Jesus and Yahweh, by Harold Bloom, is an analysis of the three characters Yeshua of Nazareth, Jesus the Christ, and Yahweh from a literary perspective intermixed with Bloom's doubtful gnostic Jewishness.#

Although peppered with one-line references to Mormons, I was primarily interested in this book due to my high regard for Bloom and in particular, his book The Book of J.#

Bloom's opener:#

This book centers upon three figures: a more-or-less historical person, Yeshua of Nazareth; a theological God, Jesus Christ; and a human, all-too-human God, Yahweh. That opening sentence cannot avoid sounding polemical, and yet I hope only to clarify (if I can) and not to give offense. [p. 1]

The reason I like Bloom so much is entirely apparent in this single paragraph:#

Shakespearean "self-overhearing" has one source in Chaucer, but perhaps the primary Shakespearean precursor is William Tyndale's Jesus in the Geneva Bible. Internalization in Shakespeare gets beyond Jesus', though Jesus inaugurated the ever-growing inner self, developed by St. Augustine, and which Shakespeare perfected in Hamlet, after reinventing it in Falstaff. [p. 10]

On the authenticity of the accounts in the New Testament:#

The New Testament is myth and faith, not a factual chronicale, and the writings of the untrustworthy Josephus have been falsified by Christian redactors. Jesus lacks both history and biography, and which of his sayings and teachings are authentic cannot be known. If you accept the Incarnation, none of this matters. Judaism after all is equally unreliable: did the Exodus actually happen? Christ's miracles, like Yahweh's, persuade only the persuaded. [p. 43]

On the anti-Pharisee sentiment in the New Testament:#

I guess, with Akenson, that Yeshua was a Pharisee, since ironically that accounts for the anti-Pharisaic fury of the New Testament, which needs to distinguish the particular Pharisee from all the others. Except for that, I have no other surmise. [p. 44]

A Bloomism: "I am inclined to believe that the best poetry, whatever its intentions, is a kind of theology, while theology generally is bad poetry." (p. 98)#

Bloom is very Mormoon in his emphasis that God is not anthropomorphic, but that men are theomorphic. (p. 119, and throughout)#

A quote from Donald Akenson: "I cannot believe that any sane person has ever liked Yahweh." (p. 174)#

Does Yahweh need us? (Brother Brigham says no.)#

If Yahweh needed the Jews, or the Christians, or the Muslims, or the Zoroastrians, Hundus, Buddhists, Confucians, Taoists, and all the others, it appears he required feeding through sacrifices, and wanted also endless barrages of praise, prayers, hymns of gratitude, and immense love, unceasing love. Is Yahweh simply a cosmological and timeless King Lear, patriarch-of-patriarchs? [p. 175]

Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition, by Jan Shipps#

Early Christianity thought of themselves in Hebraic terms. As the saints---for that is what the Bible calls them---of Solomon's day rejoiced when fire came down from heaven and the glory of the Lord filled the house during the consecration of the temple, so at Pentecost the "latter-day" saints of early Christianity rejoiced in God's goodness when a rushing mighty wind filled all the house and cloven tongues like as of fire sat on each of them. But as Christianity developed, as Jews and Greeks were together "in Christ" brought beneath the covenant that God had made with Abraham, it gradually became clear that the way espoused by the apostles included important elements that were not a part of Israel's tradition. Without fully and consciously realizing that they were doing so, the followers of Jesus established a new religious tradition. [p. ix]

An interesting parallel between Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision and other visions of Paul, Abraham, Moses, Enoch, Adam, etc.:#

As often as the stories of Joseph Smith's visions are repeated, it is surprising that very little emphasis is placed on Smith's description of how he was affected by these two experiences in which he received his divine calling. At the conclusion of his description of the 1820 experience, Joseph said, "When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back looking up to heaven... I had no strength." Then, recalling the aftermath of the night of 21/22 September 1823 in which his interviews with the angel Moroni "must have occupied the whole of that night," Joseph said his strength was so exhausted that when he tried to work alongside his father as usual he found he could not. Leaving his father's side, he started back to the house, only to fall "helpless to the ground, and for a time [to be] quite unconscious of anything." It stands to reason that it was the phenomenon of visionary trance to which Smith referred, and if this is, in fact, correct, then these trances, coming in response to divine calling, parallel a similar trance in which Saul became Paul on the road to Damascus. [p. 10]

Shipps talks a lot about how the early Saints literally re-lived many stories of the Israelites. Lots of examples, but when it occurs to you, you can fill in the details for yourself. (p. 50)#

She also writes about how early Utah Mormonism was vastly different than modern Mormonism. Her hypothesis is that when you are in the Kingdom of God, there is less reason to do things to set you apart. (p. 116)#

Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, by Richard Lyman Bushman, is a new biography of Joseph Smith, the first Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.#

From the preface:#

[It] is unlikely there will ever be consensus on Joseph Smith's character or his achievements. The multiplication of scholarly studies an the discovery of new sources have only heightened the controversies surrounding his life. The central difficulty is that Joseph Smith lives on in the faith of the Mormons, like Abraham in Judaism or Muhammad in Islam. Everything about Smith matters to people who have built their lives on his teachings. To protect their own deepest commitments, believers want to shield their prophet's reputation. On the other hand, people who have broken away from Mormonism---and they produce a large amount of the scholarship---have to justify their decision to leave. They cannot countenance evidence of divine inspiration of his teachings without catching themselves in a disastrous error. Added to these combatants are those suspicions of all religious authority ho find in Joseph Smith a perfect target for their fears. Given the emotional crosscurrents, agreement will never be reached about his character, his inspiration, or his accomplishments.

A believing historian like myself cannot hope to rise above these battles or pretend nothing personal is at stake. For a character as controversial as Smith, pure objectivity is impossible. [p. ix]

Josiah Quincy, Jr. on Joseph Smith: "If the reader does not know just what to make of Joseph Smith, I cannot help him out of the difficulty. I myself stand helpless before the puzzle." (p. 6) This was forty years after a visit where the parting remarks were:

Quincy remarked to Smith, "You have too much power to be safely trust to one man." Joseph replied that in Quincy's hands or another person's "so much power would, no doubt, be dangerous. I am the only man in the world whom it would be safe to trust with it. Remember, I am a prophet!" The manner of Joseph's answer intrigued Quincy. "The last five words were spoken in a rich, comical aside, as if in hearty recognition of the ridiculous sound they might have in the ears of a Gentile." Joseph knew his visitor was amused and skeptical, yet remained unfazed, sure of himself no matter what the Bostonian thought. [p. 7]

A re-occurring theme that I noticed throughout the book was how confident Joseph Smith was in his revelations. From the preface:#

[He] spoke in God's voice in revelations he compiled and published. [...] Many thought him presumptuous if not blasphemous, and he made no effort to prove them wrong. He did not defend his revelations or give reasons for belief. He dictated the words and let people decide. Everything he taught and most of what he did originated in these revelations. The question of this book is how such a man came to be in the age of railroads and the penny press. [p. xx]

Another near the end of the book:

His storytelling was oracular rather than argumentative. He made pronouncements on the authority of his own inspiration, heedless of current opinion. [p. 458]

The much-reported explanation of Joseph's treasure-hunting:#

In a sense, it was preparatory gospel. Treasure-seeking lore may have made it easier for his father to believe his son's fabulous story about an angel and gold plates. Joseph Sr. might have dismissed the report had not tales of spirits guarding treasure prepared his mind. [p. 54]

On the publication of the Book of Mormon:#

For all the effort and trouble he put into the translation, Joseph made little of the book's appearance. Neither he nor his mother named the day when bound copies were available. The first edition said virtually nothing about Joseph himself, the angel, or the process of translation. The preface contained one sentence---in the passive voice---about his part in the work: "I would also inform you that the plates of which hath been spoken, were found in the township of Manchester, Ontario county, New-York." His own name appeared only on the title page and in the testimony of the eight witnesses at the back. It was an unusually spare production, wholly lacking in signs of self-promotion. Joseph presented his handiwork to the public and moved on. The book thenceforth had a life of its own. [p. 83]

On the Indians as the Book of Mormon people:#

The Book of Mormon deposited its people on some unknown shore---not even definitely identified as America---and had them live out their history in a remote place in a distant time, using names that had no connection to modern Indians. [...] Neglecting to scatter obvious clues through its pages, the Book of Mormon seems more focused on its own Christian message than on Indian anthropology. The book refuses to argue its own theory. [p. 97]

Bushman points out that the Book of Mormon was the longest revelations and "should have" been written last, not first. He compares Joseph to Emerson (an exact contemporary), who at that age had nothing but journals to show for himself. (p. 105)#

On the dictation of all revelations:#

There was never any hesitation, reviewing, or reading back, in order to keep the run of the subject; neither did any of these communications undergo revisions, interlinings, or corrections. As he dictated them so they stood, so far as I have witnessed. [p. 130]

Another recurring theme in the book is that Mormonism survived because it was not based fully on Joseph's charisma, but soon had an organization independent of him to run on. (p. 251)#

On revelations in general and plural marriage:#

In public nd private, he spoke and acted as if guided by God. All the doctrines, plans, programs, and claims were, in his mind, the mandates of heaven. They came to him as requirements, with a kind of irresistible certainty. The revelations weighed him down with impossible tasks like translation, gathering, constructing a temple, or building a city. More than once he told the Church he had completed the work and had no more to accomplish, as if he hoped the revelations would subside.Then a new commandment would force itself upon him, and the work would resume.

Joseph ordinarily followed the commandments punctiliously, as if disobedience put him at risk. In the case of plural marriage, he held off for two or three years before marrying Fanny Alger, and then after this one unsuccessful attempt, waited another five years. The delay showed uncharacteristic reluctance, hard for one who feared God. [...] By delaying plural marriage, Joseph risked provoking God's wrath. [p. 4347]

On how Joseph shared the revelation about plural marriage:#

The message was always the same: This is a revelation from God to your prophet. Seek your own inspiration, and you will know for yourself. If you deny it, you will lose your blessings. [p. 491]

Many stories of an initial revulsion combined with a later spiritual confirmation are told in this section. (p. 492)

Random Notes#

People make a big deal about the similarity of visions in the Book of Mormon to vision reported to have been seen by Joseph Smith Sr., however, those visions were recorded by Lucy almost thirty years later. (p. 36)#

Many people were reporting visions of Christ in the 1820s. (p. 41)#

Joseph put much more importance in the visit of Moroni, than in the First Vision. At least initially. (p. 44)#

"The problem of history was to hold on to the Gospel, not to prepare for its coming." (p. 135)#

During Zion's Camp, Joseph admonished men from killing rattlesnakes to encourage an attitude where the "Lion [may] lie down with the Lamb." (p. 241)#

The Book of Abraham compares well with recent scholarship on apocryphal literature on Abraham. (p. 292)#

In 1837, Joseph never denied his relationship with Fanny Alger. He just denied it was adultery. (They were married.) (p. 325)#

On the Masonic rituals and the temple ceremonies: "Joseph often request revelation about things that caught his attention." (p. 449)#

Joseph married two sisters (p. 494), I wonder if he considered Leviticus 18:18:#

18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

A Marvelous Work and A Wonder, by Le Grand Richards, former presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is a former standard work in the library that missionaries are encouraged to read and ponder before and during their missions.#

This book is a really great summary of many of the teachings of the Church and presents them in a way that is very good for people new to the faith.#

An interesting quote from a Catholic scholar:#

One day he said to me: "You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days." [p. 3]

He points to the following scripture with regards to the assertion that God has a physical body:#

"And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell." (Deuteronomy 4:28) [p. 12]

For a purely spiritual God lacks these abilities.

There is a discussion near the end of the book about how prophets are chosen in the pre-mortal existence, including the prophet Joseph Smith. Richards then remarks:#

The same was true with respect to the mission of Joseph Smith. We have already quoted from his own story, showing how Satan sought to destroy him when he was but a boy of fourteen years and went into the woods to pray. Many other boys of that age had prayed without Satan's molesting them. Joseph had not yet had any manifestation from the Lord. Therefore, except for Satan's knowledge and acquaintance that he brought with him from the spirit world, he would not have known that Joseph Smith was different from any other young boy, but he knew who "the noble and great" spirit were. Remember, "there was a war in heaven," and Satan led one host, and he knew who the leading spirits of the opposition were. [p. 284]

The Great Apostasy, by James E. Talmage, is a very thorough catalog of the evidence for the Great, or general, Apostasy in the early centuries of Christendom. I recommend it.#

An Approach to the Book of Mormon, by Hugh Nibley (The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Volume 6)#

This book was originally a manual for the Priesthood class in 1957. The President at the time, David O. McKay, was asked why such a difficult book would be assigned, and wasn't it too difficult? McKay commented that it would be the responsibility of the quorums to raise themselves up. (Source)#

The structure of this book is to study various means by which the Book of Mormon can be tested and interesting details that increase our faith in it.#

The Changing Scene - Introduction to an Unknown Book#

On the issue of testing books:

"Proving" the Book of Mormon is another matter. You cannot prove the genuineness of any document to one who has decided not to accept it. The scribes and Pharisees of old constantly asked Jesus for proof, and when it was set before them in overwhelming abundance they continued to disbelieve: "O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?" (Matthew 16:3). When a mans asks for proof we can be pretty sure that proof is the last thing in the world he really wants. His request is thrown out as a challenge, and the changes are that he has no intention of being shown up. After all these years the Bible itself is still not proven to those who do not choose to believe it, and the eminent Harry Torczyner now declares that the main problem of Bible study today is to determine whether or not "the Biblical speeches, songs and laws are forgeries." So the Book of Mormon as an "unproven" book finds itself in good company. [p. 4]

On the modern belief that documents cannot be trusted:

If the documents do not tell us everything, it does not follow that they tell us nothing. They are, in fact, the diary of the human race---that alone can tell us what men have been doing and thinking all these years. [p. 5]

An interesting comment about relating what we read to our experience:

Anyone who attempts to read a historical source with an eye to being critical will naturally refer everything in it to his own experience. In so doing he will quickly discover in the document the most obvious parallels to the world in which he lives. This stuff, he decides, could have been written yesterday, and therefore must have been. If the document is an ancient one, however, he will also run into absurd and unfamiliar things so foreign to his experience or that of his fellows as to prove beyond a doubt that the document is a wild fabrication. This is the normal method and result of Book of Mormon criticism, which always finds proof for fraud in two kinds of matter: (1) that which is obvious and commonplace and therefore shows that Joseph Smith was simply writing from his own experience, and (2) that which is not obvious and commonplace and therefore shows that Joseph Smith was making it up. The critics, putting their trust in the easy generalizations of our shallow modern education, are apparently unaware that any authentic history of human beings is bound to contain much that is common and familiar, while on the other hand any genuine ancient record of any length is bound to contain much that is strange and unfamiliar to modern readers. [p. 7]

Comment on the language of the Book of Mormon:

Today some critics are fond of pointing out that the Book of Mormon is written in the very language of Joseph Smith's own society. That is as if a professor of French literature were to prove Champollion a fraud by showing after patient years of study that his translation of the Rosetta Stone was not in Egyptian at all but in the very type of French that Champollion and his friends were wont to use! The discovery is totally without significance, of course, because Champollion never claimed to be writing Egyptian, but to be rendering it into his own language. To test his Egyptian claims we would have to go back not to Grenoble but to Egypt; and for the same reason, to test the claims of the Book of Mormon to antiquity we do not go back to the town of Manchester but to the world from which it purports to come. There is only one direction from which any ancient writing may be profitably approached. It must be considered in its original ancient setting and in no other. Only there, if it is a forgery, will its weakness be revealed, and only there, if it is true, can its claims be vindicated. [p. 8]

The Changing Scene - A Time for Reexamination#

A very insightful remark:

Critics of the Book of Mormon often remark sarcastically that it is a great pity that the golden plates have disappeared, since they would very conveniently prove Joseph Smith's story. They would do nothing of the sort. The presence of the plates would only prove that there were plates, no more: it would not prove that Nephites wrote them, or than an angel brought them, or that they had been translated by the gift and power of God; and we can be sure that scholars would quarrel about the writing on them for generations without coming to any agreement, exactly as they did about the writings of Homer and parts of the Bible. The possession of the plates would have a very disruptive effect, and it would prove virtually nothing. On the other hand, a far more impressive claim is put forth when the whole work is given to the world in what is claimed to be a divinely inspired translation---in such a text any accuse or pretext for disagreement and speculation about the text is reduced to an absolute minimum: it is a text which all the world can read and understand, and is far more miraculous object than any gold plates would be. [p. 22]

The Doomed City - Politics in Jerusalem#

Nibley spends a great deal of time on pointing out that Lehi and his family did not consider themselves part of the community at Jerusalem.

There is something distinctly patronizing in his announcement: "I have charity for the Jew---I say Jew, because I mean them from whence I came. I also have charity for the Gentiles" (2 Nephi 33:8-9). That is, he has charity for the Jew because he is a Jew and has charity for everybody anyway! But when his brother Jacob says, "Behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people" and proceeds to expatiate upon their vices, he obviously excludes himself and his own people from their number (Jacob 4:14-15). [p. 99]

The Meaning of Wilderness - The Pioneer Tradition and the True Church#

Nibley discusses the common occurrence of the righteous fleeing to the wilderness (desert) to return to the truth.

One often hears it suggested that perhaps the Latter-day Saints overdo the "pioneer business." Yet as far as can be discovered the true church in every age has been one of pioneers---wanderers and settlers in the wilderness in the most literal sense. And in every age the church has been careful to preserve and recall in the midst of its own trials the pioneer stories of its own early days and of still earlier dispensations, thousands of years ago. If the stories are all strangely alike that is no accident: we can do no better than to "liken all scriptures unto us," as did Nephi of old, "that it might be for our profit and learning" (1 Nephi 19:23). [p. 155]

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Mormon#

This section of the book is very interesting in the astonishing similarities between the pre-Christ Jewish community at Qumron and the Book of Mormon societies.#

Ties Between the Old World and the New#

Some of the things discussed in this chapter: The evidence of Ezekiel 37:15-23; the details in the many accounts of Noah and the history in Ether; etc#

Jesus the Christ, by James E. Talmage#

This classic of Mormon literature was authored in the Salt Lake Temple by an Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is part of the `Missionary Library'---the set of books recommended to be read by missionaries. It is available for free online in audio format from lds.org.#

I find these comments on the state of religion during Jesus' time very interesting---particularly for their comparison with the time of the Restoration.#

The religion of the time was a matter of ceremony and formality, of ritual and performance; it had lost the very spirit of worship, and the true conception of the relationship between Israel and Israel's God was but a dream of the past [p. 65]

Many generations had passed in Jewry since any visible presence other than mortal had been manifest within the temple, either in the Holy Place or the Holy of Holies; the people regard personal visitation of heavenly beings as occurrences of the past; they had come almost to believe that there were no longer prophets in Israel. [p. 72]

This is a very succinct description of the purpose of Satan's temptation of Christ, and I think it contains lessons about the roll of faith and miracles in our own lives.#

Hungry as Jesus was, there was a temptation in Satan's words even greater than that embodied in the suggestion that He provide food for His famishing body---the temptation to put to proof the possible doubt implied in the tempter's "If." The Eternal Father had proclaimed Jesus as His Son; the devil tried to make the Son doubt that divine relationship. Why not prove the Father's interest in His Son at this moment of dire necessity? [p. 121]

Related is the peccability of Christ---if he could be tempted.

A really honest man will neither take nor covet his neighbor's goods, indeed it may be said that he cannot steal; yet he is capable of stealing should he so elect. His honest is an armor against temptation; but the coat of mail, the helmet, the breastplate, and the greaves, are but an outward covering; the man within may be vulnerable if he can be reached. [p. 127]

I really enjoyed this explication a particular statement of Christ's:#

To Simon and Andrew Jesus said: "Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." The contrast thus presented between their former vocation and their new calling is strikingly forceful. Theretofore they had caught fish, and the fate of the fish was death; thereafter they were to draw men---to a life eternal. [p. 186]

The relation between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Mosaic Law:#

The gospel may be said to have destroyed the Mosaic law only as the seed is destroyed in the growth of the new plant, only as the bud is destroyed by the bursting forth of the rich, full, and fragrant flowers, only as infancy and youth pass forever as the maturity of years develops. Not a jot or a title of the law was to be void. [p. 218]

A lesson on truth being in all things:#

Take a lesson from even the dishonest and the evil; if they are so prudent as to provide for the only future they think of, how much more should you, who believe in an eternal future, provide therefor! [p. 432]

An explanation of the parable of the fig tree:#

The leafy, fruitless tree was a symbol of Judaism, which loudly proclaimed itself as the only true religion of the age, and condescendingly invited all the world to come and partake of its rich ripe fruit; when in truth it was but an unnatural growth of leaves, with no fruit of the season, nor even an edible bulb held over from earlier years, for such as it had of former fruitage was dried to worthlessness and made repulsive in its worm-eaten decay. The religion of Israel had degenerated into an artificial religionism, which in pretentious show and empty profession outclassed the abominations of heathendom. As already point out in these pages, the fig tree was a favorite type in rabbinical representation of the Jewish race, and the Lord had before adopted the symbolism in the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree, that worthless growth which did but cumber the ground. [p. 490]

(BTW, this is Talmage at his most critical of the Jewish religion and not par for the course.)

On Caesar and God...#

One may draw a lesson if he will, from the association of our Lord's words with the occurrence of Caesar's image on the coin. It was that effigy with its accompanying superscription that gave special point to His memorable instruction, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's." This was followed by the further injunction: "and unto God the things that are God's." Every human soul is stamped with the image and superscription of God, however blurred and indistinct that line may have become through the corrosion or attrition of sin; and as unto Caesar should be rendered the coins upon which his effigy appeared, so unto God should be given the souls that bear His image. [p. 507]

The thoroughness of this book is amazing. Less than a hundred pages of Gospel have been turned into almost 800 pages of commentary guided by other scriptures and histories. It's quite incredible.#

The Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism: Joseph Smith's Unfinished Reformation (PDF), by Don Bradley.#

This article talks about a series of sermons in the last year of Joseph Smith's life about the principles of Mormonism: truth, friendship, and relief.

Prior to declaring these "grand fundamental principles," Joseph had attempted to define Mormonism in doctrinal terms in D&C 20, the Lectures of Faith, and the Articles of Faith. But each of these inevitably failed to provide a timeless or final definition of the faith's essence. The task of capturing Mormonism in a creedal statement was Sisyphean, because Mormonism was more committed to the principle of forever acquiring truth than to any particular formulation of the truth. It was a circle no state set of doctrines could square. [p. 36]

The impact of these principles of Christian unity:

But Joseph averred that he would not use his authority to press others to follow his beliefs and revelations, nor would he condemn them for failing to do so: "If I esteem mankind to be in error shall I bear them down? No! I will lift them up & [each] in his own way if I cannot persuade him my way is better! ... I will ask no man to believe as I do." [p. 37-38]

On relief:

As R. Dennis Potter has observed, "For King Benjamin, the fundamental sin... is the failure to take care of the poor." Since for Benjamin, to serve others was to serve God, to neglect others in need was to neglect God, jeopardizing one's standing before him. In Benjamin's theology, receiving a remission of sins requires faith and repentence, but "from day to day" requires that one "impart of [one's] substance to the poor" (Mosiah 4:26). [p. 38]

I think this can be interpreted too literally. We must also consider the need to provide relief and comfort for those who are spiritually poor, i.e. lacking in Christ-like qualities. The Saints must be perfected and we are on the same team, working for the same goal.

Our Heritage, A Brief History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, is a concise summary of Church history.#

A very intriguing incident:#

Vincenzo di Francesca, an Italian minister of religion, was walking down a New York City street toward his church when he saw a book without a cover in a barrel full of ashes. He picked up the book, turned the pages, and saw for the first time the names Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, and Moroni. He felt impressed to read the book even though he did not know its name or origin, and to pray about its truthfulness. As he did, he said that “a feeling of gladness, as of finding something precious and extraordinary, bore consolation to my soul and left me with a joy that human language cannot find words to describe.” He began teaching the principles in the book to the members of his church. His church leaders disciplined him for doing so and even directed him to burn the book, something he refused to do.

He later returned to Italy, where in 1930 he learned that the book was published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He wrote a letter to the Church in Utah that was forwarded to President Grant. President Grant sent him a copy of the Book of Mormon in Italian and gave his name to the president of the European mission. The difficulties of wartime prevented Vincenzo from being baptized for many years, but he was finally able to become a member of the Church on 18 January 1951, the first person baptized on the island of Sicily. Five years later he was endowed in the Swiss Temple. [p. 109]

The Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine Pagels, is a series of essays on the aforementioned texts: their origin, their contents, and the political struggles in early years of Christianity.#

The most concise summary of the differences:#

Orthodox Jews and Christians insist that a chasm separates humanity from its creator: God is wholly other. BUt some of the gnostics who wrote these gospels contradict this: self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical. [p. xx]

An interesting interpretation:#

And when he saw the creation which surrounds him and the multitudes of angels around him which had come forth from him, he said to them, "I am a jealous God, and there is no other God beside me." But by announcing this he indicated to the angels that another God does exist; for if there were no other one, of whom would he be jealous? [p. 29]

The Gnostics interpreted this quote from the Gospel of Thomas as supporting the idea of gnosis:#

"If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you." [p. 126]

I think a better interpretation of this is that we must do our best and bring everything we can to the table, and that Christ will make up the difference to God. The second part means that if we are dishonest in giving our all, then the omniscient God knows our transgression.

Pagels reasons that one of the main reasons that the orthodoxy `won' is that they were able to create an incredibly accessible organization, rather than one that was closed and only for the elite and elect.#

According to Professor Helmut Koester, "the test of orthodoxy is whether it is able to build a church rather than a club or school or a sect, or merely a series of concerned religious individuals." Origen, the most brilliant theologian of the third century, expressed, although he was himself brought under suspicion of heresy, the orthodox viewpoint when declared that God would not have offered a way of salvation accessible only to an intellectual or spiritual elite. [p. 147]

The Book of J, translated by David Rosenberg, with commentary by Harold Bloom.#

The `Book of J' referred to by this book is described in the Wikipedia article on the Documentary Hypothesis, in the section on The modern hypothesis. I won't explain all the details, except that Bloom thinks the Yahwist is probably a princess of the House of David, writing after Solomon and the breakup of the United Monarchy.#

On the anthropomorphism that is not problematic in Mormonism:#

The long history of what is called "the problem of anthropomorphism" brought about by J's depictions of Yahweh constitutes one of the curious cultural comedies of Western religious tradition. Embarrassment caused by the impishness of J's Yahweh presumably began with the early revisionists, attaining a first culmination with the work of the Redactor. But such puzzlement or resentment at the Yawistic text became far more overt among the Jews of Hellenistic Alexandria during the last two centuries before the common era. Greek philosophy demanded a dehumanized divinity, and Jewish Hellenists rather desperately sought to oblige, by allegorizing away a Yahweh who walked and who argued, who ate and who rested, who possessed arms and hands, face, and legs. [p. 24]

One of things I enjoy about Bloom is that he puts the Book of Mormon in the same sentence as the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran, in every instance that he must mention them. (See for example, p. 31.)#

Another thing that I like about Bloom, although in a complex way, is that he advises the reader of the Book of J to forget all their religious beliefs and read the book as an exquisite piece of writing that transcends all preexisting genres and has a level of irony unequaled ever before or since. I find that to be true and reminiscent of Aslan on the Quran, but also to miss the mark a little bit. The closer we get to the original and understand the revisions, we can understand more about the purpose of the writing, Yahweh. [p. 48]#

Something I've always noticed in the King James translation of Genesis in the story of the Tower of Babel that God says "Let us go down" and refers to multiple divine beings. Bloom mentions this around page 50 and shows multiple translations. In Rosenberg's translation, the phrase is translated as "Between us, let's descend", as if Yahweh is talking to the reader or himself and being `impish', in Bloom's words.#

On Adam naming the animals and beasts:#

When we consider Adam's task of naming, we often do not remember that what is being named is precisely what is not fit to mend Adam's solitude. J's insight is Nietzschean long before Nietszche: that which we find words for is that which we cannot hold in our heart. [p. 179]

Typical Bloom:#

We, whoever we are, are more naive, less sophisticated, less intelligent than J or Shakespeare. [p. 234]

David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, by Gregory A Prince, Wm Robert Wright, is a biography of David O. McKay, a president and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, based on the extensive diary and record kept by his personal secretary over his tenure as a General Authority.#

This book contains many insights on a particularly formative time in the Church's history. I will try to quote some parts that I find most interesting and/or inspiring.#

Once when McKay was getting gas at a pump station, a kid who was not quite on the right track had an interesting interaction with him:#

He had the temerity to say, "When was the last time you talked to God, President McKay?" No properly brought-up LDS kid would ever do that. You might wonder, you might think about that, but who would say that? This kid came back to the service station really quite shaken and shared this story with the other kids. [...] President McKay said, "It was last week." Now, he left everybody wondering what he really meant by that, whether he was praying, talking to God, or whether it was another kind of experience. But the way it was said, it really left this kid shaken up [... and] it really turned him around. [p. 26]

All of Chapter 2 is amazing.#

Chapter 7 on what exactly `correlation' was is interesting. I personally find it to be very sensible and a good idea.#

The chapter on temple building is very interesting. I thought the idea that Mark Garff, chairman of the Building Committee, offered, about a temple-ship was quite incredible. Imagine what that would've been like! (p. 273)#

I found all the discussion of Ezra Taft Benson quite inspiring. I got a strong feeling that when Benson dropped his politics as he became president that it was a very spiritual experience, whereby he realized the importance and impact of his earthly work.#

A great quote related to LDS chaplains in the military:#

President Johnson said, "Listen here, these Mormons, from the minute they are out of their mothers' womb, have been praying and teaching and leading one another, and then they go out on missions." He said, "I would rather have one of their boys than one of the preachers you get out of the seminary, so you fix it up so that they can get their chaplains." [p. 357]

The story of McKay's final days was very faith-promoting, as he was able to garner enough strength for conference speeches and advisory discussion, but generally was in rough shape.#