social media and (not scholarship but) graffiti?

There was some exciting discussion developing here the other day about such topics as how smart it is and the smarts that are required to participate on the blogs and face books. Or as the great elitist Cicero put it:

Nomina stultorum in parietibus [paginisque librorum faciei et commentis blogum] semper videmus [et in podcastibus audimus].

*Crib sheet with reference to grammar in dusty print edition. nomina — neuter plural accusative of third declension noun: nomen, nominis. stultorum — masculine plural genitive of second declension noun: stultus, stulti. in — preposition + object in ablative. parietibus — masculine plural ablative of third declension noun: paries, parietis. paginis — feminine plural ablative of first declension noun: pagina, paginae. que — enclitic conjunction. librorum — masculine plural genitive of second declension noun: liber, libri. faciei — feminine singular genitive of fifth declension noun: facies, faciei. et – conjunction. commentis — neuter plural ablative of first and second declension adjective as substantive: commentus, -a, -um (n.b. primary meaning). blogum — masculine plural genitive of third declension noun: blog, blogis. semper – adverb. videmus — first person plural present active indicative of second conjugation verb: video, videre, vidi, visum. podcastibus – neuter plural ablative of fourth declension noun: podcastu, podcastus. audimus — first person plural present active indicative of the fourth conjugation verb: audio, audire, audivi, auditum.

*Or for all practical purposes you could just copy and paste into an online translator (sorry, you’ve got to click on image for readable size):

I know. Nothing but apples and oranges, if that.

Jesting aside, I do wonder:  is there a tendency to assume too quickly that those who have disaffiliated are less smart, well read, etc., even among the Mormon intellectual crowd (or insert whatever descriptor you prefer) that is otherwise generally careful not to assume that those who have disaffiliated are more sinful? And if there is such a tendency even, perhaps especially, among the Mormon intellectual crowd, why is the assumption made? Is it simply the inverse of the trope that Mormon intellectuals are bankrupt? Can the assumption be unmade? Should it? Or is it essential, at least rhetorically?

Oh, and if anyone thinks of an actual way to translate ‘blog’ and ‘podcast’ into Latin, I would enjoy seeing the fool’s name in a comment.

Santa as the Ghost of Christmas Present (What Santa Means to Me) 2012 Edition

Author’s Note: this is a minor revision and update of a post I wrote for FPR back in 2010.

I like Santa Claus. He is not real, but he has spiritual significance for me. In this way, Santa is like Job. I do not think that Job was a real person, but I do think that Job is one of of the most powerful books of the Bible. Symbolic meaning sometimes has the greatest impact.

The Ghost of Christmas Present

Watching A Christmas Carol (the George C. Scott version…of course), I realized that, for me, Santa Clause is the Ghost of Christmas Present. Now, I am not an expert on Dickens as a literary figure, but I have always loved this story and I have grown to appreciate it even more in recent years.

The Ghost of Christmas Present (GCP) focuses on two things: the merriment which we have as family and friends at during the holidays. This is symbolized by the joy which nephew Fred has with his wife and friends. It is also symbolized by the joy which the Cratchit family has despite the their poverty and worry about tiny Tim. Yet, they are together.

I love the social part of Christmas. I ALSO LOVE THE PRESENTS! I love watching my children open their presents. I love going out with my wife in November and December looking for gifts that will be perfect for our three children. Like my daughter Geneva (7), I am also very excited about seeing family in Utah between after Christmas Day.

The GCP also draws attention to those who are suffering. Not only are they suffering at Christmas, they are suffering while Scrooge has much. He also introduces this suffering to Scrooge to show the cruelty of his own comments about the poor and disadvantaged. Ebenezer Scrooge is the embodiment of 19th century Social Darwinism. Christmas is the cure for this vile outlook. For me, the Santa part of Christmas is as much part of that cure as the religious part of Christmas.

What does this all have to do with Santa? Santa Claus is the symbol of holiday cheer and giving. While he has become the symbol of Christmas consumerism, it is not Santa Claus that is the problem. Our society is the problem. It is our greed that is the problem. If we make Christmas about others, then we can make Christmas…and Santa…a force for fighting against that greed.

Santa has also been given the God role of deciding who is good and who is bad. I reject this view of Santa…much in the way that I reject this view of God. I have no interest in making Santa an all knowing figure who may condemn us with coal in our stocking. Even if it is Wyoming coal.

Like the story of Job, I think that the meaning and principles, not the myth itself, is what we should preserve. The best part about my children getting older is that the older ones now get to be part of the fun. They know that Santa does not come down the chimney (good thing…we do not have a chimney). However, they now realize the joys that can come from being Santa in the lives of others…particularly their little sister.

In reclaiming Santa, we can reclaim faith in sense of community and faith which binds us together at what is a cold and difficult time of the year. He is about giving to family and friends, He is about connecting with our fellow humans. Now we could probably do these things without the symbol of Santa Claus, but I think that symbols are useful in bringing us together. They are also worth fighting for.

Who will you be this year? Ebenezer Scrooge or Santa Claus?

Does Santa distract from the Christian themes of Christmas? If you fight for the Cratchits and the family living under the viaduct, you understand Him who came. That is what Santa Claus does. That is what Jesus Christ has taught us to do. Go and do likewise.

Protesting at Church

I protest at church all the time.

I scoffed out loud at a hideous comment about the Connecticut shootings just last hour in Sunday School.

I am wearing my University of Utah tie today.

Utah Tie

(Update: I just stomped out of priesthood over pontificating against secularism in relation to recent tragedies…by same guy I scoffed at during Sunday School.)

Maybe these are more tantrums than they are protests. Y’all know me well enough.

Democrat Tie

I wore my Democrat tie to church two weeks ago.

My church bag has a small Rage Against The Machine button on it.

I used to wear Crocs to church. Okay, no good principle involved there. Some of my protests are not against any solid institution, but against bourgeois norms of fashion and dress. (Sure, maybe I just lack fashion…freaking bourgeois fashion)

I read my NRSV for my personal scripture study and at Church. I do this because I love reading a good serious bible. Oh, and the KJV…well…you know. I also do it because I love that my wife rolls her eyes at me when I pull out the large hard-cover version I have from Oxford University Press.

RATM Button

In many ways, these are neither protests or tantrums (okay, sometimes they are tantrums).

NRSV

These are breeching experiments. Like Judith Butler, I am not just bucking norms (me in a very minor way), but I am also watching to see how people react or respond.

Rarely do I get any response.

I am curious to see what kind of response women got wearing pants to church today (I will address protests and the Church later in the week). Not because I think any change will come about because of it, but because I think the reactions will tell us much about certain individuals, though I would be hesitant to make sweeping generalizations.

Wallace Bennett on the Role of Compromise in Government.

The June 1976 Ensign magazine has long been a favorite of mine. It deals with a number of political and social issues from a variety of LDS perspectives. One brief entry has been coming to my mind lately.

Wallace F. Bennett served in the United States Senate from 1951 through 1974. My uncle served on his staff for a period of time. So I am biased in my deep respect for the Bennett family.

In this issue of the Ensign, Sen. Bennett addresses the following question:

What is the role of compromise in government? Is it a good principle, or does it inevitably involve lowering one’s standards?

His response:

Before we can answer this question, we need to learn the true meaning of the word “compromise,” which is “a mutual promise.” It properly describes an agreement reached through mutual concessions, or an acceptable adjustment between conflicting ideas or desires. It may also require the presence of a third or disinterested party as arbiter.

There are those who maintain that any compromise is evil or shameful because it may involve some surrender of “principle” or freedom. Unfortunately, my years in the Senate have taught me that those who talk of “principle” in this context really mean “interest”—their self-interest. Nor is compromise a true diminution of one’s freedom or free agency, because the scriptures are full of admonitions to use our freedom in the service of others and not for our selfish ends. Christ said, “Agree with thine adversary quickly.” (Matt. 5:25.)

Because conflicts and disagreements are natural experiences in the lives of everyone, the search for a solution through “a mutual promise” is natural and praiseworthy. Nowhere is this more true and real than in the divinely ordained institutions of marriage and the family. And when conflicts arise that do not cure themselves, the power and responsibility to act as arbiter rests upon the parents, and chiefly upon the father, who holds the priesthood. Hopefully, compromise within the family circle will be motivated and moderated by love. When one or more family members in the name of their “free agency” will not compromise, but seek to go their own way, this is pure selfishness. It could, and often does, break up the family as a viable unit of the kingdom of God.

The same thing is true as we move out beyond the family into the community and the nation. Here, however, the potential conflicts are greater in number and complexity, and usually instead of dealing with individuals, many groups are involved. At the same time, the healing power of family love has disappeared and self-interest has risen to fill the void. All this makes the need for an outside arbiter more imperative, and the obvious entity to secure this role is government, which has power to enforce its decisions. The fact that God intended this or at least approves of it is set forth clearly in the twelfth Article of Faith.

In our American form of government, the responsibility to find solutions to the problems of our citizens rests chiefly upon the Congress. As a member of the Senate for twenty-four years, I learned that nearly every issue that comes to Congress for solution represents a conflict of interest between groups or forces within our society or our economy, or between other elements of the government itself—conflicts which those involved have been either unable or unwilling to resolve themselves. When they come to Congress, these problems are made complicated because of the Congress’s own set of internal conflicts, created because each member must represent not only his state or district, but also the nation as a whole, and his own personal philosophy of government and moral standards. Nor are the bills considered ever limited to single, simple right-versus-wrong issues to which you can give a simple yes-or-no answer. In fact, in nearly every case when a Congressman tries to serve his constituents by standing firmly on an “all-or-nothing” basis, he gets nothing.

So compromise is an important element in lawmaking, the search for a combination of ideas that will not only provide the highest level of satisfaction for each and all of the groups whose interests are in conflict, but also, of necessity, attract the support of the needed majority to get the bill passed. But this is not all. There is still another dimension to the problem of which most people are unaware. This might be called “involuntary compromise.” Most bills are made up of many separate and often unrelated sections. This is particularly true of tax and appropriation bills, the parts of which sometimes run into hundreds. Inevitably every Congressman and Senator must support some and oppose others, but when the vote for final passage comes, he has to vote either yes or no on the whole package.

Having explained why I believe that legislation is impossible without compromise, I can now explain why this is not essentially evil. Must a legislator sacrifice his moral standards when he votes for a compromise? Never, unless he makes his personal decision for dishonorable reasons such as personal gain or paid-for political support. The most effective legislator is one who always keeps himself free to use his best judgment in doing all he can to see that every bill on which he works contains the best possible and fairest possible balance between the interests of the various entities that will be affected by it.

Is compromise good or evil? As with many processes, the answer to that will depend upon the reasons for a compromise—and the mode of its use.

This sense of the purpose and art of legislative law-making has largely been lost. When Utah turned on Senator Bob Bennett, they turned on a great legislator…much like his father.

Sandel’s Intro to Rawls and Distributive Justice (Video Fixed)

Rawls is not easy to understand. This is largely because of how Rawls presents his ideas, though this difficulty creates opportunities for debate within political philosophy.

Below is a lecture by Harvard Government Professor Michael Sandel on Rawls and issues of wealth, inequality, and distributive justice. While I disagree with much of Sandel’s academic criticism of Rawls, I think that he does an excellent job in this lecture and in his recent books looking to present the concept of justice to a broader audience. In particular, I like how he presents a number of key points in Rawlsian thinking, though this is still just an introduction.

Enjoy.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcL66zx_6No&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Change and Power: A Response to Nate Oman

The analysis of power seems to be something that I care about. Whether it is D. Smith or Ralph Hancock, who in my view accord too much power to LDS leadership, I seem to get riled up about this issue. While Nate Oman takes a view very similar to my own to how power operates (perhaps to his chagrin), there are some points that I want to further push with respect to his analysis.

Oman has the enviable knack of frequently saying really interesting and provocative things about Mormonism. Most recently, Oman blogged about how power operates in Mormonism. He argued that we have two historical models of change. In 1978, the priesthood ban was lifted and was embraced widely by the leadership and membership alike. In contrast, in 1890-1911, the church abandoned polygamy, which, Oman notes, “literally tore the Church apart.”

The implications of this analysis for Oman is that there is wisdom in waiting for the church membership and leadership to arrive at certain views of what the church should do before instituting change. Had the racial ban been eliminated too early, it may have had the same kinds of disastrous consequences that the end of polygamy brought. Too radical of changes can undermine the power and unity of leaders’ authority. This view of power suggests that power must be wielded in fundamentally conservative ways. Power is resistant to change because power seeks primarily to reproduce itself.  Were the church’s power to not reproduce itself, the church could fracture. Schism and mass excommunications are the potential “ecclesiastical costs” of keeping up with broader American attitudes.
Continue reading “Change and Power: A Response to Nate Oman”

Be Still, My Soul: Remembering Heidi and Jim at Casper College

Yesterday, Casper College held a memorial service for Jim Krumm and Heidi Arnold, the two faculty membered murdered here in Casper last Friday.

This performance of “Be Still, My Soul” by the Casper College Choir will never leave me.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XI17_dNJCQ[/youtube]

(Thank you to K2 Radio for the video)

 

Regional AAR Call for Papers

PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION
AAR/SBL/ASOR

Regional Meeting
Seattle University
Seattle, Washington
May 3-5, 2013

SPECIAL TOPICS: MORMON STUDIES
Description of the goals and rationale
This special topic of Mormon Studies promotes the exploration of a wide range of topics relating to Mormonism. This section seeks to provide scholarly inquiry into Mormon history, culture, belief and practice, theology, scripture, and the role of Mormonism in contemporary politics. This section encourages the study of Mormonism from multiple disciplines and methodologies. This section will better equip those in the academy to teach on the subject of Mormonism and actively promotes opportunities for interfaith dialogue.

Co-Chairs
Kirk Caudle (Marylhurst University; mixlom@msn.com)
Susanna Morrill (Lewis & Clark College; smorrill@lclark.edu)

Call for Papers
Papers are welcome in any area of Mormon Studies. We encourage papers from multiple disciplinary and methodological perspectives and especially invite proposals on the following themes:
1) Papers that consider the history and culture of Mormonism, especially those that discuss the social and religious impact of women and minorities.
2) Papers on the development of Mormon beliefs and practices, scripture, ethics, and theology.
3) Papers related to interfaith dialogue between Mormonism and other Christian (and non-Christian) faith traditions.
4) Papers related to Mormonism and contemporary politics.
5) Papers that consider the place of Mormon Studies within the academic study of religion.

Paper Proposals will be submitted through Oxford Abstracts (OA) again this year as AAR continues to upgrade their system. You may need to copy and paste this link into your browser:

https://aareligionpnw.conference-services.net/authorlogin.asp?conferenceID=3409&language=en-uk

A link to the OA site is also posted on the PNW Region’s webpage (http://pnw-aarsbl.org/).

OA will be open for submissions October 1, 2012 and close on January 21, 2013. Acceptance letters will be sent by February 1, 2013.

Thousands leaving the LDS Church over the Documentary Hypothesis

Reports have come to FPR that currently there is a massive exodus from the church underway on account of members discovering that their leaders have been shielding them from critical biblical scholarship on the Pentateuch. The realization that the ancient literature that constitutes the first five books of the Old Testament is not history in the modern sense of the word and that the various documents and sources that make up its individual components were written to promote certain ideological agendas in the late pre-exilic and post-exilic communities of Judah has left many feeling betrayed and confused. One male member leaving a chapel in downtown Salt Lake City in a hurry commented, “For me it was the death of the Yahwist that was the clincher. The idea of a Solomonic Enlightenment has been definitely disproved, and much of what has been traditionally defined as the Yahwist are actually late redactional additions. So the notion that the Old Testament can be regarded as anything approaching an adequate basis for modern faith is too much to swallow.” Others are said to be not so much upset about the historical particulars, but that they had not been informed earlier. One sister was visibly emotional, “If only I had learned in Seminary that the P account of creation in Genesis 1 rectifies to some extent the misogynistic tendencies of the non-P account of Gen 2-3.”

Ok, to be truthful, these reports are greatly exaggerated. Not many members of the LDS faith leave or become disaffected as a result of exposure to modern critical biblical scholarship. Most are completely unfamiliar with the type of jargon found above and only a few dedicate a significant portion of their lives to understanding the historical intricacies and complex arguments that are found in contemporary discussions of the origins and literary development of the Bible.

Yet even though the Documentary Hypothesis does not loom large in the personal narratives of those who belong to the current and very real exodus of substantial numbers of life-long church members, the issues that modern scholarship of the Bible raises for faith communities are formidable and are only likely to become more vexing for the LDS community in the coming years. Church leaders have been trying to stave off dealing with the inevitable doctrinal and theological questions and controversies that would result from transitioning to something other than a King James-only translation of the Bible, but this approach is becoming increasingly less viable with younger generations in our media and information-saturated world.

No one knows what the future will bring or whether the church will eventually develop a more constructive engagement with modern scholarship of the Bible. There are times when I am exceedingly pessimistic and fear for a creeping Mormon kind of fundamentalism becoming the rule during the 21st century.

I will tell you what I hope the future brings, however. I hope that sincere and rigorous study of the Bible (or religion more broadly) can be a part of why one stays in the LDS faith, rather than an almost automatic handicap or self-imposed psychological hardship. I hope that seeking for greater light and understanding (where the secular and spiritual intersect) is regarded as a reflection of the deepest theological impulses of Mormonism, rather than a sure sign of apostasy. We of all people, who believe in progressive revelation, should be able to assimilate new truths, even difficult truths.

Mormons and Palestinians: Justice and only Justice

With the tragic recent escalation of conflict in Israel-Palestine, my thoughts have turned to experiences I had while living there, first as a naive undergraduate for a semester abroad at the BYU Jerusalem Center and then later as a visiting graduate student at the Hebrew University. My first experience was eye-opening and really life-changing in terms of providing an impetus to developing a more critical and reflective perspective on religion and my own faith in particular. Through merely a process of cultural osmosis, I had grown up with a traditional Utah Mormon view about the conflict in Israel-Palestine. I believed that the place was at the center of the eschatological drama that would unfold in the end times, that the wars and rumors of wars that had occurred during the last century only presaged more conflict and bloodletting to come, and most importantly, that the establishment of the Jews in Palestine was a fulfillment of prophecy and ordained of God. Before arriving in Jerusalem, I knew next to nothing about Palestinians. They were a dark, amorphous, and indistinct conception in my mind. For the most part I saw Palestinians (often conflating them with terrorists) as the opponents of the state of Israel and therefore in some sense the opponents of prophecy and the divine will.

What I actually found upon experiencing Israel-Palestine in person was disorienting and uncomfortable. Surprisingly, the Israel-Palestine conflict of myth that had been formulated in my mind had almost nothing to do with reality on the ground. I discovered through personal experience that Palestinians were a good and open-hearted people, a people with a rich and vibrant culture, a people who had been at odds with the aims of the state of Israel (some of them violently) but who for the most part wanted to live in peace and justice. On the other hand, I discovered that the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians had discernible political and historical causes. Palestinians were not the stereotyped “bad guys” in a sharply differentiated conflict of cosmic good and evil, but more than anything else victims of a terrible historical tragedy: suffering dispossession from the land of their fathers and mothers at the hands of a Zionist and British project to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine in the first half of the twentieth century and in recent decades experiencing the violent and deadly by-products of a colonizing military occupation.

The experience had a profound impact on my life. In addition to influencing my immediate choice after returning to BYU to pursue a major focused on the study of Arabic and the modern Middle East, I began to think deeply about why LDS culture had views about the conflict and about the state of Israel and Palestinians that seemed to be so disconnected from reality. Why had I been taught to believe that God was essentially on the side of the nation of Israel, that its establishment and continuing maintenance had been effected through divine providence, when it seemed clear that the construction of a Western-backed and ethnically Jewish nation-state in the modern Middle East has had such disastrous consequences for Palestinians, for other peoples of the region, and for Jews and Israelis themselves? Why do Mormons seem to automatically assume that Palestinians are in the wrong and Israel in the right?

I have since realized that LDS attitudes toward Palestinians and the state of Israel are complex and have been shaped by many factors, including ignorance of what life is actually like for Palestinians living under occupation, cultural and political affinity with the Westernized state of Israel, an American media that until recently tended to present the conflict largely from the perspective of Israel (focusing on dramatic Palestinian terrorist acts rather than the daily injustices and violence meted out against Palestinians), participation in the more general historic American/Christian prejudice against Islam and Arabs, and finally, perhaps the most important, a Mormon theological tradition that itself is an adoption of a long-held American Protestant theological interpretation of the Bible that sees Jewish control of Palestine and the state of Israel as the product of God’s will. As I do not have time to explain this latter tradition here, I will try to do so in future posts.

Fortunately, Mormons and the institutional church have gotten somewhat better in recent years in trying to take a more evenhanded approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some Mormons have been more outspoken in standing up for the legitimate rights of Palestinians, while the institutional church and the Jerusalem Center itself have become increasingly sensitive to how ones-sided attitudes have had a detrimental effect on the image of the church and its interests there and elsewhere in the Middle East.

But prejudice and misunderstanding are obviously still a real problem, as reflected in Mitt Romney’s quasi-theological rhetoric about supporting the state of Israel during his recent presidential campaign. When I was living in Israel as a graduate student at Hebrew University during 2006-2007, I would attend church with my family at the Jerusalem Center. On a regular basis I would hear statements from LDS tourists at sacrament meeting I felt very uncomfortable with, statements that were totally oblivious to the lives of real Palestinians in the neighborhoods surrounding the center, statements that referred to Palestinian violence in abstract, decontextualized terms, statements that took comfort in the fulfillment of prophecy in Israel’s blossoming as a rose,  statements whose glowing descriptions of the “Holy Land” seemed so self-absorbed.

In the interest of helping to build bridges between Mormons and Palestinians, I thought I might share a particular experience I had shortly after arriving to live in Jerusalem for the second time. This is taken from an email (mildly edited) sent on November 6, 2006:

Hello Family,

This weekend I had a special experience I would like to share with you all. Since Friday was my day-off from school (like our Saturday in the US) and the Hebrew U. library was closed, I decided to take the opportunity to go exploring near the old city of David. I had learned in my archaeology class that week that the modern old city, the well-known part of Jerusalem surrounded by archaic-looking walls, actually had nothing at all to do with the Biblical city of David. The Jerusalem where ancient Israelites lived from the time of David until well after Ezra (500 years) was in reality located on a hilly spur which climbed 120 meters from the bottom of the Kidron valley to the Ophel south of the temple mount. The area is now inhabited by Palestinian Arabs and is known as the village of Silwan, a densely populated and poverty-stricken neighborhood somewhat isolated from the wealthier west Jerusalem.

My goal was to explore without any specific agenda, to let my feet and heart guide me to what I needed to see and experience. As I climbed down into the Kidron east of the Temple mount and began walking down the wadi, I was, admittedly, somewhat cautious. My Arabic was limited (the colloquial Palestinian dialect is very difficult for me to understand) and tourists had generally avoided this section of Jerusalem since 9-11. But something inside me told me that this was where I needed to go. As I passed through a neighborhood where some people were out harvesting their olive trees, a little boy came up with a big smile and introduced himself in broken English. We conversed and I asked where the spring was. He responded in Arabic with “maim,” or water, and beckoned for me to follow. We walked a short distance to a building, unfortunately locked up, which housed what I knew to be the Gihon spring, the main water source for Bibical Jerusalem and ancient site of the coronations of Israelite kings. I could hear the lapping of the water and feel its coolness behind the metal gates at the bottom of the stairway. When I was about to turn away, my little friend called to a girl peering out of a window three stories above us, who produced a small booklet which fluttered to the pavement below. For 10 shekels, which I gladly paid, I got a helpful guide to the archaeological sites in the area.

I continued on my journey down the Kidron noting various archaeological sites and giving friendly greetings to the people I met. Eventually I came to the intersection of the Kidron and Hinnom valleys and decided to walk up the latter, as I had never explored it before. In the Hinnom, I immediately came upon what seemed to be a large and relatively well-groomed orchard of olive and fig trees, with several people harvesting the olives. I was fascinated with the process and wanted to learn more. One nice old man tried to explain to me what he did with his olives, how much money he made by kilo and its use for making oil for food, but I could hardly understand anything he said. His Arabic was so different from the classical Arabic I had studied at BYU! Discouraged, I left the orchard and began to climb out of the valley with the intention of returning to the old city, but then something told me that I should turn back and try to find someone else to talk to. I felt that I needed to move further out of my comfort zone. When I passed back through the orchard I happened to notice a small family made up of a young boy, girl, and mother on the other side of the road harvesting olives. As I approached, I could immediately sense a mixture of curiosity and slight discomfort. Why was this American interested in them? The woman, presumably their mother, moved behind the tree as if to avoid my presence and the boy and girl stared at me as if I was an alien. Fortunately, just at that moment the father appeared on the hillside above us and welcomed me with a gracious Ahlan wSahlan! (welcome, welcome!). He invited me into the shade and offered me tea, coffee, water, pickled olives, and a delicious fruit I had never seen before. His limited knowledge of English and my Arabic allowed us to converse to a considerable extent. I found out that his name was Omar, that he was a Muslim, had six young children, was poor but better off than many other Palestinians because his family owned the orchard, planted by an ancestor over two hundred years ago. He told me that he had been working in the orchard since four o’clock that morning! When I asked him if life was hard, he said that he was mabsoot (happy), which impressed me greatly. Shortly thereafter, his father came over and joined us. He could speak no English whatsoever and was partially blind, but I found him to be very gracious and hospitable. He called me habibi (a term of endearment) and made me feel like one of the family. Omar told me that his father had worked for years at the local Orthodox Christian church just down the road, which was interesting considering that he was a Muslim.

When they went back to picking olives, I joined them to get firsthand experience. The way it worked was someone (generally the father) would pull the olives off the limbs from above while someone below (generally the women and children) would gather the olives from a tarp spread out to catch them. Most significant to me was the respect that Omar had for his trees. Some people, he said, would beat their trees with a stick to get the olives off, but to him olive and fig trees were sacred, as both were mentioned in the Quran. He showed me how to gently and deftly pull the olives off without harming the tree. Around Omar I couldn’t help but feel that the olive trees were sacred. We moved to several different locations in the orchard, spending probably about an hour at each tree. At lunch break they gave me yogurt, pita bread, tomatoes and cucumbers, food which I knew they had brought for themselves to eat while working in the orchard. I stayed with them picking olives into the late afternoon until Omar invited me to his home to eat dinner. We began to walk up the hill, with him carrying a large bag of olives, when suddenly he tripped and fell down. It gave me the opportunity to carry the heavy bag (almost too heavy for me!) to the top of the hill until he could take over.

His house was tucked back in a neighborhood that was reached by stairs that Dr. Seuss would be proud of. We sat down on his porch and soon children from neighboring houses began to gather to see the strange visitor. Everyone was so friendly and interested that even I was surprised. I played soccer with the boys who thought I was quite the soccer star. Dinner was served, a rice dish wrapped in grape leaves and chicken, spicy but very good. After dinner I leafed through a Quran and one of the boys recited some of its suras (chapters). I can’t begin tell you how welcome I felt, how simple but happy a family they were, how beautiful their children were, how their values and way of life so closely matched what I feel to be our family-centered Mormon way of life. When I left, Omar invited me to come back again and made me feel like I had known him longer than one short day. As I walked back to the old city I felt inwardly gratified that my little attempt to show interest in a Palestinian family had been rewarded tenfold. I had gone hoping to share something of myself, to build bridges between different cultures, but it was I who had been inspired, humbled, and had received.