Can you suggest some books for me?

[Lilac]

As I've said, I'm a mainline Protestant denomination, probably closest to Baptist. I know quite a bit about theology and I've grown up in a Christian home and am raising my kids to be Christians. I enjoy theology and like to read about why people believe what. I'm from NYC so I've also read up on what my neighbors believe. Just for fun. So, in other words, I'm not starting at the beginning.

I've read Rough Stone Rolling (kinda long)

Mormonism for Dummies (light and fun)

I'm reading the BOM (going slowly)

And numerous books that I found in the library. But they were all so old. They were kinda dusty and not very inspiring. Maybe factual but kinda dull.

I also found a nice DVD from the library on the history of the LDS. It was like 8 hours and I watched it all.

I'm interested mostly in the hardcore theology of Mormonism and also the family life/feeling/emotions of being LDS. I have children so I'd like to get feel for the family/practical aspects of it. I like reading about baptisms, sealings, weddings, and such...

I'm hoping if you give me a few titles, I can get them from the library, maybe from another county. Money is tight like it is for everyone so I want to borrow whatever I can.

Any suggestions? Thanks.

[Guest Believer_1829]

"I'm interested mostly in the hardcore theology of Mormonism"

"The Temple and the Cosmos" by Hugh Nibley

[bytebear]

If you are interested in "hardcore theology" I would recommend Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith, both by James E. Talmage.

The first book goes over essentially every aspect of the life and doctrine of Jesus Christ, from the creation of the world to the second coming. It's chronological and is jam packed with scriptural references that explain every aspect of the role and mission and atonement of Christ.

The second book goes through the 13 articles of faith one at a time and goes into the same scriptural depth explaining what is meant by each point.

I would also recommend getting a copy of Gospel Principles. It's a Sunday School manual that goes over all the basics in an easy to follow lesson format. It's very good for understanding the fundamentals, and cross referencing with the more detailed stuff.

As for finding the books, have you contacted your local ward or branch. I bet you find a lot of resources through them. Even if the church library doesn't have them, if you find an active member in your area, I am sure they have many books they would be happy to lend you.

Edited August 17, 2009 by bytebear

[Lilac]

I didn't think about asking the ward. That's an idea. :)

I'd like to read up on my own a bit more. I have four kids and we have changed (protestant) churches so many times. I just want to be a bit more sure of what we are doing before I bring them to church and introduce them to yet another church. Ya know?

Thank you for the suggestions. I will search around and see what we can find.

[mlbrowninwa]

I have read "Mormon America-The Power and the Promise" by Richard N Ostling and Joan K Ostling. The author's are non-members, but I thought most of the book was well done. It's more of an overview I would say. They did their research and report what they found without taking sides. I have also started the above mentioned "Jesus the Christ", so far really good.

[bytebear]

Mormon America is a good overview of the secular nature of the church. It does have some subtle and not so subtle doctrinal and historical errors however, so take it with a grain of salt.

[rameumptom]

You can access many free online magazine and manuals here at the Church's website:

LDS.org - Gospel Library

It includes all the Sunday School manuals for both teachers and students, etc.

[Maya]

How about Shery Dew? She is amazing! Something a bit lighter from real life in between! I also think Ehrman is good and Margareth Barker. You can also go to LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage (I think it was) The Maxwell institutt and read eseys and stuff from there.

[Elgama]

Chieko N Okazaki is lovely to read, Lighten Up, What a Friend We Have in Jesus, are my 2 favourites - have just noticed one called Being Enough I have yet to read.

She is just so positive

-Charley

[lattelady]

Dear Lilac,

What is "Rough Stone Rolling" about?

[Palerider]

If you are interested in "hardcore theology" I would recommend Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith, both by James E. Talmage.

The first book goes over essentially every aspect of the life and doctrine of Jesus Christ, from the creation of the world to the second coming. It's chronological and is jam packed with scriptural references that explain every aspect of the role and mission and atonement of Christ.

The second book goes through the 13 articles of faith one at a time and goes into the same scriptural depth explaining what is meant by each point.

I would also recommend getting a copy of Gospel Principles. It's a Sunday School manual that goes over all the basics in an easy to follow lesson format. It's very good for understanding the fundamentals, and cross referencing with the more detailed stuff.

As for finding the books, have you contacted your local ward or branch. I bet you find a lot of resources through them. Even if the church library doesn't have them, if you find an active member in your area, I am sure they have many books they would be happy to lend you.

Jesus the Christ would be a great book to read.

[rameumptom]

Dear Lilac,

What is "Rough Stone Rolling" about?

RSR is actually titled, "Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling", by Richard Bushman. Bushman's bio is here.

RSR is one of the first biographies on Joseph Smith that is neither an anti-Mormon attack nor an LDS fluff piece. There are people on both sides of the aisle that do not like the book. It doesn't inspire, like other histories of Joseph Smith I've read. But it is fair to Joseph, also, unlike many diatribes that find their way into people's bookshelves.

[mnn727]

If you want to find out what we actually believe there is no better source than the Gospel Principles manual found here.

Gospel Principles

I'm sure some here will blast me for this but frankly "Jesus the Christ" that a lot of people are recommending took me 2 years to get through and while Talmadge may have been a scholar and a genius I think some of the things in it are more speculation than inspiration, and delves heavily into fringe beliefs that have nothing to do with salvation and are not teachings a member is required to believe.

Edited August 23, 2009 by mnn727

[Barter_Town]

Check out "No Man Knows My History" by Fawn Brodie, the seminal biography of Joseph Smith and still the best book about him, imo. Some LDS members don't like it because the author didn't approach its subject as a true believer, but I found it to be a fair and balanced treatment. Written by a serious historian with full access to the church historical archives.

[Justinator1]

The Great Apostasy by James E. Talmage was a great read for me when I was trying to understand exactly why a restoration was needed.

[bytebear]

Check out "No Man Knows My History" by Fawn Brodie, the seminal biography of Joseph Smith and still the best book about him, imo. Some LDS members don't like it because the author didn't approach its subject as a true believer, but I found it to be a fair and balanced treatment. Written by a serious historian with full access to the church historical archives.

Actually, Brodie's approach was that Smith was either insane or just a brilliant fraud, but the problem is she twists the facts to come to her conclusions. The difference between her work and RSR is that RSR simply presents the facts as accurately as possible and lets the reader decide. In fact Bushman's approach was to present Smith's story as Smith would have seen himself. Brodie on the other hand had her conclusions already defined before she did her research, and chose only the facts and evidence that furthered her preconceived assertions.

[mnn727]

Brodies style is such that the book she wrote about Thomas Jefferson was ripped by other historians, she starts with her conclusion first and then chooses only facts that support it.

[Dr T]

I rec this book:

[cougarfan]

You might try reading Cleon Skousen's books as well as anything by Joseph Fielding Smith or Bruce R. McConkie.

Thomas S. Monson also wrote some awesome stuff.

[Barter_Town]

Brodies style is such that the book she wrote about Thomas Jefferson was ripped by other historians, she starts with her conclusion first and then chooses only facts that support it.

What an insightful response.. LOL.. so, have you read any of her books? Didn't think so..

Yes, a couple of Jefferson biographers (Dumas Malone and Merrill Peterson, to be specific) did have problems with her book due to its speculation that Thomas Jefferson fathered children by one of his slaves (Sally Hemmings). Brodie and her publisher both knew that her book would be controversial, so it was hardly surprising that her arguments met stiff resistance from other Jefferson scholars.

Nevertheless her book became a national bestseller, was the main spring selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club, and was a NY Times bestseller for thirteen weeks. Literary reviews were generally positive, while historians were generally critical due to her unsupported speculations on the nature of the relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemmings.

Funnily enough Brodie has had the last laugh, considering the fact that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation concluded that there is a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was indeed the father of Sally's son Easton, and possibly the father of all the Hemmings children listed in the Monticello records.

Anyway thanks for proving my point -- most church members badmouth her biography of Joseph Smith without even having read it simply because she doesn't approach the subject as a true-believer. I guess that's just too much to fathom for some folks.

[Barter_Town]

Actually, Brodie's approach was that Smith was either insane or just a brilliant fraud, but the problem is she twists the facts to come to her conclusions. The difference between her work and RSR is that RSR simply presents the facts as accurately as possible and lets the reader decide. In fact Bushman's approach was to present Smith's story as Smith would have seen himself. Brodie on the other hand had her conclusions already defined before she did her research, and chose only the facts and evidence that furthered her preconceived assertions.

Well it is certainly apparent you haven't read the book, either. What is it with church members attacking a book they haven't even read?? That should be your first clue that something isn't right with this picture..

At no point did Brodie characterize Joseph Smith as "insane". If you had read it, you would know that her thesis is that Joseph Smith was simply a charismatic religious leader who believed his own hype. Not an unusual approach at all, as history has shown there has been no shortage of charismatic religious leaders who sincerely believe their own claims, even if it meant an untimely death. I found her treatment to be objective and far more sympathetic than she needed to be.

Bushman's approach in "Rough Stone Rolling", on the other hand, is about as far from objective as you can get. Case in point, his conceding the fact that Joseph Smith did indeed engage in treasure-digging, glass-looking, and believed in spirits that lived in the surrounding hills and forests who could be appeased by certain esoteric rituals, but spinning it as a "preparatory gospel." LOL.. if that isn't a non-scholarly approach, then I don't know what is.

If you prefer all your reading to be of the "faith-first" apologetic variety, then by all means, stick with "Rough Stone Rolling". Some of us prefer our biographies a little more academic.

[bytebear]

Well it is certainly apparent you haven't read the book, either. What is it with church members attacking a book they haven't even read?? That should be your first clue that something isn't right with this picture..

At no point did Brodie characterize Joseph Smith as "insane". If you had read it, you would know that her thesis is that Joseph Smith was simply a charismatic religious leader who believed his own hype. Not an unusual approach at all, as history has shown there has been no shortage of charismatic religious leaders who sincerely believe their own claims, even if it meant an untimely death. I found her treatment to be objective and far more sympathetic than she needed to be.

Bushman's approach in "Rough Stone Rolling", on the other hand, is about as far from objective as you can get. Case in point, his conceding the fact that Joseph Smith did indeed engage in treasure-digging, glass-looking, and believed in spirits that lived in the surrounding hills and forests who could be appeased by certain esoteric rituals, but spinning it as a "preparatory gospel." LOL.. if that isn't a non-scholarly approach, then I don't know what is.

If you prefer all your reading to be of the "faith-first" apologetic variety, then by all means, stick with "Rough Stone Rolling". Some of us prefer our biographies a little more academic.

Have you compared the scholarly credentials of both Brodie and Bushman? I admit it's been many years since I read her tripe. Brodie most definitely implies Smith was "insane" in that she felt he must have had some kind of psychedelic experience to warrant such an unshakable testimony. She was well known for her technique of leaving out important details that did not further her agenda. She gives a small amount of lip service to alternative theories, but dismisses them quickly and expands on her own theories. She wan't writing a biography, but a thesis on her own ideas. Fine, but it should be presented as such. Objectivity be damned.

In your original post, you said of Brodie, "Written by a serious historian with full access to the church historical archives." Would a "serious historian" lie to gain access to those church archives, that you tout as a badge of honor and authority? What you fail to mention is that she snuck into the archives under false pretenses. Some historian.

Where exactly in RSR does Bushman "say Smith "believed in spirits that lived in the surrounding hills and forests who could be appeased by certain esoteric rituals." I have read the book several times, and I don't recall that particular concession. I would love to see a citation.

Edited September 16, 2009 by bytebear

[Barter_Town]

Have you compared the scholarly credentials of both Brodie and Bushman?

Quite irrelevant.

I admit it's been many years since I read her tripe.

It is obvious that you have not read it.

Brodie most definitely implies Smith was "insane" in that she felt he must have had some kind of psychedelic experience to warrant such an unshakable testimony.

Please provide a citation. Thanks.

She was well known for her technique of leaving out important details that did not further her agenda.

Such as?

Does it bother you that much that she didn't approach her subject as a true-blue believer?

She gives a small amount of lip service to alternative theories, but dismisses them quickly and expands on her own theories.

Hmm.. sounds about like every other historian with a thesis.

She wan't writing a biography, but a thesis on her own ideas. Fine, but it should be presented as such.

Since when is a biography not a thesis on the historian's own ideas? And it certainly was presented as such:

Psychobiography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Objectivity be damned.

You really should read the book before making such charges. Her approach is far more objective (and sympathetic) than the reputation certain church-members have given it over the years suggests. Think for yourself; read the book.

In your original post, you said of Brodie, "Written by a serious historian with full access to the church historical archives." Would a "serious historian" lie to gain access to those church archives, that you tout as a badge of honor and authority?

Is it the information she found in the church archives that bothers you, or the fact that her introduction as "Brother McKay's daughter" gained her access?

What you fail to mention is that she snuck into the archives under false pretenses. Some historian.

From Wiki:

"Having found temporary employment at the Harper Library of the University of Chicago, Brodie began researching the origins of the Book of Mormon. By mid-1939, she confessed to her uncle, Dean R. Brimhall (another apostate Mormon), that she now hoped to write a full scholarly biography of Joseph Smith. Progress toward that goal was slowed by the birth of the Brodies' first child and by three rapid moves, a consequence of her husband's search for a permanent position. Nevertheless, in 1943 she was encouraged enough to enter her 300-page draft in a contest for the Alfred A. Knopf literary fellowship, and in May her application was judged the best of the 44 entries.

Brodie continued her research at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., where the Brodies now lived, as well as at the headquarters of the Reorganized LDS Church in Independence, Missouri. Eventually she also returned to Utah and managed some discreet research at the LDS Church Archives, gaining access to some highly restricted materials by being introduced as "Brother McKay's daughter," a subterfuge that made her feel "guilty as hell." Her pursuit of little-known documents was not discreet enough, however, and eventually it attracted the attention of David O. McKay. After a "painful, acrimonious encounter" with her uncle, Brodie promised never again to consult materials in the Church Archives.

In partial compensation, Brodie's research was enlarged by other students of Mormonism, most notably Dale L. Morgan (1914-1971), who became a lifelong friend, mentor, and sounding board. Brodie finally completed her biography of Joseph Smith in 1944, and it was published the following year by Alfred A. Knopf when Brodie was only thirty."

Fawn M. Brodie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where exactly in RSR does Bushman "say Smith "believed in spirits that lived in the surrounding hills and forests who could be appeased by certain esoteric rituals." I have read the book several times, and I don't recall that particular concession. I would love to see a citation.

Being the whitewash / spin-piece that "Rough Stone Rolling" is, Bushman understandably doesn't delve very deeply into these issues. But any self-respecting scholar of LDS history knows about them and I'd be happy to provide sources.

Here is Bushman's spin on Joseph Smith's occult practices in regards to his treasure-digging and glass-looking, which oftentimes required appeasing the local hill and dale spirits (Bushman doesn't mention that part, of course), as a "prepratory gospel":

"After 1828, Joseph could no longer see that magic might have prepared him to believe in a revelation of gold plates and translation with a stone. It did not occur to him that without magic his family might have scoffed at his story of Moroni, as did the minister who rejected the First Vision. Magic had played its part and now could be cast aside."

So, magic prepares people for revelations from God? LOL.. if that isn't spin, I don't know what is.

I'm not saying "Rough Stone Rolling" doesn't have its merits. It is interesting to see how an active Mormon handles these rather difficult issues. But don't fool yourself into thinking this is an objective treatment of Joseph Smith; it isn't.

[bytebear]

So, because she "felt guilty as hell" it makes her actions acceptable? Give me a break. And, I love how you dismiss both historians credentials as "Quite irrelevant." In other words, you don't want to compare because in comparison to Bushman, Broadie looks a lot like Michael Moore.

[mnn727]

Gee Bartertown, because someone disagree's with your opinion. it means they couldn't have possibly read any of her books? Give me a break!