on Fridays after the main prayer. (I know of one case where the police actual did it on a Tuesday without any public notice because the convicted was a pedophile who’d sodomized and brutally killed a young boy. They did not want him to get off by the boy’s family’s acceptance of “blood money” at the last minute. But they still did it in public and in the appropriate square.” David Fanning, the cowriter and executive producer of “Death of a Princess,” stated that the princess in the video was not killed because of adultery but rather as an act of tribal vengeance in a parking lot. Hence, even according to his description of the circumstances, those circumstances would indicate that her death was illegal under Islamic law. His statement is also one reason many believe that Misha'il's death was the inspiration for the video. Referencing “Death of a Princess” to show how barbaric Saudis, and by extension Muslims, are reminds me of what often happens in America. My brother’s in-laws, who are vey well educated, refuse to go to Mexico after having watched “Man on Fire.” I’ve lived in several parts of Mexico, and I really don’t think you can judge Mexico by what you see in “Man on Fire.” After “Brokeback Mountain” came out, the Wyoming tourist bureau was inundated with letters, calls and e-mails from Americans who wanted to visit Wyoming and see Brokeback Mountain. Sadly, the bureau had to tell all those people there was no such mountain in Wyoming. (The film was made in Canada. Maybe it’s there!) Promoted as a movied based on history, “Hidalgo” is about a 3,000 mile horse race across the Arabian Peninsula. Get out a map of the peninsula and you’ll see that you can’t go 3,000 miles anywhere and still be on the peninsula, unless you zig-zag or do a loop. In any event, there never was such a race on the peninsula and American equestrian society statements show that the man the movie was about had all kinds of stories that were never real. Judges in America today have all kinds of problems now with jurors who believe that what they see on TV’s CSI shows is actually what happens across the country. I’ve actually had well-edducated Russians tell me that they know what America is like because they’ve seen our movies! I laughed at the idea, and then laugh a bit more when I realize that we Americans often “learn” what other countries are like because we’ve seen our movies as well. My experience has taught me that a healthy sckepticism is wise, and that we really need to do our homework well rather than simply absorbing as reality whatever we see or hear in the media. I was scared of Saudi and the ME before I went there. And my first year there was very uncomfortable simply because I kept waiting for the bogeyman to get me. It took me about a year to realize that something wasn’t quite right with the image I had in my head of Saudis, Muslims, and Arabs. The world is full of all kinds of voices leading us to believe so many things that have no basis in truth, fact, or reality.

Thanks for your response, Passenger, to what I wrote. But in fairness I think I need to respond to what your wrote as well. In my post regarding Saudi Arabia where I described certain aspects of Sharia as practiced in Saudi, I also pointed out that there were obviously abuses, miscarriages of justice and people who confuse culture with religion. I also pointed out that this is so with every government and religion. I should also add the obvious, that all societies have those who care not about the law, the values of their nation, or their religion. These criminals sometimes wear untrimmed beards, run around in sandals, wear funny clothes, and justify the evil they do in the name of religion. But other criminals have degrees from top universities, wear three-piece suits, are smooth talkers, and are good at justifying the evil they do by using noble words and appeals to religion or the flag. Regarding Saudi Arabia, however, I am very impressed with how far the Saudis have come as a nation in such a short time. Moreover, as an American I have to remember that it took my Anglo-American ancestors 800 years to get to the point we, in America, are today in terms of our view on government. Saudis have come a long way given they’ve only been a nation for less than 80 years. I notice that you give your location as Germany. While you may or may not be German, let’s use Germany for the views I’ll express herein. But first, let me address the thoughts I had when your referenced the video known in English as “Death of a Princess,” which aired in 1980, 30 years ago. At that time, Saudi Arabia had been a country for 48 years, very young compared to Germany. And while there has been debate as to the accuracy of what was portrayed in the video and what was reported to also have occurred but was not shown in the video, let us assume that all of it is accurate, including not just her beheading but also the drugging, amputation and beheading of her lover and friends involved. Moreover, let me stipulate that beheading and amputation still occur in Saudi Arabia as a legal punishment under Islamic law. That said, let us remember that beheading was a legal form of execution in Europe as late as 1981, which is the year France, whose official method of execution was beheading, outlawed the death penalty altogether. In fact, the last beheading in Europe took place in France in 1977, about the same time the Saudi princess, her lover, and friends were beheaded. (Ironically, I think the man beheaded in France might have been Muslim given his name.) This, of course, brings us to Germany. Germany has a long history as a nation. Germany was a tremendous world cultural center and has left all of us a wonderful legacy. Germany was also Christian, and I suspect most Germans still believe it is a Christian nation. And yet from 1871 to 1945 one of Germany’s legal methods of execution was beheading. Moreover, from 1933-1945 beheading was reserved for convicted criminals while political enemies were shot or hung. Nazi war records indicate that during these latter set of years, at least 16,500 were executed in Germany by beheading. And while I don’t know what the crimes were for those beheaded in Germany during these years, I suspect that many of them involve crimes similar to or far less serious than those you mentioned in your first post. Also, stoning as well as the death penalty for homosexuality and adultery are right out of the Old Testament and are punishments decreed by God. Hence, whether we agree with any of these or not, almost all these things can be found in the Christian world’s most sacred record. Moreover, if you were unfortunate enough to be a gay, a Jew or one of the many others who were sent to the concentration camps during WW II, being beheaded could easily be considered an act of kindness. And this all occurred during the lives of many still living and in a very well-educated, highly cultured, Christian nation known as Germany. So what do we do? And where do we draw the line? After all, if we choose to condemn an entire people, nation, or religion based on the evil acts done by a minority, or if we choose to do the same for what those of “their kind” did 30 years ago, then aren’t we equally justified in going back 35 or 40 years earlier than 1980 and condemning all modern Germans for what happened fairly recently? If this is the game we choose to play, we all lose. Personal integrity and consistency require that we judge all the same way in this kind of game. And if this is our game, then Germans who choose to play it have no right to protest when non-Germans look at German history in the first half of the 20th century and say as you said about Muslims and those of Muslim nations: "Nice countries. Nice faith, Nice guys." Yet I suggest that this is not the game to play. We all lose because all us have a present and a past that includes both good and evil. I personally believe it is wrong to keep throwing Hitler and the horrors and barbarities of Nazi Germany in the faces of contemporary Germans. Germans today are not responsible for what happened in those ugly years. Nor were the Germans then completely responsible for all that happened. There was a lot of blame to go around in both Germany and among the other nations of the time. Also, countries are like individuals in some ways--in life none of us start out at the same starting line nor do we all have the same advantages. Some are blessed with a lot; others are blessed with little. What matters is how well we do with what we have. Saudis have had a mere 80 years compared to my Anglo-American heritage of 800 years the German heritage of at least as much. Related to this is my belief that where much is given to an individual or a nation, more is expected. Hence, I expect far more from Americans and Germans than I do from the Saudis. They’re still in the process of learning much of what we in the West seem to be forgetting. Will they ever get it right as nations? I don’t know. Have we got it right as nations? I doubt it, and as I look at my own land and those nations of Europe, it seems to me that we’ve been selling a lot of our heritage for a pot of porridge. While Muslim nations are at the bottom of the ladder of freedom, independence, and certain universal values struggling to work their way up, many of the nations in the West have been at the top of the same ladder but are doing their best to work their way down. One of my favorite books is “Man’s Search for Meaning” by Viktor Frankl, the famous Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist. In this book he speaks of the lessons he learned during his time, as Jew, in Nazi Germany’s concentration camps, where he lost all his family. He wrote that one of the greatest lessons he learned from his experience was that there are no good people or bad people. Rather, there are simply good individuals and bad individuals among all nations, races, religions and people. He pointed out how a German doctor in his camp spent his own money and risked his life and that of his family to purchase and smuggle in medicine for the inmates. When American forces liberated the camp, inmates protected this German doctor from the Americans until the latter promised no harm would come to him. But Viktor Frankl also pointed at some of the worst individuals in the camp were fellow Jews. The same lesson is there for all of us. But whether we learn this lesson is based on the choices we make. I apologize for the length of this, but I felt the need to share my thoughts as I read and thought about your post.

Yes, I'm very late to the party on this one, but I have to post a reply in the event anyone might visit the thread again. Thanks for the photos! I loved them. And yes, the signs above the freeway are real though NY and Plattsville arent's on the sign. For those of us who live in Saudi, this is what we refer to as The Christian Beltway. Washington, D.C. has its beltway, Salt Lake City as its beltway and so does Mecca. Oh, the fond memories this photo brings up and the stories I could tell. But back to the photo--this is really no different than needing a temple recommend for any LDS member who wants to go to the temple. If you don't have it at the door, you'll be turned away. The same thing applies to Mecca and Medina. And LDS temple in many ways is similar to these two cities. It's just a matter of size. I've known Christians who've been in Mecca. While I wouldn't recommend it, I doubt your life will be foreit. In Saudi they're actually quite forgiving when Christians do stupid things. And all the laws they have do have safeguards built into the system. However, as with any religion, abuse does exist as well as people who misinterpret things or do things that go against their religion. This applies to government as well. Godless and Pam are correct, Muslims are a very good people. But I need to point out something about Americans and those in the West, something that's quite well researched, i.e., our knowledge of Muslims has not changed much since the Middle Ages, and for those living in the Middle Ages, their knowledge was not based on actual experience or rooted in reality. If Mormons want to understand Muslims all they need to do in many ways is look at themselves. Mormons in the US always point at that those who disparage the Church don't really know about the Church because of bad history and an equally bad PR. The same holds true for Muslims. I've found it odd that many LDS in the US have attitudes toward Muslims that are no different than the negative attitudes most non-Mormons who are anti-US have against us. The incorrect perceptions are all rooted in ignorance. I am not using "ignorance" to put anyone down; I am simply saying that many simply get their views of Muslims from television, movies, radio, politicians, and papers all published by people who know no more than the targeted audience. It's a good case of the blind leading the blind and they're all down there in the ditch, not really knowing they're in a ditch. POne thing we as Mormons or Christians need to be careful of is seeing things in other's scriptures that adherents of those scriptures don't interpret the way we do. For instance, I found it odd that there are many of us Mormons--and please don't think I'm addressing this to anyone here--who point out that the Qur'an is full of violence, but we fail to remember how non-Mormons see our own scriptures. The BOM starts off with Nephi cutting off Laban's head! Much of the BOM is filled with wars and bloodshed. The D&C speaks of war. Christ was crucified. And that's all before we get to the Old Testament and all the violence found in those pages as well as scriptural approved physical punishments which are pretty gruesome by our modern standards. Of course, we'll defend our scriptures by saying that those attacking us don't really understand what's being said or what really happened. The Muslims have to do the same thing when we accuse them. Case in point--according to Islam the death penalty is possible for conversion to another religion. First, this has to be a public conversion, not a private conversion. This is how its interpreted. Second, while the law is technically on the books, you rarely see it being enforced. But whether it's enforced or not, it's a bit unfair to criticize their scriptures for this when our own scriptures have the same injunction, which is something I didn't see until an orthodox Israeli Jew who hated Christian missionaries pointed this out to me. The verses he gave me were in Deuteronomy 13:6-11, where the command is given to stone to death any who convert or proselytize. The fact Israel doesn't do this is because while modern Israel is a religious state, most Israelis are secular Jews. If they were practicing Jews, the Law of Moses would be lived and would seem much like Sharia is in many Muslim nations. While some LDS think it's absurd that Muslims still practice polygamy, we'd still be practicing it if there hadn't been a change of policy. Maybe not in the US, but certainly in a country that allowed it. And many Mormons are polygamists according to our beliefs, just not in this life. But then you have non-LDS who still believe we practice polygamy in this life. They confuse us with those break-offs fronm the early church who live in Utah, Arizona, Texas or wherever. And we're constantly having to correct their false views. And some non-LDS not only use our history but our own scritpures to make their point. For instance, I've known non-LDS to point out that Mormons can have up to 10 wives and use D&C 132 beginning with verse 61. And we'll say, "Yeah, but, but . . . you don't understand . . ." ANd they don't, but they don't understand they don't. It's the same with us when it comes to Islam and Muslims. Ah, regarding safeguards. Women in Saudi can be killed for adultery. (So can men but . . .) But let me add a view points that help clarify how the law is actually applied. (By the way, we have all kinds of laws on our books that are not applied or allow some discretion as to whether to apply themand how to apply them.) First, this law does not apply to someone who's single. Second, adultery is defined narrowly to the actual sexual act. If you're simply with someone who's married, that's not the crime of adultery. Third, in order to be convicted, four adult male witnesses have to have seen you in the actual act. Find four is difficult and find four who actually saw you in the act is also difficult. And the women do not remove their veils, which makes it difficult to ID someone. Lastly, there are severe punishments in place for a witness who perjures himself. It's similar to old English law, which I kind of like, where the punishment for one who perjures himself is the same punishment the accuse would have received had he been convicted. Another good one, whipping we tend to judge by our history of flogging. Such is not the way whipping is legally done in Saudi. I know Bangladeshis who've been whipped and come away laughing. You see, the one inflicting the punishment uses a single reed about 3 feet long to whip the individual. It's done in public, so the punishment is more public humiliation in a culture where saving face means as much as it does in Japan or the Far East. And the fun part is this--the one inflicting the punishment has to place a copy of the Qur'an in his right armpit and hold it there by arm pressure alone while inflicting the punishment. If he drops it, he's in trouble. Practice it. Try to really whip someone with a copy of the Bible under your armpit. Does abuse take place? Yes. Are there miscarriages of justice? Yes. Do people confuse culture with religion, such as with FGM? Yes. But do these things also happen in the West, and in America. Of course they do. Dickens thought our prison system was barbaric. Skousen actually pointed to a study in Canada where prisoners preferred physical punishment to spending time in prison. All kinds of things happen to a prisoner behind bars, things far worse than the crime deserves. But Amercans don't care--after all, all felons are the same and if you did the crime you deserve what you get as long as it's out fo the public eye. Throw 'em prison and throw away they key. If they are sodomized or killed well . . . they shouldn't have broken the law. Fundamentalist Jews have told me that proselyting of Jews by Christians is worse than what Hitler did because Hitler only destroyed the body while what the Christians are doing destroys the soul. Ok, sorry for the soapbox. Fortunately, no one will ever read this. But if any of you do read this, thanks again for the photos John123 and Pam and Godless, you're absolutely right about Muslims. Most of them are actually more Christian, shall we say, in terms of how they live,than are most Christians I know in the West.

You've started a thread with a topic I almost don't dare touch in such a public LDS forum. However, I would like to say a few things, however. But first let me share a bit of my background. I come from one of the few LDS families that had family on both sides of the fence, so to speak, in Nauvoo during the early days of the LDS Church. One side were in the thick of things in Nauvoo; the other side was just outside Nauvoo and Carthage. Ironically, Joseph Smith named one of my ancestors after his brother, while another ancestor was named after General Thomas Brockman who led some of the Illinois militia against the Mormons. This history has carried down through my family to the present day. On the LDS side of the family, there are those who've lived all their lives inside Utah and those who've lived both in and out of Utah. And personally, I've lived and worked all over the world and in a capacity that has nothing to do with the government. All this colors my perspective. As most know by now, the LDS had problems in the early years that certainly lasted up through their eventual attempts to gain statehood. It's ironic that today that most American LDS are of the Republican Party given the fact that it was Republican administrations created many of the problems they had as a church in the 1800s. One of the hurdles they had to clear in their attempts to gain statehood was that they had to belong to a party. To meet with this requirement, they first attempted to create their own party which was rejected by the federal powers that were. When a third party option was rejected, members were essentially assigned parties--this side of the street are Democrats, that side Republicans, etc. In this way the membership was essentially balanced out between the two parties. Now, I would say almost all are as you've noticed, Republican, and like Republicans of all walks, they claim to be or believe they are conservative. The problem then becomes one of what does conservatism mean and this is where I could get in trouble because modern conservatism in America could be anything from a Burkean or liberal conservatism to a very nationalistic brand of conservatism. I personally believe that most LDS members in America really don't give it too much thought and there are so many contradictions between what one says and what one supports. What I'm saying is that in my opinion most LDS in the US are like everyone else in that they are what they are politically because that's what their parents were. But it's certainly not what the LDS of an earlier time were. My experiences living abroad lead me to the conclusion that almost all people, regardless of one's country, culture and religious background let our culture and our politics inform our religion rather than the other way around. And we really aren't aware of what's happening. It should be the other way around, but it's rare to see. In essence, in my opinion, the fact that most LDS in America today are Republican/conservative is more a product of their given culture than of their religion.

After my last post, I read Cassiopeia's response to a post by mnn727 and thought I'd share something that I thought of as I read Cassiopeia's response. I can't give the exact source for the story, and I know I'll be paraphrasing it poorly, but it's a story told by Hugh Nibley about a priesthood holder from another state who was sent to a stake in Arizona or southern Utah many years ago to participate in an excommunication hearing for a man no one in the stake was too fond of. If I remember correctly, the man smoked, used some foul language, and maybe even drank a little. The night before the excommunication hearing was to take place, the man who'd been sent there had a dream. In his dream he found himself in a large assembly room full of people. Everyone was excited about what was to soon happen. The visitor, unaware of even where he was, asked people why everyone was so excited. In reply they informed him that Christ was coming to speak to them in just a few moments. Yet the man noticed that there were two chairs side-by-side on the stage, and when he asked who the second chair was for, no one seemed to know. Soon everyone, almost on cue, took their seats and quieted down and waited in great anticipation for Christ and the other guest speaker to make their entrance. Soon after they'd seated themselves, Christ walked in. But He was definitely not alone, for by his side was the other speaker that day who the man dreaming recognized immediatly as the man the man he'd been called in to possibly help excommunicate the next day. The following day the out-of-state visitor refused to vote for this brother's excommunication. I remember the story in part because it reminded me of my father who came into the Church later in life. Even as a non-member he was a better man than most members in terms of honesty, integrity, character and service to others. As a non-member, he let my mother pay tithing on his income. He let us, their children, be blessed and baptized. He donated his labor as a stone mason to building the first chapel in our area. And he supported my older brother on his mission. He did these things as a non-member. After he joined, he ever quite understood everything but he stayed active and did whatever he was asked. But when my brother died unexpectedly while working with my father, my father's faith and testimony became weak. He had grown up smoking and was never able to completely break that habit. He didn't smoke much would from time to time when he was stressed. And whenever he did, we had problems at church because other members didn't like to sit near us because of the smoke they could smell on him and us. When my brother died, his smoking became more pronounced. And he often did it just before we went to church. After the funeral, it became more difficult for my father. No one from the leadership helped my father walk through the internal struggles with which he wrestled. When we went to church, it was noticeable people were moving away from us when they smelled the smoke. And when our home teacher asked if the bishop could give my father a call in hopes that it might help my father, the bishop told him that as long as my father smoked, he would never get a call in the ward. My father suffered from Alzheimers for 16 years. During the last 10 years of his life, he rarely went to church, mostly because he was sick. And in those 10 years I can count on one hand the number of members who came by to see him. Four times during 10 year period members came by to administer the sacrament. The fourth time they came by they told us that now that a neighbor, who happened to be a more popular member of the ward, was terminally ill, they'd be coming by to administer the sacrament every week. But the neighbor died a week later, and that was the end of it. I share this to point out something. When my father died, it was a real struggle to decide whether to have his funeral in the ward/chapel. To see my father ignored by the ward for 10 years did not set well with many in my family. We never expected to have them coming every week; we're too independent for that. But we did hope that people would come by once in a while just to let my father and my mother know that they were not forgotten. And the thought of having his funeral in a ward where everyone had forgotten about him was a difficult pill to attempt to swallow. To this day, it's hard for me to want to visit the ward. It's not that I'm judging anyone. I realize people have their own lives and all that entails. But it would be hard for me to visit my parents' ward and remember how everyone simply forgot my parents. This is part of the social conversion I mentioned earlier. And I think it hits on what Cassiopeia mentioned when she said that it's not up to us to judge why someone might not be doing what we think they ought to be doing. Then again, maybe it's all off-topic.

There are two aspects of conversion. The first is the conversion that comes from the spirit, where witness is born to an individual that the gospel is true. The second conversion, which is just as important as the first, is a social conversion. The latter comes from members of the Church who treat you in such a way that you truly feel that you're at home. If the latter is missing, then individuals who know the Gospel is true might have a very difficult time feeling included. I remember during a mission conference where the president pointed out that most of those who are brought into the Church by the missionaries eventually "fall away." Since then I've heard and seen this repeatedlly. How many times do missionaries work hard to bring someone into the Church, only to see the individuals whom they brought in leave because the fellowship from the members was only temporary? Hence, the tremendous need to remember that home/visiting teaching is missionary work to members and missionary work is home/visiting teaching to non-members. There is no expiration date to fellowshipping and being friend to those around us. Granted, the burden is on each individual to remain "active." However, it's not easy for those who don't feel like they are truly part of the "home" ward and, by extension, the Church. (It's also good to remember that we are all inactive, just in different ways, and to that degree one could say that we have left the Church.) I have friends who are older males who were not successful dating and are therefore still single. (As one who lives and works in the ME I can see where arranged marriages might have worked for these individuals for while they were not very good at dating, they would have made wonderful husbands and fathers.) While they still believe in the Church and the Gospel, they feel extremely awkward attending Church because they say that as a male member who's never been married they feel more like an outcast without much hope. They've told me that while everyone feels sorry for a single woman in the Church and all blame the man, the man is automatically judged as having done something wrong to the point they lose hope and don't feel comfortable attending Church. These are simply examples. Reasons differ for each individual as to why they may not be "active," but the point I'm trying to make is that everyone's conversion consists of two parts, and if one part is missing, then conversion, in terms of Church attendance, may be lacking.

Fraxinus, A good book written by an LDS author that compares teachings and doctrines of the Catholicism and Mormonism is in the "Know Your Religion Series," volume 1, "A Comparative Look at Mormonism and Catholicism," by Alonzo L. Gaskill. In this book there is a footnoted section that treats the subject of the Eucharist. While the author is LDS and the book is targeting an LDS audience, the book makes no attempt to persuade its readers one way or another. The author simply compares different teachings and doctrines and footnotes come from both LDS and Catholic sources. Its foreward is by Rev. Patrick LaBelle, O. P., the director of The Catholic Community at Stanford University who states "Dr. Gaskill has shown us in this work . . . how to us how to understand the faith of another tradition with precision and accuracy, and at the same time, he allows his readers to learn more about their own faith in the process, I believe thath it would be a good idea to make this a regular text for Catholics who want to learn more about their own church." Two reviews for the book are by Father Joseph Rooney, S.J., of St. Andreas Catholic Church, and Jorge de Azevedo, a lay Roman Catholic. As a Mormon who served an LDS mission in a Catholic country and who has members of the family who are Catholic, I found that I was mistaken about much of what I thought I knew about the Catholic teachings and doctrines. If you're interested in reading what it has to say but can't find a book, contact me privately through this site, and we can arrange to get you the pertinent section. It's short so it won't be any problem.

Tarnished hits the nail on the head when she explains that it all depends on the culture one comes from. She's also correct when she writes that in the Muslim world, where we mistakenly think women are bought and sold, wives do not change their names when they marry. (You're a rare one, Tarnished--I'm impressed that you know that as most people don't.) Legally, a Muslim wife is not even a member of her husband's family but remain a member of her birth family. The same is true in most of China. From country to country the tradition or traditions vary. Even in the US, I doubt that taking the name of your husband is an old tradition. I remember a bank teller telling my mother that she didn't have to go by her husband's name anymore. But my mother told her that she was proud to bear my father's name. But she's of the "old" school, which may not actually be that old. When you do genealogy in the US as recently as the late 19th century, you'll see that our contemporary concept of a first name, middle name, and last name wasn't the same as views of names. While most seemed to have two given names, I doubt very much they though of one name being a "middle name." At one time, someone will go by one name and later by another name. Sometimes the "middle name" shows up as a "first name" and vice versa. And when it comes to so-called middle names, it sems that much of what one sees in that time period are really compound or hyphenated names such as was, and still is, often seen in England, for those of Anglo descent. You'll see women with what we think of as a "middle name" that can't be a woman's name, such as Johnson, or Thomas, or Brawley. The point I"m trying to make is that perhaps what we think of in the US as tradition might not be old enough to really be a tradition. Before that, something else was tradition.

About 60% of the worlds marriages are arranged, though the arrangment process varies from culture to culture. They're very common throughout the East, from the Middle East to the Far East, including Japan. It was the norm in the West as well until fairly recently. Of course, it still happens in the West, just not as often. The most popular arranged marriage was that of Princess Di andn Prince Charles. And, of course, in biblical times it wasn't just the norm, it was the only way it was done. Dating is what's new on the world's stage and can only really occur when people have the convenience, the leisure, and the opportunity to do so. Dating began in the US as immigrants were removed from traditions in the old country when they found themselves in an environment that wasn't conducive to arranged marriages. Anthropoligical studies do indicate that the success rate of arranged marriages is much better than "love marriages." However, it's to be granted that the ease or difficulty in being able to divorce naturally affects this. Muslim men can obtain divorces quite easily and yet they don't nearly have the divorce rates westerners do. (Of course, there is a safeguard for Muslim women in that when she marries, she never legally becomes a member of her husband's family, which means she can go home to her father or other related male guardian (who serves in part as her legal representative would in the US), which is a major problem for the husband since it's a rare Arab husband who knows how to take care of himself!) Regardless of what we think of arranged marriages, dating has to be the worst way to find a spouse--after all, we're always on a best behavior on a date, and we rarely know what the other individual is like until after the honeymoon is over. Killing a wife by setting her on fire in India is certainly not the norm nor is it legal in India. This does not mean it doesn't happen. But you can say the same thing about a husband's killing a wife in Brazil, a Christian nation where most marriages are the result of dating. Judges there often turn a blind eye to it. Moreover, killing a wife by settiner her afire is simply the weapon of choice. In the US spouses also kill each other; we just choose a different weapon. As for abuse, it happens in every country regardless of how the marriage came about or the religion of the individuals involved. And man who marries for the dowry is no different from those Americans who marry for wealth, regardless of the way it might be manifest. (Note in the margin: marriages in Islam consist of two parts; the first is similar to our engagement period; the second part is the actual wedding. If the "husband" dies during the first stage but before the wedding, the settlement of his estate requires that any part of the dowry that was not paid to the "wife" is paid to her before anyone other financial obligations are met.) One point of interest regarding the so-called dowry in Islam, it's more like the financial arrangements which many Americans agree to in our pre-nuptial agreements. One can also compare it to our alimony, where financial arrangement are arrived at after-the-fact rather than before. It also serves to show that girl and her family that he's able to provide for her and their family. One of the funniest dowry situations I'm familiar with took place with a diplomat in Dubai. In Islam, mothers are generally the matchmakers although everyone else is also involved. The prospective bride and groom can see each other once, in a chaperoned environment, and agree or disagree with the proposed arrangement. And this is the time when the man can actually see the girl's face since she removes the veil on this occasion. This diplomat trusted his mother to make a good choice. But he trusted his mother too much evidently. He never took advantage of the opportunity to see the girl's face. Instead, he relied on what his mother had told him about the girl. She in turn relied on the girl's mother who only showed the guy's mother a photo of her daugther. The first night after the wedding, he tried to get her to remove her veil, which she refused to do. The more he pressed her, the more resistant she became. But once he succeeded, he was shocked because his beautifull bride was bearded and cross-eyed! He divorced her for fraud, and divorces are easy for a man to do. But he had to sue in court where he demanded the return of the dowry, an exhorbitant amount of $136,000 US. The court held that he was not entitled to the dowry. After all, he had the opportunity to see what he was getting into and foolishly didn't avail himself of it. The story of Leah and Rachel is alive and well in the ME and not something you find soley in the pages of the OT. Few Americans born and bred would do an arranged marriage. It's not part of our culture. But those from other cultures look at many of the things we do and think how strange we are.

One of the general authorities once pointed that home/visiting teaching is missionary work to members, and missionary work is home/visiting teaching to non-members. (If someone remembers who said this, please post it.) Moreover, we were told in the ME that simply being a good friend and servant--such Ammon was initially to the Lamanites--is one of the best forms of missionary work. So in this sense, wherever there are members of Church are who are doing their home/visiting teaching to fellow members and being a good friend and example to non-members missionary work is being done. Those countries would include many of the countries named where "missionary work" is prohibited due to safety concerns or some kind of prohibition. Of course, this isn't what your friend meant when the question was asked. Besides the countries already mentioned, one would also include the countries of the ME and its neighbors, which would inlcude Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, where, interestingly, there once was a "mission" that lasted until about the end of WW I. The exception to this would be Lebanon, which later became part of the Swiss mission and missionaries were there into the 1970s. Some of the missionaries who served in the mission that included Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Palestine until the end of WW I are buried in Aleppo, Syria, one of the three Christian cities of Syria (Homs and Damascus being the other two). Also, there are the service couples, who while they cannot proselytize in some of these countries, are quiet participants in the work, and service couples are in Turkey, and at least three, possibly four, countries I know of on the Arabian Peninsula. As members, we might appreciate this b Elder Orson F. Whitney: There are those who are not members of the Church who "can do more good for the cause where the Lord has place them, than anywhere else . . . Hence, some are drawnn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted . . . the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in HIs own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people . . ." (CR April, 1928). When I read this I think of my own father who was born out of the Church, yet when he came into the Church and got his patriarchal blessing, we were surprised to see that it starts out just like a blessing for those born into the Church. It states that he was faithful in the "pre-existence" but that he used his agency to be born into a family that were not members because of the good he could do and that he made a covenant that when the time came for him to join the Church, he would help bring the gospel to those of his family who were not members. I'm also reminded that our greatest "missionary" in Saudi is a Muslim friend of the Church. He's the one who, of his own volition and without any encouragement from the members, spreads the gospel among those of his own faith. Of course, I realize I've been off-topic for a bit so I best stop. Just some more thoughts to reflect on.

Ok, again I'm a bit late to the party, but I thought I'd share something that's kind of related. When I first went to Saudi Arabia, I never really knew much about the Middle East or Islam. But one thing I re-learned very quickly is that we always interprect things through the experience of our own culture as what I now share helps illustrate. Shortly after I arrived, our Ramadan vacation was approaching. Ramadan is much like Christmas and America's Thanksgiving combined. And that year, Ramadan, the month of which travels throughout the Hejra Calender, coincided with Christmas. The day I left to return home for our vacation, I traveled by bus from eastern Saudi Arabia to the international airport in Manama, Bahrain, where I was to catch my flight from Bahrain to London. As the bus traveled through Manama, I was amazed all the Christmas lights strung along the rooftops of many buildings--Christmas lights such as you see in the US, with colors of red, orange, blue, yellow, etc. I was absolutely amazed that they decorate for Christmas just as we did where I was from. About three hours into my flight to London it finally hit me that they couldn't have been decorating for Christmas given Bahrain is a Muslim country. That was simply my first experience with Ramadan, and I spent most of it out of the ME so I never really learned what they did. But I did realize that that those lights I'd seen were not Christmas lights. Only later, when I became more familiar with Ramadan, did I learn that many Muslims do string Ramadan lights. On top of that, some Muslims actually have a Ramadan tree. Moreover, at the end of Ramadan is Eid when all Muslims break their month-long fast and celebrate with their families, friends and neighbors. And just like our Christmas, Eid is a time of gift-giving as well.

Each branch is different. On my maternal side, some go to the Mayflower via Salem. One branch on my father's line were early Quakers/Friends, which makes finding records easier and I can get back on some lines to the late 1600s in Wales. Another paternal branch is a royal line, but while the genealogy on royal lines sounds impressive, royal genealogies are not reliable. Yet it is documented that the castle in Luttrellstown, just outside of Dublin, Ireland, and Dunster Castle in Somerset, England, were in that particular branch for about 500 to 600 years. Who's who in the family is a different story. It's sad when it's easy to document the castles but not the residents. But then it comes to my paternal great grandmother--if she hadn't moved to MO about 1890 with my great grandfather, her second husband, I might not even know who she was. I know she was married before, and I know who two of her children from that earlir marriage are. But I can find nothing more about her life before 1890, a part of her life that's simply lost in the fog. And 1890 is really not that long ago.

You do need to know that when I posted a clarification on the LDS in Saudi, I thought the thread was dead. I saw that Traveler posted in 2005 and didn't think anyone else was likely to look at what I posted. So I came unprepared for the party! One of the times my culture affected my the conclusions I drew concerning something I'd seen in the ME involve something Hemidakota (did I get that right?) might appreciate. About a year after I'd been in Saudi, I started to go to Bahrain for a little R & R on the weekend. I stayed in this old traditional hotel. There was the main room and a bathroom. As I sat on the bed to watch a little TV, I noticed a niche in the wall by the TV and a rug hanging from what looked like a towel rack. The door to the bathroom was just to the right of the niche and the rug, and I thought they were really strange to be hangint the bathmat in the main room and not in the bathroom where it should be. But I still didn't know what the niche in he wall was for. It wasn't until the second or third visit that I realized what it all was. What I thought was a bathmat was actually a prayer rug, and the niche was the qibla which points the way to Mecca. It dawned on me then that I was certainly in need of an Islam for Dummies book.

Thanks for the help advice. By the way, regarding Elder Hunter's experience, go ahead and forget the book where I found it. Elder Hunter gave a conference address in 1979 where he shared the experience in his talk entitled "All Are Alike Unto God." I'll have to read the one you found by Elder Scott. Thanks.

By the way, Pam, I just looked and I do have a book entitled Mormons and Muslims but Elder Hunter's expereince isn't there. It might be in the book written by Spencer Palmer of BYU. At least I think that was his name. He died several years ago, but he wrote a book that dealt at least in part on Mormons and Muslims.

Sorry, I can see it didn't let me post the URL. I'm new to the site and just learning how things operate. But you know where to find it.

Bingo! Found it! It's entitled "Zion in the Midst of Babylon" by Elder David R. Stone. It shows up in the 2006 Ensign, which means it was given in the April conference. The URL is LDS.org - Ensign Article - Zion in the Midst of Babylon It really is a wonderful talk. I could share story after story of how I judged wrongly not realizing just how much my thinking was affected by the culture I came from. I hope you enjoy it.

My mistake, Pam. I was writing quickly which was my mistake, but I didn't mean to imply that Elder Hunter gave the talk I was referring to. found Elder Hunter's experience in a book on Mormons and Muslims, which mighth actually be the title. But the talk I as referring to was given about five years ago. The speaker of the conference address was an Elder Stone or Stern or who knows? I can't remember his name at the moment. He's a Seventy and one most members likely don't know. If you search at LDS.org, search for the words culture and puppet. It might help. I'll look, too.

Local Farms, what you wrote reminds me of Elder Howard W. Hunter's experience with a high ranking official in the Egyptian government, who of course was Muslim. He said that out of all the Christian denominatons, the only ones who came close to understanding Muslims were the Mormons. He then said that if a bridge were ever to be built between Islam and Christianity, it would have to be built by the Mormons. I would hope so. Unfortunately, since 9/11 I've found that many American LDS are still very much a product of their culture and end up viewing Muslims the same way many of those our detractors view us, which is something we don't appreciate and rightly so. Regarding the influence of culture, I'll have to try to find a talk given in Gen. Conf about 5 years ago. It was great--his entire talk was about the tremendous yet subtle control that our culture has over us. You might like it. But Saudi Muslims love Mormons. Of course, when I told them about my ancestors who were polygamous but with the wrong kind of partner (a mother and her daugther at the mother's insistence), they thought that was pretty bad, but the fact remains that Muslims do appreciate Mormons. It's odd, in one way, because they believe that Muhammed was the seal of the prophets, i.e., that last of them. Because of this, they don't believe in any prophets after Muhammed, which would rule out Joseph Smith and everyone else. And yet, they accept us and consider us the only Christians who come close to understanding their religious views and practices.

Hemi, regardign the stake boundaries you need to be aware that things don't work the same there as elsewhere. There are distinct boundaries to the state but it's not because the stake is meeting up to the bouncaries of any other stake. When I first went there before 9/11, we were the only stake inside an area stretching from northwest Africa to Vladisvostok in eastern Russia, and from southern Yemen to the Arctic Circle. The stake had it's distinct boundaries, but it was entirely surrounded by a vast terrirotory in which no other stake existed. You're correct that government leaders were also there who helped in establishinng the Church. They were there with those from numerous lands who were working there. The point I was trying to make, however, was that it was not the military alone, nor even mainly, that helped get the Church established there. It was simply members gong into those parts of the world for employment reasons. Like you, I enjoy Bahrain. It's much more relaxed than Saudi. But then Saudi has places that are more relaxed than other places in Saudi. Where I live is considered liveable by many westerners, close to heaven by many Saudis, and more like Soddom by many of the more fundamentalist Muslims. Oddly, Saudi reminds me a lot of Utah, which I hope doesn't offend anyone from Utah.

I just sent off an e-mail and found your quesiton Pam. No, nothing has changed regarding proselytizing, which is interestingly the same policy in Israel. Oddly, I had one of the strangest callings ever--the branch mission leader in a country where you can't proselytize. The GAs refer to the Church in that area as beying beyond the fringes of the Church, which it really is. It's not in the mission field per se. We've been told, however, that our misssion is to gather the saints together. This gets kind of complicated, but it is similar to China. If you get a job in Saudi, you can't just call SLC and ask where your local unit is. They won't tell you anything. I lucked out by asking a second question which was of help--who was the area president that presided over the church in Saudi? But most LDS who arrive, don't know where the local units meet and don't have any contacts. The job of members is to search them out. And, for the most part, you can't just attend church unannounced. You have to have an interview with the local authority and sign a letter stating that you went to them, not the other way around. The church simply does not want the appearance of having proselytized. You can teach Christians, including Christian Arabs, but you can't seek them out. They have to come to you. And Traveler's info is still valid that you can't really talk about religion. If anyone asks you a question, you have to use wisdom as to how you answer. We're not supposed to be talking about religion. However, we've been told that the greatest missionary work more often than not involves just being a good friend and example. The whole experience reminds me a lot of the experience of the sons of Mosiah. I especially think of Ammon whose first desire was to simply be the king's servant and allow a time for trust to be developed and for things to change. By the way, our best "missionary" happens to be Muslims, who believe that God has revealed his gospel to all people through a founding prophet. This Muslim friend of ours does things we could never do, and he does it as a Muslim.