The Evangelical Dictionary of World Religions

TALMAGE, JAMES. James E. Talmage (1862–1933) was a Mormon apostle, educator, and author. He was president of the University of Utah from 1894 to 1897 and an apostle of the LDS Church from 1911 until his death. Talmage was one of the most impressive intellectuals in LDS history; he was a member of several scientific societies and taught geology in addition to his more famous work as a Mormon theologian. His most important Mormon books were The Articles of Faith (1899) and Jesus the Christ (1915). In particular Talmage’s Articles of Faith, a detailed commentary on the LDS scriptural text of the same name, functioned as a de facto systematic theology textbook for Mormons for most of the twentieth century. Talmage was also the principal author of “The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve” (1916). This official doctrinal statement laid down what the LDS Church expected its members to believe about the names and divine statuses of the Father and the Son, issues on which Mormons had experienced significant confusion following the death of Brigham Young (especially because of his “Adam-God” teaching). To a large extent, what most Mormons believed throughout the rest of the twentieth century and still believe to this day is not the teachings of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young but the theological synthesis of their teachings with the Bible and the Mormon scriptures constructed by James Talmage.

Bibliography. J. R. Talmage, The Talmage Story.

R. M. Bowman Jr. and C. J. Carrigan

TALMUD. The term Talmud comes from the root lamad, which can mean “to learn” or “to teach,” depending on the grammatical form. Thus the term Talmud emphasizes primarily teaching and secondarily learning. The term is sometimes applied only to the Gemara section, but more often it is applied to both the Mishnah and the Gemara together. Furthermore, the term is applied to two major collections known as the Babylonian Talmud and what was historically known as the Palestinian Talmud. The preferred term now is Jerusalem Talmud or, more correctly, the Talmud of the Land of Israel, since it was produced in Galilee and not in Jerusalem. Both works underwent a long history beginning around 450 BC, with the Talmud of the Land of Israel being concluded in AD 425 and the Babylonian Talmud in 427.

First Stage: The Sopherim (450–30 BC). When the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity, their spiritual leaders who accompanied them recognized that the reason for the captivity was disobedience to the Mosaic law. Therefore, Ezra gathered these leaders into a school, called the School of the Sopherim, or the School of the Scribes. The purpose was to train them so that they could explain the law to the Jewish people. Thus the scribes would explain to the Jewish people all 613 commandments given by God through Moses: what was involved in keeping them and what was involved in breaking them. The Jewish people could keep the law and avoid further divine discipline only if they knew and kept the law (Ezra 7:10; Neh. 5:1–8). However, when the first generation of the Sopherim passed away, the next generation took the task more seriously and declared that it was not enough merely to explain the Law—the Torah—now it was essential to build a “fence” around it. The fence would consist of new rules and regulations that could be logically derived from the original 613 commandments. The thinking was that the Jews might break the laws of the fence (rabbinic law), but that might keep them from breaking through the fence, breaking the Mosaic law, and thus bringing on themselves further divine judgment. The goal was now to interpret individual cases of human behavior in terms of biblical precepts, to provide religious sanctions for all new institutions, and to derive from Scripture applications for any age.

The principle used was that a Sopher could disagree with a Sopher, but he could not disagree with the Torah. The Torah was given by God to Moses, and there is no basis to argue against its sanctity. But in making these new rules and regulations, the Sopherim could disagree among themselves until a decision was made by majority vote. Once the majority of the Sopherim voted on a new law, it became obligatory for all Jews everywhere in the world to follow. Furthermore, these new laws were intended not to be written down but to be passed down by memory from generation to generation; in fact would not be written down for six centuries.

The Sopherim made these new rules and regulations using a form of rabbinic logic known as pilpul, a Hebrew word that means “peppery” or “sharp” and refers to a form of rabbinic logic in which a rabbi states a law and then derives from it as many new laws as he can. Of course it isn’t hard to see how this practice would lead to exponential growth in the number of laws.

Eventually hundreds of new laws were added to each of the 613 commandments God gave Moses. To the one commandment God gave about keeping the Sabbath, the rabbis innovated fifteen hundred additional Sabbath rules and regulations.

In the first century BC, two different schools of the Sopherim developed: the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel. Shammai was far more conservative and demanded a more stringent interpretation of the law. Hillel was more liberal and allowed for a much wider interpretation of the law. Thus Shammai limited divorce based strictly on the issue of immorality, whereas Hillel allowed divorce for any reason the husband would choose. Hillel was actually born in Babylon; he came to Israel for learning, studied in the rabbinic academies, and learned rabbinic principles of interpretation, which he perfected, thus making the development of the Talmud possible. He derived three key principles: first, each generation was not to reject previous rabbinic legislation; second, each generation must look at the Torah to arrive at new legislation; and, third, interpreters should apply general principles to particular instances.

Second Stage: The Tannaim (30 BC–AD 220). After the Sopherim came a second school of rabbis known as the Tannaim, who looked on the work of the Sopherim and determined that there were still too many holes in the fence. They would continue the process for another two and a half centuries, including the period of Jesus and the apostles.

The Tannaim updated their principle of operation. Whereas Sopherim could disagree with one another but not with the Torah, the principle of the Tannaim was that a Tanna could disagree with a Tana but not with a Sopher. Thus all the rules and regulations of the Sopherim now became sacrosanct, equal with Scripture. In order to justify that the rules of the Sopherim were equal with the rules of Moses, the Sopherim developed a theory that is still accepted in Orthodox Judaism to this day. It is taught that on Mt. Sinai, God gave Moses two separate laws. The first is the written law: the 613 commandments Moses actually penned into Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. But God also gave Moses the oral law, which was not written down. Moses simply memorized these additional thousands of new rules and regulations. He then passed them down by memory to Joshua, who passed them down to the judges, who passed them down to the prophets, who passed them down to the Sopherim. So the Sopherim did not innovate these new regulations and laws; they were simply passed down from Moses, who got them from God. Therefore, they were sacrosanct. Thus the Tannaim expected all Jews to submit not only to the Mosaic law but also to the rules of the Sopherim, to both the written law and the oral law. Jesus and the Pharisees contended sharply over this issue.

The two schools of Pharisaism continued until AD 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed. The key rabbi rising from that destruction was Yohanan ben Zakkai. According to rabbinic tradition, ben Zakkai opposed the revolt against Rome, and when Rome was under siege by Vespasian, ben Zakkai was able to escape from Jerusalem by being carried off in a coffin by his disciples. When he was brought before Vespasian, he predicted that Vespasian would become the next emperor, which shortly came to pass. As a result, Vespasian granted his request to set up a rabbinic school in Yavne. The school operated for twenty years, from AD 70 to 90, during which time the rabbis revamped Judaism as they sought to adapt it to the absence of the temple and the priesthood. Old national institutions had to be replaced by a new focus of loyalty, one that would at the same time perpetuate the memory of the temple. Prayer became the substitute for sacrifice, and the synagogue replaced the temple as the center of Jewish life. New rituals were adopted and adapted to reinforce the symbolic link between the synagogue and the temple, and the rabbis also attempted to establish and exercise spiritual control over the Jews of the diaspora. Thus Yavne became the new center of authority, and laws were passed to authenticate the authority of the new center.

The School of Yavne officially closed the Old Testament canon of the Hebrew Bible, or the Old Testament, as we have it today. The school collected many traditions and issued takanot (rabbinic enactments) as the need arose. These rabbis codified the Shmoneh Esreh (Eighteen Benedictions), which were to be recited daily.

The new Sanhedrin was now under Gamaliel, who was of the house of Hillel. He ended the conflict between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai by decreeing that the words of both Hillel and Shammai were the words of God. However, the rabbis of the School of Yavne believed that Judaism would not survive if the division continued and that the populace needed to unify the practice of Jewish law, so with a few exceptions Hillel’s view became actual Jewish law and all sages had to submit to the decisions of the High Court. Thus the School of Yavne highly enhanced the authority of the rabbi.

As Judaism moved into the second century, the leading rabbi was Rabbi Akiva, who began to gather the chaotic mass of oral law and bring it into some semblance of order. He tried to find biblical justification for every rabbinic tradition and was the first to arrange the material according to subject. This key contribution introduced logical order to rabbinic law, but Rabbi Akiva also resorted to far-fetched interpretation without any consistent rules. He declared Bar Kokhba to be the Messiah, and as a result of his actions in support of Bar Kokhba, after the second Jewish revolt ended, he was executed by the Roman authorities.

After the Bar Kokhba revolt failed, disciples of Rabbi Akiva set up a new school in Usha in Galilee (since Yavne had been destroyed). The new Sanhedrin was now under the authority of Shimon ben Gamaliel, who received the title Nasi, carrying the authority of the patriarch. New rabbinic academies were founded in Galilee. Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem, and as the Jewish population of Judah decreased rapidly after the failure of the revolt, Galilee became the true center of Jewish life. The rabbis of the latter part of the second century continued to elaborate on the work of Akiva, without putting it into writing. They also attempted to stem the high rate of emigration by decreeing that it was better for a man to live in Israel in a city with a gentile majority than to live in an all-Jewish city in the diaspora. Living in Israel was equivalent to fulfilling all the commandments of the law, and to be buried in Israel was like being buried under the altar.

The rabbis focused on the Hebrew language, and the use of Aramaic and Greek was now forbidden in the academies of Galilee. As previously they ruled by majority vote, but the minority viewpoint was to be recorded. Another major contribution of these rabbis was the production of a unified Hebrew calendar, which is still used by the Jewish community today.

The period of the Tannaim finally ended with a key rabbi known as Judah Ha-Nasi (170–220). He was the leader of the Second Patriarchate, and his primary activity was in the Galilean city of Beth Shearim. He finally permitted all the traditions to be written down, drawing on thirteen previous collections, recording traditions handed down in the name of 115 previous rabbis going back four or five centuries. What was finally recorded in written form became known as the Mishnah, which is a Hebrew document of about fifteen hundred pages. It was divided into six specific orders:

1. Zeraim (Seeds)—dealing with agriculture problems and ritual laws associated with them

2. Moed (Feasts)—dealing with the rabbinic laws concerning the Sabbath and the festivals and holy seasons

3. Nashim (Women)—dealing with marriage and sexual relations

4. Nezikin (Damages)—dealing with civil and criminal law

5. Kodashim (Holy Things)—dealing with sacrifices and rituals of the temple

6. Tohorot (Cleanliness or Purity)—dealing with ceremonial cleanness

The six orders were divided into tractates, the tractates into chapters, and chapters into mishnayot, or verses. However, not every tractate necessarily deals with the biblical order it is in. For example, the Order of Seeds contains a tractate on the command to leave the corners of one’s property unharvested so that the poor people can eat from these corners. This is followed by a tractate on the rules of Purim (the Feast of Lots). The logic followed here is that the yield of the soil and the enjoyment of life are associated with the gratitude due to God.

With the Mishnah now in officially recorded form, the period of the Tannaim ended.

Third Stage: The Amoraim (220–427). Now began a third school of rabbis known as the Amoraim, whose name is an Aramaic term that comes from a root meaning “to say” and carries the concept of teaching. They focused on the intensive study and interpretation of the Mishnah, yet they believed that the Mishnah did not contain all that was handed down through various generations, so they accumulated additional traditions. The task of the Amoraim was to collect and codify these traditions and give them a stamp of finality. However, they also viewed the fence as still having too many holes in it, and so they began to add even more rules and regulations. Once again they changed their principle of operation: an Amora can disagree with an Amora but not with a Tanna. Thus all the work and regulations and traditions of the Tannaim also became sacrosanct, equal with Scripture. The Amoraim produced the Gemara. The term Gemara comes from the Aramaic root gamar, which means “to learn”; thus Gemara basically means “learning” and is the Aramaic form for the Hebrew name Talmud.

The work on the Mishnah was carried out in two localities: the land of Israel (primarily in Galilee) and Babylonia. By far the most intensive work was done in the academies of Babylonia, which superseded the work done in the land of Israel. The Babylonian work would dominate Jewish life for the next eight centuries and still dominates Orthodox Jewish life today.

There were two main Babylonian academies. The first was Neherdea, founded under Mar Samuel (d. 254), a pupil of Judah Ha-Nasi. Mar Samuel advocated the independence of the Babylonian School from the academies of Israel. Then he brought in all traditions of native Babylonian learning. The School of Neherdea was later replaced by the school of Pumbedita, founded by Rabbi Judah bar Ezekiel. The School of Pumbedita now became the main source of expertise in civil law. This school developed the principle that the law of the land is the law Jews must follow, even if it conflicts with the laws they would obey if they were independent. This principle applied only to civil law, not to religious law.

The second major academy of Babylonia was in Sura, established by Rav Abba Arika, (d. 247), also a pupil of Judah Ha-Nasi. He transplanted much of the learning of the land of Israel to Babylonia and adopted many Israeli customs. The result of these two Babylonian schools was the production of the Babylonian Gemara, which is the Aramaic interpretation of the Mishnah; it was finally completed under Rav Ashi (352–427), the head of the Academy of Sura. The Babylonian Gemara is about the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica—a massive body of rabbinic work.

The Jerusalem Gemara, or the Gemara of the land of Israel, was begun by Yohanan bar Nappach (199–279), the head of the academy in Tiberias. It was completed in AD 425. The Gemara here focuses more on the conditions in the land. It lacks completeness and totality, thanks to economic and political problems as well as persecution now coming from the church. Thus the Talmud of the Land of Israel lacks the continuity of the Babylonian Talmud, and its main value is historical, providing details on the conditions of the land. The language of the Israeli Gemara is also Aramaic (sometimes called “Western Aramaic” to distinguish it from the Aramaic used in Babylonia).

What is referred to as the Talmud in most cases is the Mishnah and the Gemara put together, though sometimes the term is used more specifically of just the Gemara section, which is the larger section in both Talmuds.

The Talmud essentially contains five items. First is the halacha, which involves the actual laws that all Jews must follow. This in turn includes pilpul, a rabbinic process, described above, for generating new laws. Also included are the tannakot, which are rabbinic enactments claiming authority even to void some of the laws of the Torah. The key areas of concern were God, Torah, and Israel.

The second type of content is the aggadah and the haggadah. The aggadah are imaginative interpretations of the Jewish past. The haggadah covers everything else that is not halacha, which includes issues of history, folklore, medicine, biography, ethical teachings, astronomy, science, logic, and personal reminiscences of great teachers of the past. The aggadah and haggadah are narratives, not legal texts, and reflect many personal opinions of the rabbis. Passages of this type tend to digress from the starting point of the discussion into the topics described above.

The third element of the Talmud is midrash, constituting about one half of the Talmud and consisting of rabbinic interpretations and homilies of the Bible.

The fourth element is the Tosefta, additional laws from the Mishnaic period that are considered supplementary and of lesser authority.

The fifth element is baraita, an old tradition but one that does not carry the authority of a specific Tanna.

Fourth Stage: The Seboraim (Sixth and Seventh Centuries). The Hebrew term Seboraim means “the reasoners.” The Seboraim were gathered by Rabina II of Babylonia. They came into being after a thirty-year gap in the Babylonian Jewish community, during which time the academies were closed. Up to this time, the collections of the Talmud consisted of concise notes on rabbinic discussions. The Seboraim enlarged the Talmud by adding words, phrases, and the notes to show how a discussion was to be read, which rendered the Talmud understandable for future generations. The Seboraim were responsible for completing the Talmud, especially the Babylonian Talmud in its final form.

The Talmud has often been misunderstood. For example, one tractate of the Talmud is called Beitzah, which means “egg.” Critics claimed that the rabbis spent a whole tractate on the egg alone. However, the name of the tractate was based only on the first word, which was common in Jewish naming of a document.

The Talmud has also often been accused of falsehoods, often becoming a target of Christianity. Because of largely untrue assumptions, through the ages many copies of the Talmud have been burned. So many were destroyed, in fact, that very few manuscripts remain. The Talmud has tended to suffer far more abuse in so-called Christian countries than it ever suffered in Muslim countries.

See also INJIL; ISLAM, BASIC BELIEFS OF

Bibliography. J. L. Esposito, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of Islam; H. A. R. Gibb and J. H. Kramers, eds., Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam.

J. Holden

TAYLOR, JOHN. John Taylor (1808–87) became the third president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) after the death of Brigham Young. Born on November 1, 1808, to James and Agnes Taylor in Milnthorpe, England, he is the only president of the LDS Church who was born outside the US or one of its territories. He became a US citizen in 1849. A strong defender of polygamy, he married at least fifteen women and fathered thirty-five children.

Taylor converted to Mormonism in 1836 and was ordained an apostle in 1838. He was present at the Carthage jail when Joseph and Hyrum Smith were killed by a mob on June 27, 1844. In that incident, Taylor was struck several times by flying bullets, one of which remained in his body for the rest of his life.

As a result of the federal government’s efforts to abolish polygamy and suspend voting rights for members of the LDS Church, Taylor spent much of his time as president hiding to avoid prosecution. He died of congestive heart failure on July 25, 1887.

Bibliography. R. S. Van Wagoner and S. C. Walker, A Book of Mormons.

W. McKeever

TELESTIAL KINGDOM. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) teaches that there are four eternal fates of humanity. These include eternal punishment in outer darkness (what Christians commonly call hell) and three heavenly kingdoms of varying “degrees of glory”: the celestial kingdom, the highest of the three kingdoms of heaven, for those who are on the path to exaltation; the terrestrial kingdom, for honorable people; and the telestial kingdom, the lowest level.

After death all persons who are not members of the LDS Church are sent to spirit prison or hell (which is not the place of eternal punishment) and are given a chance to repent and believe the Mormon gospel as taught by the faithful who come from paradise to bear witness. Those who fail to respond to the truth revealed to them in spirit prison will be sent to the lowest heavenly realm, known as the telestial kingdom.

The primary source of this doctrine is a vision recounted by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, at Hiram, Ohio, February 16, 1832, and recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), section 76. The telestial kingdom is comparable to the glory of the stars. Those who will attain the telestial kingdom in the afterlife, according to the church’s teachings, include the wicked and profane, unrepentant murders, thieves, those “who received not the gospel of Christ, nor the testimony of Jesus” (D&C 76:82), “liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie” (76:103). These people will suffer in a kind of temporary hell (akin to purgatory in Roman Catholicism) before reaching the telestial kingdom. However, the telestial kingdom is not unpleasant: “The glory of the telestial . . . surpasses all understanding” (76:89). Although its inhabitants will never see God the Father or Jesus Christ, they will see the Holy Ghost and enjoy immortality.

The term telestial apparently did not exist prior to the 1832 revelation by Smith and Rigdon. Most likely, Smith coined the word by combining the first syllable of terrestrial with all but the first syllable of celestial (te-lestial), thus using parts of two English words that have sometimes been used to translate words Paul used in 1 Corinthians 15:40 (see, e.g., the Revised Standard Version). In support of this explanation, one may note that Smith added the term telestial to that verse in his “inspired” revision of the Bible to make it into a proof text for his doctrine of three levels of salvation.

Bibliography. R. M. Bowman Jr., Gospel Principles and the Bible; Joseph Smith Jr. et al., Doctrine and Covenants; W. J. Walsh, “Heaven and the Degrees of Glory,” http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/afterlife/degrees_glory_eom.htm; C. J. Williams, “Telestial Kingdom,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by D. H. Ludlow, 4 vols.

R. M. Bowman Jr. and J. Easterling

TEMPLE IN JUDAISM. Historical Overview. The Jewish temple existed in Jerusalem on the Temple Mount (also known as Mt. Moriah) for 960 years (374 as the first temple and 586 years as the second temple). If we consider the tabernacle, the precursor to the temple, in this reckoning, we may add 485 more years. The temple was the central sanctuary of the Jewish people and was regarded by God as the pivotal institution regulating his divine covenant with the nation (Deut. 12:5–14; cf. Matt. 23:38–39). Its final destruction, by the Romans in AD 70, caused a religious crisis for Judaism since the obligation connected with the performance of the 618 (or 613) commandments depended in large measure on the existence of a functioning sanctuary. Therefore, modern Judaism has had to cope with religious life apart from the temple and, for most Jews, life outside the land of Israel. For Israeli Jews who returned to form the modern state, the capital city of Jerusalem, where the desolate Temple Mount remains a symbol of national loss, is a source of international controversy and local conflict. Yet for the Orthodox rabbis whose influence dominates in the country, the temple’s restoration as announced by the biblical prophets (Isa. 2:2–3; 56:4–7; Ezek. 37:26–28; 40–48; Hag. 2:6–9) also remains a future religious goal.

After the reorganization of Judaism at Yavne in AD 90, the laws relating to the temple were recast to adapt to the reality of Jewish life without a temple. The Jewish sages therefore referred to the synagogue as Miqdash Me’at, “a small or minor temple” (Babylonian Talmud, Meghilla 29a), which, for practical purposes, replaced the temple in function, while Torah study, prayer, and those commandments that could be kept without the temple replaced the obligation of offering sacrifices. Nevertheless, the temple, if only symbolically, has remained at the center of the Jewish psyche as the focus of its principal festivals (Yom Kippur, Sukkoth, and Shavuot) as well as in its daily prayers and teaching concerning Israel’s prophetic future. With the return of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland and the reestablishment of the State of Israel, the possibility of rebuilding the temple has been revived as both a national symbol of independence and a sign of the nearness of the fulfillment of the predicted age of redemption for the Jewish people. The Israeli historian David Salomon has explained this aspiration: “It [the desire for a rebuilt Temple] was the essence of our Jewish being, the unifying force of our people” (3). For this reason, Judaism’s attachment to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount exceeds that of Christianity and Islam, whose histories also claim this city and site. As New Testament scholar Krister Stendahl states, “For Christians and Moslems, that term [holy sites] is an adequate expression of what matters. Here are sacred places hallowed by the most holy events. . . . [But Judaism] is not tied to sites, but to the land; not to what happened in Jerusalem, but to Jerusalem itself” (3).

This allegiance to Jerusalem and its Temple Mount is portrayed annually by Jews around the world in their observance of Tisha B’Av, the ninth of the Jewish month of Av (July/August on the Gregorian calendar). On this day religious Jews fast and refrain from normal pleasures as a sign of sorrow over the destruction of the first and second temples, which occurred on this date. In Israel, Tisha B’Av has been granted the status of a national day of mourning. Movie theaters, nightclubs, and other places of entertainment are closed and strictly forbidden from being open during the entire time of the fast. However, this universal expression about the loss of the temple does not imply that there is unanimity concerning the way modern Judaism relates to the ancient concept of the temple or to the prospect of its future rebuilding. Religious Judaism must be considered in the context of national Judaism as expressed in the Zionist return to the land of Israel. The majority of contemporary Israelis are secular Jews, who resist the imposition of religious laws that affect their freedoms as a democratic culture. Nevertheless, the temple continues to define their past history (as every Israeli schoolchild learns) and to determine their future with respect to Middle Eastern politics, which presently wrestles with the competing claims of sovereignty over the Temple Mount between Judaism and Islam. Some secular Israelis consider the issue of the Temple Mount an obstacle to Middle East peace and have called for their government to abandon all claims to it. Other secularists have seen the temple as an essential part of the heritage of the Jewish people and contend that without Israeli control over the Temple Mount, national independence is incomplete. For many the basis of this contention is rooted in the Bible, which has been a part of their public school education. For this reason, the term secular Jew may be misleading since a significant number of secular Israelis express belief in God and keep certain laws (such as kosher laws), even though they are identified as “nonobservant” by Orthodox Jewry. In this category was David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, who, though a secularist, studied Torah, attended weekly Talmud discussion groups, and peppered his political addresses with citations from the biblical prophets.

A survey of Jewish views concerning the temple must recognize that there is no monolithic Judaism whose beliefs characterize the religion. Since the time of the late second temple (early Roman period), Judaism has existed in a pluralistic form, with religious and political differences. In modern Judaism, these various movements may be classified as Traditional or Orthodox Judaism, Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, and Reform or Progressive Judaism. Despite a common reverence for the concept of the temple, Jews view the temple variously as an enduring spiritual symbol, a mystical aspiration of humanity, or a future physical reality.

The View of Orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Judaism follows the traditional practice of Judaism as it was developed between AD 400 and 500, including a strict adherence to the written Torah (Bible) and to the oral Torah (contained in the Talmud and the Mishnah) as its commentary, a separated home and lifestyle marked by keeping kosher laws, religious education for children, and distinct dress (wearing tzizit, “fringes” on an undergarment; skullcaps, or kippot; and, when praying, prayer shawls and tefillin, or phylacteries). Orthodox Jews accept that a literal, physical temple will be rebuilt in accordance with the prophets, but they differ as to the means: divine (miraculous) or human (political). Those in the first group argue that the temple cannot be rebuilt until Elijah and the Messiah appear to resolve all discrepancies about the correct location of the temple, disclose the hiding place of the ashes of the red heifer and the ark of the covenant, and build the temple. Some who hold the miraculous view believe the restored temple will descend from heaven with fire on the Temple Mount in the age of redemption.

Those in the second group follow Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935), the late chief rabbi of Israel, who taught the Jewish responsibility to obey the biblical injunction of Exodus 25:8 (NASB): “Let them construct a sanctuary for Me.” Since sovereignty over the Temple Mount was restored to Israel in 1967, the opportunity to rebuild has existed, and the failure of the secular government to perform this command is regarded by this group as the cause of the continuing problems experienced by the nation. However, with respect to the Temple Mount, Orthodox Judaism holds that its sanctity remains. Therefore, the rabbinate forbids Orthodox Jews to enter the Temple Mount lest they enter in an impure state and offend the divine presence by inadvertently desecrating the holy place.

The View of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism. Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, known as Hasidic (Hebrew, literally, “pious, devout ones”), or kabbalistic or mystical Judaism, refers to itself as the Chabad movement. Chabad is a Hebrew acrostic for the mochin (powers of intellect), the three sefiroth (or sephirot; emanations from God that are God himself): c = chokmah (wisdom), b = binah (understanding), and d = da’at (knowledge/intellect). Chabad characterizes the Ultra-Orthodox in their unique adherence to the Zohar (which contains the kabbalah and its commentary) and their attempt to attain the levels of existence revealed by the ten sefiroth. Ultra-Orthodox Judaism is distinguished by outward dress conforming to the traditional clothing of the Eastern European community from which they emigrated and by allegiance to a leading rabbi (rebbe) and his dynastic successors. The rabbi of the largest number of adherents is the late Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. His followers, known as Lubavitchers, believe that Schneerson is the Messiah and that after his resurrection from the dead he will return to Israel and initiate the rebuilding of the third temple.

However, in keeping with kabbalistic concepts, at present Jerusalem and the temple exist as spiritual, not merely material (which often conceals the spiritual) entities. Therefore, the rebuilding of the temple occurs on two levels: material and mystical. On the material level, the Messiah is coming to rebuild the temple, which will exist (as in the past) as a physical structure, complete with animal sacrifices. On the mystical level, the material temple will be constructed only after humankind has erected its own spiritual temple through study, prayer, and the mitzvah (Hebrew, “commandment”) of charity. Once this level of godliness has been attained, the Messiah will arrive, the temple will be rebuilt, and God will inaugurate the age of redemption.

The View of Conservative Judaism. Conservative Judaism, a distinctly American movement, lies along the entire continuum between Reform Judaism and Orthodoxy. Based on the principles of the German Zacharias Frankel (1801–75), it advocates a theological perspective—as articulated by Jewish Theological Seminary’s Solomon Schechter (1850–1915), who developed its institutions—that the legal, moral, and spiritual commandments of the Torah were placed by God in the hands of the Jewish people and may be adjusted in keeping with their own social evolution. Conservative doctrine states that the decisions of Torah and Talmud must be followed, that Zionism is a fundamental principle, and that the commandments must be practiced. However, how these commandments are to be applied is pragmatic and left open to interpretation and application by individual congregations. This separates them from the Orthodox, who permit no changes to the traditional understanding of the commandments.

Conservative Judaism views the significance of the temple and its service in light of its historic role in ordering society and strengthening national cohesion. This social-national function also serves a spiritual purpose, offering a corresponding spiritual and social ascent of the people of Israel and of all humanity, which will effectively draw all the peoples of the world closer to one another.

The View of Reform Judaism. Reform Judaism is the most progressive (liberal) of these various movements. Reform Judaism teaches that a vertical connection of humanity to God is achieved not through fulfillment of the divine commandments but through a horizontal connection (between human beings). Therefore, the spiritual standard in Reform Judaism is how people in society relate to one another. This allows for adaptation to prevailing social norms, so that whatever contemporary ethics are observed (whether or not they are the majority view) are acceptable within the broad spectrum of beliefs and practices that make up society. For this reason practices such as feminism, egalitarianism, homosexuality, Eastern meditation, New Age thinking, and so on may be fully incorporated. Despite such variance from Orthodox Judaism, the religious expression of Reform Judaism maintains the trappings of traditional Jewish life.

Reform Judaism’s view of the temple is reflected in its calling its meeting places temples rather than synagogues—only, however, in the sense that the temple embodies the concept of a spiritual center that each person should erect within himself or herself. Adherents of Reform Judaism have contributed to the modern rebuilding of the land of Israel through their educational institutions, yet they have no interest in attempts to restore its historic faith and culture with a rebuilt temple. To do so would restore traditional Judaism and destroy their own movement. Nevertheless, in recent years the governing body of Reform Judaism has endorsed a return to traditional Jewish practices (keeping kosher, wearing yarmulkes, and praying in Hebrew) as a means of restoring their lost connection to Jewish history. This shift has also included a return to the study of the temple as more than a model for spiritual self-fulfillment, a move that may be taking some Reform Jews closer to orthodoxy.

Conclusion. The Jewish sages asked and answered the question of the temple’s destruction: “Why was Jerusalem destroyed? The first time because of idol worship; the second time because of senseless hatred” (Babylonian Talmud, Kallah 5:1). This “senseless hatred” was understood by the rabbis as the rivalry and discord that existed between the various sects of Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period. For this reason, some contemporary voices within Judaism are calling for the hope that the temple might again be restored as the unifying point for world Jewry so that it, and all humanity, may obtain its promised restoration in the end of days.

See also HASIDISM; JUDAISM; KABBALAH; TALMUD; TORAH; ZOHAR

Bibliography. Y. Ariel, The Odyssey of the Third Temple, translated by C. Richman; J. Comay, The Temple of Jerusalem; S. Goren, Sepher har-HaBayit: Meshiv malachmah Heleq Rabi’i; R. Price, The Temple and Bible Prophecy: A Definitive Look at Its Past, Present, and Future; L. Reznick, The Holy Temple Revisited; D. Salomon, Guide to the Treasures of the Temple Exhibition; S. Steinberg, The Third Beis HaMikdash: The Third Temple according to the Prophecy Yechezkel following Rashi and Tosafos Yom Tov, translated by Rabbi M. L. Miller; K. Stendahl, “Judaism and Christianity II—after a Colloquium and a War,” Harvard Divinity Bulletin.

R. Price

TEMPLES IN MORMONISM. Mormon sacred rites are performed in temples. As of June 2012, there were 138 LDS temples around the world and 28 more either under construction or announced. Over half of these temples are located in the US. All but 16 temples were put in service after 1980, and 49 of them were dedicated in 1999 and 2000, when the LDS Church pursued its most aggressive temple-building program to date.

The rapid expansion of temple sites since 1980 was stimulated by two alleged revelations included in Mormon writings in the late 1970s. In 1976 section 137 of the Doctrine and Covenants recorded Joseph Smith Jr.’s 1836 revelation establishing the doctrine of postmortem salvation, and section 138 recorded Joseph F. Smith’s 1918 revelation verifying postmortem proselytizing. Official Declaration 1 was also added to the Doctrine and Covenants in 1978, allowing dark-skinned people to participate in temple work. Since salvation is possible after death, and proselytizing is practiced in the realm of the dead, and since salvation in its fullest sense requires baptism and temple ordinances, there must be many people in the realm of the dead who have embraced the Mormon gospel but who lack baptism and temple ordinances. These Mormon converts in the realm of the dead, therefore, need Mormons in the realm of the living to perform temple rites on their behalf. Thus many more temples were needed to perform these works on behalf of the great multitude of the believing dead. Additionally, since dark-skinned people were permitted to participate in temple work after 1978, more temples were needed in regions with large populations of dark-skinned Mormons.

Temple Activities. Temples are not regular gathering places for Mormons. Sunday services are convened in buildings called chapels or meetinghouses. Temples are sacred places where special ordinances are performed by qualified Mormons. Temple ordinances include works for the living and works for the dead. Works for the living include washings and anointings, temple endowments, and family sealings. Works for the dead include these three together with baptisms for the dead. Washings and anointings are initiatory rites that cleanse and prepare patrons for temple endowments. Special temple undergarments are received during this ordinance. During temple endowments, solemn and secret vows are made. Groups of patrons move through a series of ordinance rooms to receive instruction given nowhere else and to reenact the drama of the plan of salvation. Once patrons have received temple endowments, they may partake in family sealings. Couples are married and sealed for eternity during this ceremony, and children are sealed to their parents for eternity as well.

Qualifications for Temple Participation. Unbaptized children under eight years of age may take part in their own family sealing ordinance, and baptized and confirmed Mormons twelve and older may perform baptisms for the dead, but washings and anointings, temple endowments, and family sealings are limited to adults at least nineteen years old who have been baptized and confirmed and been recommended by church leaders for temple work. All men must also have been previously ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood.

Bibliography. R. O. Canon, Temples to Dot the Earth; B. K. Packer, The Holy Temple; J. E. Talmage, The House of the Lord; J. and S. Tanner, Evolution of the Mormon Temple Ceremony (1842–1990).

C. J. Carrigan

TEN LOST TRIBES, ALTERNATIVE VIEWS OF. In 930 BC the northern ten tribes of Israel broke from the southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin and formed their own kingdom. In 722 the Assyrian Empire invaded the northern kingdom and carried its inhabitants off into captivity, in what is now eastern Iran and western Afghanistan.

Although there is some evidence that a few of these captives returned to the land of Israel, the vast majority disappeared from history. Until modern times, the only physical evidence for anyone who may have been part of this group is the presence of Nesranis and the Bene Israel peoples of India, whose DNA shows them to be Hebrew in origin. Many argue that these people constitute the lost tribes, but no conclusive proof has come to light. Additionally, the Samaritans in modern Israel claim they are the decendants of Manasseh and Ephraim, who were not carried off into exile. Their claims have not been proven, although there is evidence that they are at least partially descended from ethnic Israelites.

The mysterious nature of the disappearance of the so-called Ten Tribes has fueled numerous speculations, especially among alternative religions.

According to British Israelism, the lost ten tribes ended up in the British Isles, and the British people are themselves directly descended from them to this day. This view was also espoused by Herbert Armstrong and continues in the Philadelphia Church of God.

Christian Identity developed from British Israelism, but it claims the ten lost tribes are Saxons, Germanics, and Slavic peoples. They believe that these people are the rightful heirs of the promises of God to Abraham and that modern Jews are not the same people as ancient Jews but are actually descendants of the Edomites. This belief has led to virulent anti-Semitism among Christian Identity groups. Christian Identity apologists point to arguments such as the similarity between the words Dan and Danes and complicated mathematical formulations applied to historical events in England and America, though modern DNA testing has proven their claims almost entirely false.

Bibliography. W. L. Ingram, “God and Race: British-Israelism and Christian Identity,” in America’s Alternative Religions, edited by T. Miller; S. M. Lyman, “The Lost Tribes of Israel as a Problem in History and Sociology,” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society.

R. L. Drouhard

TERRESTRIAL KINGDOM. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) teaches that there are three heavenly kingdoms in which humans may spend eternity, and the second or middle level is the terrestrial kingdom.

Those Mormons who were “not as valiant in the testimony of Jesus” will go to the terrestrial kingdom. In addition, those non-Mormons who did not receive a testimony of Jesus while on earth but who could have done so except for their neglect, and honorable men who were blinded by the “craftiness of man” and did not accept the church’s teaching while on earth, will be able to hear the Mormon gospel while in spirit prison, and if they accept it, they will be destined for the terrestrial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 76:72–74, 79).

The primary source of this doctrine is a vision recounted by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, at Hiram, Ohio, February 16, 1832, and recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), section 76. The terrestrial kingdom has a glory comparable to that of the moon. All those in the terrestrial kingdom will not obtain “the crown over the kingdom of our God” (76:79) and will remain without exaltation in their saved condition (132:17). They “receive of the presence of the Son [Jesus], but not of the fulness of the Father,” and their kingdom differs from the celestial “as the moon differs from the sun” (76:77–78).

The LDS Church presents a trifurcated Godhead in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct “personages” and are not omnipresent—hence the Son will visit those in the terrestrial kingdom while the Father will be found only in the celestial kingdom.

Bibliography. S. E. Black, “Terrestrial Kingdom,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by D. H. Ludlow, 4 vols.; Joseph Smith Jr. et al., Doctrine and Covenants; W. J. Walsh, “Heaven and the Degrees of Glory.”

R. M. Bowman Jr. and J. Easterling

TESTIMONY IN MORMONISM. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are encouraged to “bear their testimony”—that is, to give verbal expression to what they know to be true concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ, the authority of the Book of Mormon as the word of God, the restoration of the gospel through the LDS Church, and that both Joseph Smith Jr. and the current LDS president have been and are God’s prophets for their generations. One’s testimony relates to the spiritual knowledge that those who sincerely ask of God are promised in Moroni 10:4–5 in the Book of Mormon. Testimony bearing is thus of great importance for Mormon missionaries in carrying out their task.

The testimony serves many purposes in Mormon practice. First, it is a means of proclaiming the gospel as understood by Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon teaches that when one speaks by “the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men” (2 Nephi 33:1). Second, it is a means of teaching one another as commanded in Doctrine and Covenants 88:118. To this end, Mormons who speak in worship services or in teaching settings are encouraged to conclude by bearing personal testimony as to the truthfulness of what they have declared. Third, testimony bearing may also be seen as a way of reclaiming wandering saints, as in Alma 4:19, where Alma sought to bring the people to remembrance by “bearing down in pure testimony against them.” It is thus clear that the primary source of testimony bearing in Mormonism is Mormon scripture (see also D&C 68:4; Alma 34:8).

There are several issues with the LDS doctrine of testimony. The first is that it assumes what one sincerely believes is necessarily true. Individuals can be sincerely mistaken. The Mormon answer is that the truth claim is proven by means of a spiritual testimony from the Holy Spirit. However, there is no way to prove objectively that what is testifying to them is a spirit at all, let alone the Holy Spirit. Second, the Mormon doctrine of testimony may lead to a kind of spiritual deception. A Mormon may have real experiences that are nevertheless not conveying truth. As is the case with postmodernism, personal experience cannot substitute for objective evidence. Finally, Mormon reliance on personal testimonies has resulted in relativism within the church. Coupled with the doctrine of “continuing revelation,” this doctrine has enabled Mormon leaders to feel free to alter Mormon theology radically and to expect that church members will meekly go along. For example, at one time polygamy was considered vital to the spiritual advancement of all Mormons. However, in 1890 Mormon leaders announced that the practice was being suspended without giving any theological explanation or rationale for the change. Yet most members accepted the change on the strength of their “testimony” that the LDS Church is the true church. On the same basis, many Mormons today live with the contradictions and other problems with LDS claims by insisting that their testimonies override any such objections to their faith.

Bibliography. F. Beckwith, C. Mosser, and P. Owen, The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement; H. W. House, Charts of Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements; D. H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols.; B. McKeever and E. Johnson, Mormonism 101: Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints; R. L. Millett, Getting at the Truth: Responding to Difficult Questions about LDS Beliefs.

R. B. Stewart

TETRAGRAMMATON. The word tetragrammaton (from Greek tetra, “four,” and gramma, “letter”) refers to the Hebrew name of God usually transliterated as YHWH or YHVH (German). Note that Hebrew is written from right to left. The name occurs over sixty-eight hundred times in the Hebrew Old Testament (OT).

The Greek versions of the OT used by Jews and Christians in the ancient world (somewhat loosely known as the Septuagint, or LXX) generally used the word kurios (Lord) or, occasionally, theos (God) in place of YHWH. In the King James Version (KJV), as in most English versions, YHWH is usually rendered “LORD” (note the small capital letters). It is rendered “GOD” just over three hundred times in the KJV, mostly in the expression “the Lord GOD” (more than half of which occur in Ezekiel). However, in the KJV it is also rendered as “JEHOVAH” four times (Exod. 6:3; Ps. 83:18; Isa. 12:2; 26:4). The form “Jehovah” also occurs in three place-names honoring God (Gen. 22:14; Exod. 17:15; Judg. 6:24).

The original pronunciation of YHWH is debated, though most biblical scholars accept Yahweh as most likely. It is reasonably certain that the first syllable was Yah, and indeed this syllable was a shortened form of the name used occasionally in liturgical material in the OT. The form occurs four times in Revelation in the expression allēlouia, a transliteration of the Hebrew Hallelu-yah, found repeatedly in Psalms 146–50 and usually translated “Praise the LORD” (Rev. 19:1–6). This is the only place in the extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament (NT) where any form of YHWH appears. Most biblical scholars construe the full name as two syllables, Yah-weh. God gave this name to Moses as the name by which God revealed himself and by which he desired to be known for all generations (Exod. 3:14–15), though he was also known by other names. Scholars regard the form Jehovah as a mistake made by medieval Christian scribes. That form is widely believed to have been first used by Peter Galatin in the early sixteenth century, although it may have been used earlier. Be that as it may, the form Jehovah has a venerable history in Christian hymns and Bible translations.

The practice of substituting the word meaning “lord” (adonai) for YHWH is usually traced to a postcaptivity rabbinical Jewish custom of avoiding all use of the Name as a safeguard against blaspheming it. When the Scriptures were being read aloud, the word adonai would be said instead of Yahweh. In many texts, the Masoretes (Jewish scribes of the seventh to the eleventh centuries who added vowels to the consonant-only Hebrew Bible) inserted the vowels of adonai under the consonants of YHWH to make the name of God unpronounceable, and as a reminder to say the former rather than the latter. Some believe that Christian translators, unaware of this practice, thought this hybrid word was the correct form and translated YHWH as Jehovah. Although it is possible that the use of substitutes such as Lord and God in place of YHWH originated in rabbinical Judaism, some precedent for the practice can be seen in the OT itself, notably in Psalm 53, a later form of Psalm 14 in which the word Elohim (God) has been used several times in place of YHWH. The NT authors do not attempt to use the Hebrew form of the name but follow the Septuagint in using kurios, Lord, in its place. In the late nineteenth century, several smaller sects in the nontrinitarian wing of the Adventist movement began teaching that God was restoring the proper use of the name YHWH in true Christianity. Most of these “Sacred Name” groups, such as the Assemblies of Yahweh, favor what they see as the only authentic Hebrew pronunciation (Yahweh or Yahvah).

The largest Sacred Name group is that known as Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs), who began emphasizing this doctrine in the 1930s. Their New World Translation (NWT) in 1950 introduced the name Jehovah into the NT 237 times, mostly but not exclusively in quotations from the OT. The rationale for this practice was that the few extant manuscripts of the Greek OT dating from the first century BC and first century AD use a form of YHWH. The JWs infer from these manuscripts that the NT writers would also have used a form of YHWH, at least when quoting from the OT. This speculative inference is contradicted by the uniform witness of the thousands of Greek NT manuscripts, a witness that the JWs’ position implies was the result of a massive conspiracy during the second century (a period when the church owned no property and was subject to intense persecution).

The real reason for the use of Jehovah in the NWT is to distinguish between the Lord Jehovah (who is the Father alone, according to JW theology) and the Lord Jesus. When this unjustified translation practice is removed, the NT is found to contain numerous passages equating Jesus with the Lord Jehovah in its quotations from and allusions to the OT (e.g., compare Rom. 10:9–13 with Joel 2:32; Phil. 2:9–11 with Isa. 45:23; 1 Pet. 2:3 with Ps. 34:8; 1 Pet. 3:14–15 with Isa. 8:12–13).

Bibliography. D. Botkin, “The Messiah’s Hebrew Name: ‘Yeshua’ Or ‘Yahshua’?,” http://www.yashanet.com/library/Yeshua_or_Yahshua.htm; R. M. Bowman Jr. and J. E. Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ; D. B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology; G. D. Fee, Pauline Christology; I. Singer, gen. ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia; Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever.

R. M. Bowman Jr.

THEOLOGICAL METHOD OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS. The way in which one goes about building a theological system from a scriptural foundation is of paramount importance. This is certainly true from the perspective of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). However, as Latter-day Saint author M. Gerald Bradford noted, when considering the way in which Latter-day Saints construct theological systems, one “must acknowledge at the outset the somewhat enigmatic character of the role of theology and of the theologian in the Church” (345). Therefore, prior to any study of Latter-day Saint theological method, the role of the theologian must be studied.

Role of the Theologian. In discussing the role of the theologian in the LDS Church, Bradford observes, “On the one hand, every member of the Church is admonished to be a theologian. . . . No individuals in the Church are singled out as official theologians. On the other hand, it is obvious that there have always been certain individuals who for a variety of reasons . . . wield tremendous influence in interpreting and teaching the meaning of the gospel to others” (345). So, unlike the Roman Catholic Church and various Protestant denominations, the LDS Church has no office of “theologian.” Some thinkers in the church, however, have been and continue to be looked upon as theologians, without receiving the title. Examples include James Talmage, Bruce R. McConkie, and Robert L. Millet.

The meaning of theology and the precise function of the theologian, however, are not as ill defined. Bradford argues that theology is “often defined as an exposition of religious beliefs in language which is both systematic and temporally relevant” (346). With reference to the function of the theologian, he comments, “No doubt one who undertakes to do theology ought to see his job primarily as one of exposition or description of what is taken to be the revealed word of God. His objective ought to be to portray, with as much clarity and accuracy as possible, the coherent teachings of the gospel, thereby helping himself and others to understand what they believe” (347). This statement leads to an extremely important question in the context of Latter-day Saint theological method: In light of issues of authority, what is the revealed word of God?

Authoritative Texts. Gospel Principles, one of the standard manuals published by the LDS Church, notes, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts four books as scripture: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These books are called the Standard Works of the Church. The inspired words of our living prophets are also accepted as scripture” (45). A concise explanation of these works is necessary before proceeding.

The Bible is one of the four texts accepted as scripture by the LDS Church. James Talmage has explained, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts the Bible as the first and foremost of her standard works, chief among the books which have been proclaimed as her written guides in faith and doctrine” (240). Latter-day Saints offer qualifications, however, when discussing the nature of the Bible. Included in the Pearl of Great Price (the fourth of the four standard works) are the Articles of Faith, a collection of belief statements composed by Joseph Smith in the spring of 1842. Article 8 reads, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” Speaking of the Bible, Talmage comments, “Nevertheless, the Church announces a reservation in the case of erroneous translation. The Latter-day Saints believe the original records to be the word of God unto man, and, as far as these records have been translated correctly, the translations are regarded as equally authentic” (240). Joseph Smith has argued, “I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 327). When it comes to the Bible, then, Latter-day Saints argue that the Bible is a holy book and has its origin in God; however, the Bible is also a book that has been incorrectly translated and one from which many truths have been removed. Robert Millet concludes, “Having affirmed my love for the Bible, I hasten to add (as the Book of Mormon teaches) that I do not believe it has come down to us in its pristine purity, as it was written by the original writers. This perspective does not, however, weaken my faith in its essential and central messages” (What Happened to the Cross?, 31). The Bible, then, is an important book for Latter-day Saints, but its message has been corrupted. This corruption, though, does not negate its usefulness in the construction of theology.

The Book of Mormon is the second of the four standard works and is, as the eighth article of faith stipulates, believed by Latter-day Saints “to be the word of God.” On November 8, 1841, Joseph Smith instructed the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, saying, “The Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book” (History of the Church, 461). Bruce McConkie, discussing the Book of Mormon, has proclaimed, “As far as learning the gospel and teaching the gospel are concerned, the Book of Mormon, by all odds, is the most important of the standard works, because in simplicity and in plainness it sets forth in a definitive manner the doctrines of the gospel” (Foolishness of Teaching, 6). Likewise, McConkie also writes, “Almost all of the doctrines of the gospel are taught in the Book of Mormon with much greater clarity and perfection than those same doctrines are revealed in the Bible,” and goes on to argue that the Book of Mormon is superior to the Bible (Mormon Doctrine, 99). Former second counselor in the First Presidency Marion G. Romney notes, “One can get and keep closer to the Lord by reading the Book of Mormon than by reading any other book” (“Book of Mormon,” 66). Former president Ezra Taft Benson asked, “Is there not something deep in our hearts that longs to draw nearer to God, to be more like Him in our daily walk, to feel His presence with us constantly? If so, then the Book of Mormon will help us do so more than any other book” (“Book of Mormon,” 5). Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon is an important book in the Latter-day Saint canon. The Book of Mormon is, however, more significant in the formulation of theology.

The Doctrine and Covenants is the third of the four standard works and is vitally important for the LDS Church, as Hyrum Smith and Janne Sjodahl explain: Doctrine and Covenants “contains ‘doctrines,’ ‘covenants,’ and predictions, all of the utmost importance to every nation and every individual on earth” (xiii). They continue, “As the name implies . . . this volume of Scripture contains doctrine and covenants. ‘Doctrine’ means ‘teaching,’ ‘instruction.’ It denotes more especially what is taught as truth, for us to believe, as distinct from precepts, by which rules, to be obeyed, are given” (xiv). Bruce McConkie declares, “Perhaps no other book is of such great worth to the saints as is the Doctrine and Covenants. It is their book, the voice of God in their day. The revelations therein are true, and men are commanded to search them” (Mormon Doctrine, 206). Similarly, Joseph Fielding McConkie has argued that the Doctrine and Covenants is needed because the Bible and the Book of Mormon demand another book of scripture: “Though we describe both the Bible and the Book of Mormon with superlatives—especially as they are used together—they are not in and of themselves sufficient for our generation. To so regard either book or the combination of the two would be to deny their spirit, testimony, and purpose” (105). He continues, “To attempt to study the Bible without the aid of the Doctrine and Covenants and other revelations of the restoration would be a serious mistake in gospel scholarship” (107). The introduction in the Doctrine and Covenants concludes that the work is “of great value to the human family and of more worth than the riches of the whole earth.” When theology is under consideration, then, the Doctrine and Covenants plays an extremely important role in articulating LDS theology.

The Pearl of Great Price is the fourth of the works accepted as scripture by the LDS Church. Gospel Principles offers the best explanation of the nature of the Pearl of Great Price:

The Pearl of Great Price contains the book of Moses, the book of Abraham, and some inspired writings of Joseph Smith. The book of Moses contains an account of some of the visions and writings of Moses, revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith. It clarifies doctrines and teachings that were lost from the Bible and gives added information concerning the Creation of the earth. The book of Abraham was translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith from a papyrus scroll taken from the Egyptian catacombs. This book contains valuable information about the Creation, the gospel, the nature of God, and the priesthood. The writings of Joseph Smith include part of Joseph Smith’s inspired translation of the Bible, selections from his History of the Church, and the Articles of Faith. (48)

Joseph Fielding McConkie declares, “The Pearl of Great Price is the briefest and yet most expansive of our scriptural records. It was left to this marvelous little compilation of revelations to bind the eternities together” (114). As McConkie states, the Pearl of Great Price is viewed as one of the four standards of the written canon. Because the work is short, it is not quoted as often as the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants, but it is still a vital piece of the Latter-day Saint canon.

These four written texts are not the only authority used by Latter-day Saints in the construction of theology. In a letter to John Wentworth, included in the Pearl of Great Price as the ninth article of faith, Joseph Smith Jr. clearly articulated the Latter-day Saint belief in continuing revelation. Smith wrote, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” James Talmage has defined the idea that God continues to communicate with humanity: “In a theological sense, the term revelation signifies the making known of Divine truth by communication from heaven” (Articles of Faith, 308).

Put simply, Latter-day Saints believe that God has communicated to humanity by means of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. They also believe that God continues to communicate to humanity by means of revelations given to the president of the church. Those revelations given to the president become scripture and may be added to the Latter-day Saint standard works. Functioning as a basis on which theology is constructed, the standard works and continuing revelation serve as the foundation of Latter-day Saint theology.

Challenges. Within the realm of Latter-day Saint studies, however, one faces a considerable problem when attempting to discern official church doctrine and when trying to build a Latter-day Saint systematic theology. For example, as Robert Millet has proclaimed, “One meets with great difficulty in categorizing or rubricizing Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet, or for that matter Mormonism as a whole” (“Joseph Smith and Modern Mormonism,” 65). In a lengthy but extremely helpful passage, Millet notes,

It is not so easy to determine what is “traditional” or “orthodox” Mormonism. Orthodox has to do with a straight and proper walk, with appropriate beliefs and practices. In our case, it may or may not be a course charted by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or some Church leader of the past. Some who claim to be orthodox on the basis of following the teachings of Brother Joseph—for example, members of polygamous cults—are not in harmony with the Church’s constituted authorities and are therefore not orthodox. “When the Prophet Joseph Smith was martyred,” President Harold B. Lee said in 1964, “there were many saints who died spiritually with Joseph. So it was when Brigham Young died; so it was when John Taylor died. We have some today willing to believe someone who is dead and gone and to accept his words as having more authority than the words of a living authority today.” (“Joseph Smith and Modern Mormonism,” 65)

In attempting to determine how one might use the words of a past leader, Millet comments, “To fix ourselves too tightly to the words of a past prophet-leader—even Joseph Smith—is to approximate the mindset of certain fundamentalist Protestant groups who reject modern divine communication in the name of allegiance to the final, infallible, and complete word of God found between the covers of the Bible” (“Joseph Smith and Modern Mormonism,” 65). Similarly, James Faulconer has stated, “The church neither has an official theology nor encourages theological conjecture.” He continued,

As individuals, we may find a theology helpful to our understanding, but no explanation or system of ideas will be sufficient to tell us what it means to be a Latter-day Saint. For a Latter-day Saint, a theology is always in danger of becoming meaningless because it can always be undone by new revelation. Except for scripture and what the prophet reveals, there is no authoritative logos of the theos for Latter-day Saints, and given that the prophet can and does continue to reveal things, there is no logos of what he reveals except the record of those revelations. For LDS, the logos is both in principle and in practice always changing, as reflected in the open canon of LDS scripture. In principle continuing revelation precludes an account of revelation as a whole. Thus, finally our only recourse is to the revelations of the prophet since, speaking for God, he can revoke any particular belief or practice at any moment, or he can institute a new one, and he can do those things with no concern for how to make his pronouncement rationally coherent with previous pronouncements or practices.

As Millet and Faulconer have explained, determining a specific set of orthodox Latter-day Saint beliefs is incredibly difficult. From which sources, then, can Latter-day Saint beliefs be deduced?

In answering the question, “How do you decide what is your doctrine and what is not?,” Robert Millet has offered one formulation helpful to answering our original question concerning source authority. Millet writes, “In determining whether something is a part of the doctrine of the Church, we might ask: Is it found within the four standard works? Within official declarations or proclamations? Is it taught or discussed in general conference or other official gatherings by general Church leaders today? Is it found in the general handbooks or approved curriculum of the Church today? If it meets at least one of these criteria, we can feel secure and appropriate about teaching it” (What Happened to the Cross?, 31–32). An official Latter-day Saint publication, Gospel Principles, agrees with Millet’s assessment (45, 48). Therefore, in the assessing or building of official church doctrine, the works accredited as officially binding and declarative—as the church, its leaders, and its scholars have defined them—must be utilized.

Theologians versus Prophets within LDS Theology. With a more detailed understanding of the scriptural basis on which Latter-day Saints build theology, we must now turn to the ways in which Latter-day Saints actually construct theology. Put concisely, someone working as a theologian in the LDS Church does not have the freedom “to establish new theological truths on his own, especially for the Church at large” (Bradford, 353). Bradford offers two reasons: the role of the prophet and the nature of the religion as revealed. Concerning the role of the prophet, he notes, “The ‘prophet, seer, and revelator’ alone may come to know the things of God for the whole Church. Thus it is difficult to see how any Mormon theologian could mistake his role for that of the prophet. And it is doubly unfortunate if what a theologian says falls outside of what could count as meaningful discourse because not only does this render understanding difficult, if not impossible, but it also suggests that one may assume the ways of God are not reasonable. And revelation from God has always been viewed as reasonable” (356). Concerning the role of the Latter-day Saint faith as revealed, Bradford states, “My suggestions boil down to the following point: If the object or subject-matter of theology is the revealed teachings of the gospel, then the theologian must be faithful to what these teachings actually say” (357).

Conclusion. Latter-day Saint theological method is based on the revealed nature of Latter-day Saint faith. Theology within the Latter-day Saint framework may not vary from the authoritative teachings of the LDS Church. Thus the theologian is, in a sense, restricted in theological discourse to the understanding of the current gathered body of general authorities of the church. Latter-day Saint theological method is fundamentally grounded in the role and authority of the prophet, a role given to the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The utterances of the general authorities at conferences are gospel. Those sayings are the boundaries within which Latter-day Saint theologians must work.

Bibliography. E. T. Benson, “The Book of Mormon—Keystone of Our Religion,” Ensign; C. Blomberg and S. Robinson, How Wide the Divide?; M. G. Bradford, “On Doing Theology,” BYU Studies; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Explanatory Introduction,” in Doctrine and Covenants; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gospel Principles, 2009 ed.; J. Faulconer, “Why a Mormon Won’t Drink Coffee but Might Have a Coke: The Atheological Character of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” Lecture, Brigham Young University; B. R. McConkie, The Foolishness of Teaching; McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed.; J. F. McConkie, The Spirit of Revelation; R. L. Millet, “Joseph Smith and Modern Mormonism: Orthodoxy, Neo Orthodoxy, Tension, and Tradition,” BYU Studies; Millet, What Happened to the Cross?; S. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians?; M. G. Romney, “The Book of Mormon,” Ensign; H. M. Smith and J. M. Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, edited by J. F. Smith, H. B. Lee, and M. G. Romney; Joseph Smith Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, edited by Joseph Fielding Smith; Joseph Smith Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols.; J. Talmage, The Articles of Faith.

T. S. Kerns

THERAVADA BUDDHISM. Theravada Buddhism is the dominant school of Buddhism in most of Southeast Asia. There are approximately 127 million adherents worldwide. Prominent organizations in the US include the Washington Buddhist Vihara and the Buddhist Study Center of New York.

History. The school of Buddhism known today as Theravada was formulated in Sri Lanka based on earlier Indian traditions and the use the Buddhist canon in Pali. Buddhaghosa (fifth century) was perhaps the greatest commentator on the Pali Canon and was instrumental in formulating Theravada teachings. He is said to have been born in the central kingdom (Magadha) in India and later to have moved to Sri Lanka.

King Anawrahta’s eleventh-century Burmese Empire was based on Theravada Buddhism, as was Sukhothai’s Thai kingdom, founded around 1260. Theravada continued to expand into Laos and Cambodia in the thirteenth century. From the fourteenth century on, however, the influence of Islam proved stronger along the coastal fringes and islands of Southeast Asia, limiting the influence of Theravada in Malaysia, Indonesia, and most of the nearby islands as far south as the Philippines. Theravada did gain some exposure in Sumatra and Java, but the small population of Buddhists there today are primarily Mahayana. Today Theravada Buddhism is established in the US.

Summary of Teachings. Theravada (meaning “teaching of the elders”) is one of the eighteen to twenty Nikaya schools that formed early in the history of Buddhism. It is the only one of these schools still in existence. It is classed as Sravakayana (the vehicle of the auditor) or Nikaya Buddhism (a nikaya is a branch of the Pali Canon) and as Hinayana (the little vehicle). It sees the Buddha as a historical figure, is characterized by a psychological understanding of human nature, and emphasizes a meditative approach to the transformation of human consciousness. According to Theravada, the teaching of the Buddha fundamentally consists in abstaining from all kinds of evil, accumulating everything that is good, and purifying the mind. These aims can be accomplished by the “three trainings”: the development of ethical conduct, meditation, and insight-wisdom. The ultimate goal of Theravada is the achievement of the state of nirvana, wherein there will be no more births or deaths and the life of holiness is fully realized.

Creation. The universe is impersonal and everlasting and undergoes endless cycles of emergence and oblivion. All worldly phenomena are subject to three characteristics: impermanence, transience, and being unsatisfactory. All nonsimple things are composed of nonmaterial and material parts. The nonmaterial aspect has the qualities of sensations, perception, mental formatives, and consciousness.

Scripture and Authority. The Tripitaka (three baskets), also known as the Pali Canon, is the collection of primary Pali-language texts that form the doctrinal foundation of Theravada Buddhism. The Tripitaka and a body of postcanonical writings together constitute the complete body of classical Theravada scriptures. The Tripitaka is divided into three parts: the Vinaya Pitaka (texts setting forth the rules of conduct for those in the sangha, the community of ordained monks and nuns); the Sutta Pitaka (a collection of discourses containing the central teachings of Theravada Buddhism); and the Abhidhamma Pitaka (texts in which the doctrines presented in the Sutta Pitaka are arranged in systematic form).

God. The Pali Canon generally recognizes multiple gods of Indo-European origin. However, the gods do not play a role in the gaining of nirvana. Although their life spans are extremely long, they too must die and be reborn. Thus there is always an Indra (= Zeus), but the mind stream that is Indra changes. Birth as a god requires vast amounts of positive merit. Titans are also recognized and are called asuras. They too are not significant for nirvana.

Buddha. Unlike in Mahayana Buddhism, only the historical (Gautama Sakyamuni) Buddha and other past Buddhas are deemed legitimate; there are no true Buddhas today. Maitreya alone is accepted as a genuine bodhisattva. A Buddha has two types of bodies, the nirmana-kaya (the form body) and the dharma-kaya (the truth/reality body). This latter body is equated with the state of buddhahood itself; it is the essential nature of mind. The state of buddhahood is timeless, permanent, lacking any characteristics, and free of duality.

Sin. Buddhism does not recognized sin as such. Transgressions against morality produce negative merit, whereas altruistic acts produce positive merit. The law of karma is understood as a universal norm. Sakyamuni Buddha did not issue commandments but advised on how to be spiritually healthy.

Salvation. This is a Christian term that distorts the Buddhist concept of liberation. There are some liberation rituals, but they are not heavily emphasized. The highest goal is to become an arhat or a Pratyeka Buddha and thus achieve nirvana; it is reached through intense study and meditation. Traditionally, this goal (and its associated techniques) has been seen as the domain of fully ordained monks, who renounce all material possessions and deny their desires. Theravadins do not distinguish between the nirvana attained by a Buddha and that of an arhat (one who has gained insight into the true nature of existence, has achieved nirvana, and will not be reborn) or a Pratyeka Buddha (an enlightened being who has achieved enlightenment without the use of teachers or guides).

Afterlife. Theravada does not postulate a period between death and rebirth; the Mahayana period of bardo does not exist in Theravada theory. Until such time as nirvana is attained, death is immediately followed by rebirth. This process is spoken of by the analogy of passing a flame from one lamp to another. Nirvana is the ending of the cycle of rebirths and is beyond eternalism and nihilism.

Distinctive Beliefs and Practices. Sravaka. A sravaka is a monk who follows a highly ascetic approach to attaining nirvana, one involving suppression of desire, separation from the world, and periods of solitude. Such a disciple of the Buddha understands the four dogmas and sees through the unreality of the phenomenal world.

Meditation Techniques. These include jhana (a Pali word for a type of meditation with four progressive states), anapana (mindfulness of breathing), vipassana (insight meditation), and metta (unconditional loving-kindness).

Four Levels of Spiritual Attainment. There are four kinds of disciples who correspond to four degrees of spiritual progress. (1) Stream-Enterers are those who have destroyed the three fetters (self-belief, doubt, and faith in the efficacy of rituals and observances); they will be safe from falling into the states of misery (being reborn as an animal, hungry ghost, or hell-being). At most such persons will be reborn seven more times before attaining nirvana. (2) Once-Returners have destroyed the three fetters and diminished their degree of lust, hatred, and delusion. They will attain nirvana after one more rebirth in the world. (3) Non-Returners have destroyed the five lower fetters (those that bind beings to the world of the senses); they will never return to the world of humans. After death they are reborn in the realms inhabited by deities, from where they will attain nirvana. (4) Arhats have achieved enlightenment and are free from all defilements; their ignorance, cravings, attachments, and karma are forever dispensed with.

Temporary Ordination. In most countries where Theravada Buddhism is dominant, it is a common practice for young men to be ordained as monks for a fixed time. In Thailand and Myanmar, for example, young men often are ordained specially for the three-month-long Rain Retreat, though shorter or longer periods of ordination are not uncommon.

Parittas. Chanting parittas (texts with protective or auspicious properties) is an important practice. The texts are portions of material derived from the Khuddaka Patha, Anguttara Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, and the Sutta Nipata. These protection texts serve as incantations against negative forces.

Pratyeka Buddha. A Pratyeka Buddha is a being who achieves enlightenment without the use of teachers or guides, merely by contemplating the principle of dependent arising. Such beings arise only in ages when Buddhist teachings have been lost.

Bibliography. T. Berry, Buddhism; S. Collins, Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in Theravada Buddhism; R. Gethin, The Foundations of Buddhism; H. W. House, Charts of World Religions; N. Van Gorkom, The Buddha’s Path: An Introduction to Theravada Buddhism; P. Williams and A. Tribe, Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition.

S. J. Rost

TIBETAN BUDDHISM. Tibetan Buddhism is literally the Buddhism of Tibet, but it is more widely defined beyond the cultural-religious ethnicity of Tibetans. Tibetan Buddhism extends through Tibet, Nepal, India (diasporan Tibetans and Ladakh), and Bhutan; the Chinese province-level divisions of Qinghai, Yunnan, Sichuan, Gansu, and Inner Mongolia; Mongolia; and the Russian provinces of Buryatia, Tuva, and Kalmykia. Since the diaspora of the Tibetans in the 1960s, Tibetan Buddhism has spread globally, especially into Europe, North America, and Australasia. It continues to be readily accessible due in large part to the globe-trotting of the Dalai Lama, the endorsement of celebrities, the active placement of lamas into Western locations, promotion by the media, and a growing internet presence.

Loosely fitting in the Mahayana stream of Buddhism (more precisely, the Vajrayana), Tibetan Buddhism was woven historically into the original underlying Bon of Tibet, shamanism of Mongolia/Siberia, and/or the animism of the host culture. Drawing strongly from Indian Buddhist tantrism and now the secularism of the West, Tibetan Buddhism has evolved into an eclectic mix of doctrines and practices. As in the rest of Buddhism, the lineage of lama (teacher) to student is important, and hence Tibetan Buddhism is sometimes known as “Lamaism.” Devotees may take refuge in the Four Jewels: Buddha, dharma, sangha, and lama.

The Indian tantric master Padmasambhava is credited with bringing Buddhism to Tibet from India around the eighth century AD and establishing the Nyingma School. Beginnning in the tenth century, the “great translators” reformed much Tibetan Buddhism in line with current trends in India. The poet Milarepa’s (ca. 1052–1135) teacher Marpa founded the Kargyu School in Tibet; the Drukpa Kargyu sect became dominant in the Ladakh region of India and in the nation of Bhutan. The Sakyas also rose about the time of Milarepa. The Kadampas, founded by the Indian Dipamkara, were reformed by Tsong Khapa (ca. 1357–1419), earning the school the new name of Gelugpa (virtuous way); the Gelugpa School then established several monasteries (Nechung, Gandan, Sera, Trashilungpo) throughout Tibet and grew to be the most influential school. The Gelugpa School is the primary affiliation of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, and is resident with his government in exile in Dharmsala, in northern India.

The Tibetan Buddhist worldview is derived from a mixture of rigorous rationalistic Buddhist philosophy, the shamanism of Bon, and Indian tantrism. Rituals seek to empower participants by animating a model of the universe called a mandala, a circular picture or three-dimensional construction often made of fine colored sand. Alternatively, pilgrimages to holy sites, especially Mt. Kailash in western Tibet, are auspicious in gaining karmic merit. In the native Bon religion, it is common to appease ghosts, demons, and territorial spirits by blood sacrifices, mediated by the shaman, who is skilled in magic, ritual healings, and occasionally claiming to control the weather. The shaman enters into an ecstatic trance in which he travels to the spirit world. Buddhist Vajrayana also provides similar activities for the highly accomplished lama. All this revolves around a monastic hierarchy that originally claimed up to one-third of the male work force in pre-Chinese Tibet.

Another unique feature of Tibetan Buddhism is tantrism. Tantra seeks to break through illusion to self-realization by unifying opposites; hence, ritual sexual intercourse plays a central role. Visualization, too, is a foundation of tantra. Wrathful deities are visualized and allegedly aid in liberation: as the practitioner visualizes a liberated being, he supposedly becomes one himself.

Tibetan Buddhists have a complex worldview. Buddhas and bodhisattvas inhabit celestial spheres, and the world is in the fourth of five cosmic ages. The current age is under the bodhisattva of compassion, Avalokiteshvara, also known as Chenresig in Tibet and Kwan Yin in China. The Dalai Lama is “believed to be . . . the reincarnation of the previous thirteen Dalai Lamas, and the seventy-fourth [reincarnation of] a manifestation of Chenrezig. . . . [He is] spiritually connected both to the thirteen previous Dalai Lamas, to Chenrezig and to the Buddha himself” (Gyatso, 11–12). Thus being understood to be a reincarnation of the bodhisattva of compassion, the Dalai Lama preaches nonviolence and compassion incessantly. This doctrine is understood in Tibet mainly as benefiting animals; hence, the Tibetans’ reluctance to kill, which is regarded as creating very negative merit. In Buddhism in the West, however, compassion is understood in the larger Mahayana framework of the bodhisattva who altruistically postpones his entrance to nirvana so as to help others through to theirs by a transfer of karmic credit, beneficial activities, and teachings. However, this compassion is understood to reach the highest level when there is no ontological difference between the subject and the object since all is one.

The West remains fascinated with Tibetan Buddhism, although it can be argued that the “Tibetan Buddhism” of the West is modifying the Buddhism of Tibet, lightening its darker shades and secularizing it. A casual browse through the BuddhaNet website’s World Buddhist Directory reveals a large number of Tibetan Buddhist entities now located in the West: Dharma centers, publishing houses, university study groups, meditation groups, retreat centers, bookshops, and the like (BuddhaNet). The film industry continues to flirt with Tibetan Buddhism, producing Little Buddha (1994), Seven Years in Tibet (1997), Kundun (1997), Himalaya (1999), The Cup (2000), and Samsara (2001) and the International Buddhist Film Festival in Los Angeles. Celebrities in both the film and music industries boost the profile of Tibetan Buddhism: Richard Gere, Sharon Stone, Steven Seagal, Harrison Ford, Melissa Mathison (Ford’s ex-wife, who wrote the screenplay for Kundun), Philip Glass (who wrote the musical score of Kundun), Herbie Hancock, Courtney Love, Goldie Hawn, Tina Turner, Oliver Stone, Adam Yauch (of the Beastie Boys), and Michael Stipe (of REM). All either explicitly or implicitly promote Tibetan Buddhism in the West.

Western literature promoting Tibetan Buddhism is proliferating. The Bardo Thodol (The Tibetan Book of the Dead) remains popular, with Sogyal Rinpoche’s version, The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, selling 1.5 million copies worldwide. The Dalai Lama has written forewords to over forty books published in English alone.

The Dalai Lama’s globe-trotting and recent initiations using the Kalacakra Tantra are wooing a generation of Westerners into a monistic, tantric worldview.

Bibliography. C. Bell, Religion of Tibet; Buddha Dharma Education Association Inc. / BuddhaNet, World Buddhist Directory, http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/; G. Coleman, A Handbook of Tibetan Culture: A Guide to Tibetan Centres and Resources throughout the World; L. Feigon, Demystifying Tibet: Unlocking the Secrets of the Land of the Snows; T. Gyatso, Freedom in Exile: The Autobiography of the Dalai Lama of Tibet; D. S. Lopez Jr., Buddhism: An Introduction and Guide; Lopez, Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West.

H. P. Kemp

T’IEN/TIAN. In Confucianism t’ien (Chinese, “heaven”) refers to a transcendent moral order that grounds human civilization and serves as the standard of personal and corporate conduct. Prior to Confucius (551–479 BC), it was widely held that a transcendent, personal God (ti) ruled the universe. Confucius himself probably believed in such a sovereign deity, though in his writings he places nearly exclusive emphasis on the moral law derived from t’ien and on everyday social responsibilities; he did not concern himself with the nature of the divine or divine commands. Partly as a result of this neglect of theology and focus on ethics, Confucianism after Confucius largely abandoned the idea of God, replacing it with a view of t’ien as an impersonal (though potent) reality.