The Evangelical Dictionary of World Religions

GABRIEL THE ARCHANGEL, NON-CHRISTIAN VIEWS OF. References to the angel Gabriel are prominent in noncanonical Jewish writings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the books of Enoch (1 Enoch 9:1, 9–10; 40:3, 6; 54:6; 2 Enoch 24:1), and various Targums refer to the angel.

In Islam he is said to be the angel who dictated the Qur’an to Muhammad. Heterodox Christian groups and alternative religions also include Gabriel in their sacred literature and teachings.

The Urantia movement considers him an important intermediary, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believes that he first was Noah, next to Adam in the priesthood, and only later was the angel who appeared to Zechariah and the virgin Mary. Contemporary New Agers have also said that they have channeled Gabriel.

Bibliography. J. Howard-Johnston and P. A. Hayward, The Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Essays on the Contribution of Peter Brown; M. Smith and J. Neusner, Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, vol. 12, part 4.

H. W. House

GABRIEL THE ARCHANGEL IN THE BIBLE. The Bible gives the names of only two angels, Michael and Gabriel. The latter is never called an archangel but is mentioned in three different verses; his name means “God is powerful.” In Daniel 8:16, he provides Daniel with understanding of a vision. In Daniel 9:21, he comes to Daniel the prophet in response to Daniel’s prayer regarding Israel. In Luke 1:19, he is recorded as coming to the priest Zechariah, and afterward in Luke 1:26 he appears to the young virgin Mary, announcing the conception and subsequent birth of Jesus.

Bibliography. J. Howard-Johnston and P. A. Hayward, The Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Essays on the Contribution of Peter Brown; M. Smith and J. Neusner, Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, vol. 12, part 4.

H. W. House

GASSHO. Though its origin is in ancient India, the gassho (Japanese, “to place the two palms together”) is a mudra (a symbolic hand gesture) used by nearly all Buddhist sects and has a particularly prominent role within Zen Buddhism. Buddhist tradition says the practice was started when the Buddha’s five companions encountered him for the first time after he was enlightened. They were so struck by his serenity and radiance that they “spontaneously placed their palms together and greeted him with deep bows” (Maezumi and Glassman, 53). Gassho is the most fundamental of Buddhist mudras, for it is associated with the attainment of enlightenment. The precise manner of placing the hands together and the placement of the arms relative to the face and body vary depending on the particular type of gassho. Often it is done in conjunction with a deep bow. Gasshos are used by their practitioners to display respect, focus the mind, unify spiritual polarities, and express the complete unity of reality. The most formal of the gasshos, the firm gassho, is thought to assist the practitioner in establishing an alert and reverential state of mind. The gassho of no-mind is said to deepen one’s state of mental concentration (samadhi). The lotus gassho and diamond gassho are primarily used by Buddhist priests during various Buddhist ceremonies.

See also BUDDHISM; MUDRA; SAMADHI; ZEN BUDDHISM

Bibliography. P. Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices; T. Maezumi and B. Glassman, On Zen Practice: Body, Breath, and Mind; J. Maguire, Essential Buddhism: A Complete Guide to Beliefs and Practices.

R. L. Drouhard

GATHAS. The Gathas (“sublime songs” in Persian) are the seventeen hymns of the Persian poet and philosopher Zoroaster (his Greek name; Persian name: Zarathushtra; ca. 1300 BC) found in the seventy-two-chapter Yasna (a section of the Avesta), the oldest extant Zoroastrian holy book. The poetic dialect of the Gathas, sometimes referred to as Old Avestan, stems from an ancient Indo-Iranian language group (about which little is known) and is characterized by a rich and complex literary style. Because of this, and because relatively few commentaries on the Gathas survive, translating the text is difficult. The Gathas are divided into five groups, each consisting of songs (originally intended to be recited) with the same Vedic-like meter: (1) Ahunavaiti Gatha (principle of choice; chaps. 28–34), (2) Ushtavaiti Gatha (having happiness; chaps. 43–46), (3) Spentamainyush Gatha (bounteous spirit; chaps. 47–50), (4) Vohukhshathra Gatha (good dominion; chap. 51), and (5) Vahishtoishti Gatha (best beloved; chap. 53). The 241 stanzas of the Gathas are at the heart of Zoroastrian devotion, though they are the only portion of the Zoroastrian scriptures thought to have been written by Zoroaster himself. Most scholars of Zoroastrianism believe that Zoroaster composed the Gathas not as a means of systematic religious instruction—though theological teachings are dispersed throughout—but rather as a way of invoking and praising the omniscient creator Ahura Mazda and exhorting others to govern their lives in accordance with his commands.

See also AVESTA; ZOROASTRIANISM

Bibliography. M. Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices; P. Clark, Zoroastrianism: An Introduction to an Ancient Faith; P. Nanavutty, trans., The Gathas of Zarathushtra: Hymns in Praise of Wisdom; S. A. Nigosian, The Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and Modern Research; J. H. Peterson, “Avesta: Zoroastrian Archives,” http://www.avesta.org/.

J. Bjornstad

GENEALOGIES, MORMON. The compilation of family histories is considered a sacred responsibility among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). The Family History Library (located across the street from Temple Square in Salt Lake City, Utah, the headquarters city of the LDS Church) is the largest of its kind, with millions of names being added to its database each year. Hundreds of satellite libraries have also been built all over the world. Access is available to all; membership in the LDS Church is not a requirement for using the library resources.

In 1894 the Genealogical Society of Utah was organized under the authority of the LDS First Presidency. Its purpose was to train individuals in how to trace their ancestry as well as to encourage LDS members to perform temple ordinances on their ancestors’ behalf. According to LDS teaching, members have the ability to become “saviors on Mount Zion” by vicariously performing sacred ordinances in LDS temples for their deceased relatives and friends. In the words of Mormon apostle Dallin Oaks, “We are not hobbyists in genealogy work. We do family history work in order to provide the ordinances of salvation for the living and the dead.”

The most common ritual performed in LDS temples is baptism for the dead. Since Mormonism makes water baptism a requirement for salvation, living members may be baptized as proxies for “those who would have accepted the gospel in this life, had they been permitted to hear it.” Since it is believed that the deceased have a choice whether to accept the baptism, proxies have no way of knowing in this life whether their efforts have had a positive result. LDS folklore is replete with stories of dead ancestors appearing to members asking for work to be done on their behalf.

Mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith Jr., said: “The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead” (356). He also warned, “Those Saints who neglect it in behalf of their deceased relatives, do it at the peril of their own salvation” (193).

Bibliography. D. H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols.; D. H. Oakes, “Family History: ‘In Wisdom and in Order,’” Ensign; Joseph Smith Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith; Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation.

W. McKeever

GHANTA. A ghanta (Sanskrit, “bell”) is a wood or metal instrument used in Asia in a religious setting. Monasteries frequently have large ghantas, like the wooden ones used in Bali, but smaller ones can be for personal use. They have a special meaning in Vajrayana Buddhism, where the bell is also known, in Tibetan, as a drilbu, a carved metal handbell employed during Tibetan Buddhist ceremonies. As one of the key ritual implements of the Vajrayana tradition, it symbolizes the feminine principle (wisdom) and instruction in dharma (key Buddhist doctrines). The ghanta is thought to be a propitious object capable of producing many favorable results if used properly. These include the visualization of tantric Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and gods; the safety provided by benevolent deities; and the warding off of evil deities. During rituals the ghanta is paired with the dorje (Sanskrit, vajra), a short metal scepter that symbolizes the masculine principle (compassion-based skillful means). The ghanta is held in the left hand, and the dorje is held in the right hand; in some cases the ritual performer crosses his wrists and holds both hands against his or her chest. The ghanta represents the body of the Buddha, the dorje represents the mind of the Buddha, and the sound of the bell represents the Buddha’s voice instructing his pupils. Together the ghanta and the dorje signify the seamless, synergistic union of wisdom and compassion that results in indestructible enlightenment.

Bibliography. C. B. Levenson, Symbols of Tibetan Buddhism; R. A. Ray, Secret of the Vajra World: The Tantric Buddhism of Tibet.

J. Bjornstad

GLOSSOLALIA. See SPEAKING IN TONGUES

GOD, MORMON VIEW OF. The doctrine of God held by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) is unique among groups having their origin in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Many within the LDS community express this doctrine as a form of finite theism, stating that God is a radically contingent, embodied deity who, like each of us, is a creature of a universe he did not create and is subject to and not the source of its laws and principles. Some Mormons, however, maintain that the LDS church is not necessarily committed to this radical formulation, that there are resources within Mormon writings by which the church may affirm a doctrine of God closer to that which has been held by traditional Christians.

Sources. According to the LDS Church, its doctrine of God is derived primarily from five groups of sources, the first four being the most important. (1) The first is the Protestant Christian Bible, “as far as it is translated correctly” (The Articles of Faith, 1:8). (2) The second group consists of works regarded by the Mormon church as inspired scripture: The Book of Mormon (BM), the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), and the Pearl of Great Price (PGP). (3) The Mormon concept of God is also shaped by the extrascriptural statements and doctrinal commentaries of Joseph Smith Jr., founding prophet of the LDS Church. Although not regarded as scripture per se, Smith’s extracanonical pronouncements on doctrine are accepted by the Mormon laity and leadership as authoritative for Mormon theology. (4) The statements and writings of the church’s ecclesiastical leaders—especially its presidents, who are considered divinely inspired prophets—contain authoritative presentations of the LDS doctrine of God. (5) The insights of LDS scholars, such as B. H. Roberts, David L. Paulsen, Blake Ostler, Robert Millet, and Stephen Robinson, though not authoritative, have helped systematize and clarify the Mormon concept of God.

Because there are so many doctrinal sources, it may appear (with some justification) that it is difficult to determine precisely what the LDS Church teaches about God. For example, BM (first published in 1830) seems to teach a strongly Christian monotheism with modalistic overtones (see Alma 11:26–31, 38; Moroni 8:18; Mosiah 3:5–8; 7:27; 15:1–5), while the equally authoritative PGP (first published in 1851) clearly teaches that more than one God made the world (see Abraham 4–5) and that these gods are finite. This finite view of God reached its apex in the theology of Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, who in public sermons taught the doctrine that Adam, the first man, is God of this world. It is explicitly rejected by LDS authorities today. As in the Catholic understanding of the papacy, not everything taught or preached by an LDS president is thought by the church to be infallible or even a doctrine to which all Mormons must assent.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the LDS doctrine of God—as a number of scholars, including Mormon writers, have argued (see Alexander; Allen; Kirkland; Widmer)—developed from a fairly conventional monotheism to a full-blown plurality-of-gods theology. This is why Kirkland writes that “Mormons who are aware of the various teachings of the LDS scriptures and prophets over the years are faced with a number of doctrinal possibilities.” For example, “they can choose to accept Book of Mormon theology, but this varies from biblical theology as well as from Joseph Smith’s later plurality-of-gods theology. . . . While most Mormons are unaware of the diversity that abounds in the history of Mormon doctrine, many Latter-day Saints . . . have, despite the risk of heresy, continued to believe or promote publicly many of the alternative Godhead theologies from Mormonism’s past” (Kirkland, “Development,” 48).

The Attributes of the LDS God. Because of the diversity of sources, there is disagreement among LDS scholars concerning how best to understand the nature of the Mormon God. Nevertheless, given the dominant reading of the documents the church presently considers authoritative, certain core LDS convictions about God seem unassailable. Since the Mormon Church rejects the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity—and embraces the view that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods who are one in purpose but not being—the best way to understand the LDS doctrine of deity is to begin with God the Father. According to the church, God the Father is (1) a contingent being, who was at one time not God; (2) perhaps finite in knowledge (contemporary LDS teaching is unclear on this; see below); (3) one of many gods; (4) a corporeal (bodily) being, who physically dwells at a particular spatiotemporal location and is therefore not omnipresent like the classical God; and (5) a being who is subject to the laws and principles of a beginningless universe with an infinite number of entities in it.

This concept of God can be better grasped by seeing its place in the overall Mormon worldview and how the deity fits into it. Mormonism teaches that God the Father is a resurrected, “exalted” man named Elohim who was at one time not God. He was once a mortal man on another planet who, through obedience to the precepts of his God, eventually attained exaltation, or godhood, through “eternal progression.” The Mormon God, located in time and space, has a body of flesh and bone (D&C 130:22); thus he is neither spirit nor omnipresent as understood in their traditional meanings within orthodox Christianity. Joseph Smith asserts in his famous “King Follet Discourse” (1844):

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute this idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. . . . It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible. . . . Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. (Smith, History, 6:305–6)

Some LDS intellectuals, however, have raised questions about aspects of this exaltation narrative that they maintain are not explicitly affirmed anywhere in the Mormon canon of scripture. For example, Millet writes: “It is true that Presidents Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow both spoke of God once being a man, but we know very little if anything beyond the idea itself. I am not aware of any official statement or declaration of doctrine that goes beyond what I have just stated. Anything you may hear or read beyond that is speculative” (Millet and Johnson, 58).

Omniscience, according to LDS thought, is one of the attributes God the Father attained as a result of his progression to godhood. Mormon thinkers, however, appear to be divided on the meaning of omniscience. Some seem to hold that omniscience means that God knows all true propositions about the past, present, and future, a view consistent with the traditional Christian view (Blomberg and Robinson, 92). On the other hand, others maintain that God does not know the future (Ostler, 76–78). This view affirms that only the present and the past can be known by God since the former is occurring and the latter has already occurred. Consequently, since the future is not yet a “thing” and has not become actual (and hence cannot possibly be known), God cannot know the future. Therefore, the Mormon God is “omniscient” in the sense that he knows everything that can possibly be known, but he nevertheless increases in knowledge as the future unfolds and becomes the present. Although a more traditional view of omniscience seems to be the dominant position among contemporary Mormons, the view that denies God’s knowledge of the future is still embraced by some within the church, especially among academics who maintain that LDS finitism is philosophically superior to classical theism (Ostler; Paulsen). However, the embracing of the openness view of God—a view that denies God’s knowledge of the future—among some evangelical thinkers has provided LDS finitists with unexpected allies on the issue of divine omniscience (Blomberg and Robinson, 109).

According to LDS thought, Elohim created this present world by “organizing” both eternally preexistent, inorganic matter and the preexistent primal intelligences from which human spirits are made (PGP, Abraham 3:22). For this reason, Joseph Smith Jr. writes that “man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (D&C 93:29). In other words, humans’ basic essence or primal intelligence is as eternal as God’s since God and humans are members of the same species of being, a species whose members by nature have the potential to achieve godhood. Nevertheless, by “organizing” these intelligences (what some in the LDS Church have called “spirit birth”), God the Father plays a necessary creative role in their preparation for corporeal existence.

The Mormon God, by creating this world out of preexistent matter, has granted these organized spirits the opportunity to receive physical bodies, pass through mortality, and eventually progress to godhood—just as this opportunity was given to him by his Father God. Consequently, if human persons on earth faithfully obey the precepts of Mormonism, they, too, can attain godhood like Elohim before them. And the purpose of attaining godhood is so that “we would become heavenly parents and have spirit children just as [Elohim] does” (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 11).

Comparing the Mormon concept with the traditional Christian concept of God, Mormon philosopher Blake Ostler writes that in contrast to the self-sufficient God who creates the universe

ex nihilo (out of nothing), the Mormon God did not bring into being the ultimate constituents of the cosmos—neither its fundamental matter nor the space/time matrix which defines it. Hence, unlike the Necessary Being of classical theology who alone could not not exist and on which all else is contingent for existence, the personal God of Mormonism confronts uncreated realities which exist of metaphysical necessity. Such realities include inherently self-directing selves (intelligences), primordial elements (mass/energy), the natural laws which structure reality, and moral principles grounded in the intrinsic value of selves and the requirements for growth and happiness. (67)

Mormonism, therefore, teaches that certain basic realities have always existed and are indestructible even by God. According to Mormon thought, God, like each human being, is merely another eternal being in the universe. In the Mormon universe, God is not responsible for creating or sustaining matter, energy, natural laws, personhood, moral principles, the process of salvation (or exaltation), or much of anything. Instead of the universe being subject to him, the Mormon God is subject to the universe. One should keep in mind that when traditional Christians say that God is Creator, they mean that God is the source of all contingent reality, that he brought the entire universe into existence out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). In this sense, no creature—that is, anything that is not God—can ever literally be a creator since creatures can only make new things from things that already exist. God, on the other hand, requires no such preexisting materials. For this reason, under traditional Christianity, the LDS God is not technically a creator.

Unlike the God of traditional Christianity, who is omnipresent in being, the God of Mormonism is only omnipresent insofar as he is aware of everything in the universe. Since the Mormon God is a physical body and hence is limited by time and space, his being cannot be present everywhere. Although according to LDS doctrine God’s influence, power, and knowledge are all-pervasive, the focal point of God’s being (his body) exists at a particular place in time and space. Because Mormon theology does not teach that the universe is contingent upon God either to bring it into being or to sustain its existence, there is no need for Mormon theology to hold to the traditional Christian view of omnipresence.

The Trinity. Although the LDS Church affirms the doctrine of the Trinity, its definition of the Trinity is radically different from the traditional Christian understanding of that doctrine. Founding prophet Smith asserts: “Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son, and the Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! . . . He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster” (Smith, History, 6:476). Mormon theology affirms tritheism, the belief that there exist three gods with whom this world should be concerned (though Mormon theology teaches that there exist many other gods as well): Elohim (the Father), Jehovah (the Son), and the Holy Ghost. Writes Smith: “The Father has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Spirit could not dwell in us” (D&C 130:22). The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are “three separate individuals, physically distinct from each other,” forming “the great presiding council of the universe” (Talmage, 237). And even the Holy Ghost is not really what traditional Christian theology means by a spirit since, according to Smith, there is no such thing as a nonphysical reality: “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes” (D&C 131:7–8).

According to Mormon thought, the preincarnate Jesus, Jehovah (or Yahweh), does not have a body of flesh and bone. Although McConkie writes that “Christ is Jehovah; they are one and the same Person” (392), some Mormon scholars admit that it is not always clear in Mormon literature whom the name Jehovah refers to (see Kirkland, “Elohim and Jehovah”).

Development of LDS Theology. Stephen Parrish points out that one can find in contemporary Mormonism two identifiable views of deity: (1) the plurality-of-finite-gods theology, the view expounded above, and (2) monarchotheism, a view that there is one eternally existing though corporeal (perhaps finite) God who is above all the other gods (Beckwith, Mosser, and Owen). Although the plurality-of-gods tradition seems to be the most dominant, the latter view has been gaining ground among some Mormon intellectuals since the mid-1990s. Robinson, for example, writes: “Evangelicals often accuse Latter-day Saints of believing in a limited, finite, changeable god, but there is absolutely nothing in LDS Scriptures or beliefs to justify such a charge” (Blomberg and Robinson, 92). He also seems to claim that humans may become “gods” but not in the sense of being truly independent, a status reserved exclusively to God (Blomberg and Robinson, 86). Yet in other places Robinson seems to affirm doctrines that appear inconsistent with this notion, such as God’s corporeality and that he may have once been finite (Blomberg and Robinson, 85–93). Nevertheless, Robinson’s theological reflections (along with those of Millet) reveal a sincere and sophisticated effort to move Mormonism in the direction of more traditional theological categories without compromising LDS distinctives.

Conclusion. LDS theology seems presently committed to some form of finite theism. It has, however, within its body of authoritative literature resources by which the Mormon church may shift to a more traditional orthodox doctrine of God and eventually embrace something closer to classical theism (White).

Bibliography. T. G. Alexander, “The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to Progression Theology,” Sunstone; J. B. Allen, “Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith’s First Vision in Mormon Religious Thought,” Journal of Mormon History; F. Beckwith, C. Mosser, and P. Owen, eds., The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement; C. Blomberg and S. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? An Evangelical and a Mormon in Conversation; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gospel Principles, rev. ed.; B. Kirkland, “The Development of the Mormon Doctrine of God,” in Line upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, edited by G. J. Bergera; Kirkland, “Elohim and Jehovah in Mormonism and the Bible,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought; B. R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed.; R. L. Millet and G. C. V. Johnson, Bridging the Divide: The Continuing Conversation between a Mormon and an Evangelical; B. Ostler, “The Mormon Concept of God,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought; D. L. Paulsen, The Comparative Coherency of Mormon (Finitistic) and Classical Theism; Joseph Smith Jr., Articles of Faith; Joseph Smith Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2nd rev. ed., 7 vols.; Joseph Smith Jr., The King Follet Discourse: The Being and Kind of Being God Is, The Immortality of the Intelligence of Man; J. Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith; O. K. White Jr., Mormon Neo-orthodoxy: A Crisis Theology; K. Widmer, Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1813–1915.

F. J. Beckwith

GOHONZON. The word gohonzon (Chinese, “religious object”) is a parchment that is inscribed with Chinese characters from the Lotus Sutra and serves as an object of worship in Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism. The gohonzon, about ten inches wide and twenty inches long, is placed in a butsu-dan (shrine) in one’s home. Devotees direct their chanting, prayers, and worship to the gohonzon and believe that speaking evil of it can result in poverty, blindness, disease, or other ill effects.

Bibliography. D. Ikeda, “The Sin of Slandering the Gohonozon,” in Lectures on Buddhism, vol. 1, translated by T. Kamio; G. M. Williams, New Members’ Handbook: The Basics of Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism.

E. Pement

GOLDEN TEMPLE. The Golden Temple, also known as Darbar Sahib, is the most sacred site in the religion of Sikhism. Located in Amritsar in the state of Punjab (northern India), the Golden Temple was established in 1577 by fourth Sikh guru Ram Das (1534–81). Surrounded by a 250,000-square-foot lake, the temple got its name when a thin coat of gold plate was applied to the exterior in 1802. It has housed the original holy Sikh scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, since 1604. Temple priests read from the Granth twenty-four hours a day.

The three-story domed temple is surrounded by a fortified wall with eighteen gates and a white marble bridge leading up to it. Those who enter must remove their shoes and cover their heads. There are four doors on each side, figuratively offering entrance to the four castes in India. The north entrance has a Victorian clock tower. A Jubi tree planted 450 years ago by the religion’s first high priest is located in the northwest of the compound and is said to contain special powers. Special marble, mirror, and inlay work took place during the nineteenth century.

The temple was desecrated in June 1984 when it was invaded by the Indian Army at the command of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Militant Sikhs were using the temple as a refuge and storing weapons there. More than one thousand Sikhs were killed, and the temple suffered significant damage. Scripture reading was interrupted for the first time in hundreds of years.