To save fuel, the government decrees a new reduced speed limit of 55 mph. Now each of those truck drivers can only travel 550 miles per day in the same 10 hours. That is a reduction of about 20% in work accomplished for each driver.

Now, these drivers have contracts and commitments to their customers to maintain. The demand for work did not reduce with the speed limit. They cannot physically deliver the same amount of products as they used to, but the same amount needs to be delivered somehow. Therefore, they will need to hire a 6th driver and a 6th truck to make up for the 20% less work the 5 current drivers are doing. However, the 6th driver is not going to work for free, and the truck will cost a lot of money that must be taken out of the general profits of the other 5 truck drivers.

By lowering the speed they drive, the truck drivers are saving about 3% in fuel costs, which is good, but they must still keep their commitments to their customers. Therefore, the 6th driver, still needs to be hired, and the new truck bought, but he will have 15% less work to do. The trucker’s union will demand he get paid the same, or that the work is evened out among all six drivers, so the net result will be that all the truck drivers will get a 3% reduction in pay in addition to accomplishing less work.

However, this 3% in fuel savings is more than negated when factoring in the cost of fueling the 6th new truck, which will consume the same amount of fuel as the original 5 trucks. The trucking company’s fuel costs, and the amount of fuel burned, will actually go up 5%! (20% reduction in efficiency = purchasing and hiring to make up that 20% minus 15% in fuel savings = 5% more fuel consumed.)

Now, multiply this by thousands of trucks and trucking companies, plus the energy (and fuel burned) to produce additional trucks that were not previously needed, plus the cost in inefficiency in having to spend time and resources in find and train new drivers, and you will see that the reduced speed limit actually caused the consumption of more fuel, accomplishing the exact opposite of what was intended by the law. And, this is only within the trucking industry! The cost in fuel and time resources in all other industries and private life is incalculable!

This is a classic example of the government stepping beyond its natural bounds. The government did not create the market or the need for products to be transported—people did. These needs and desires are the product of millions of people making millions of decisions to better their lives or just survive. No entity or reduced sampling of this whole population (such as a legislature, president or king) can factor in all the variables involved in laws intended to adjust the will of the whole people. I would almost suspect it to be even outside God’s power—almost.

Material gain, economic security, and conservation of resources cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the result of work. Unless the bread (or service) is produced, it cannot be distributed or accomplished and government does not produce—people do. That is all the people and all the factors. Any attempt to improve one facet of society by force of law will have ripple effects on everything else in that society. It may indeed improve (temporarily) that particular facet, but always at a higher cost to the rest of the society. Like the waves from a stone of favoritism thrown into a pond, the disruption spreads in ever winder and wider circles until the whole pond is effected and must consume energy to return to the previous state.

An unnatural favoritism is introduced for one segment of the whole (in this case the saving of fuel) which disrupts the progress of all other segments leading to the demand for favoritism in them. That sixth truck driver, though only the result of a law, will demand equal treatment. To pay his salary, the trucking company—to remain competitive—had to layoff their bookkeeper. Now all the divers must keep their own books in addition to being paid 3% less. The drivers therefore demand more pay, go on strike, the company pays them more, is no longer competitive, looses customers, must layoff drivers, trucks and their value are wasted by sitting idle, and on and on.

Incidentally, one of beauties of capitalism, is that when a company or person fails or succeeds, you can’t usually find the reason—it is the product of too many factors. But, when the government creates laws to control the will of the people, like a monkey wrench thrown into the machine, we all have something specific to blame or reward. Tis much better to know that the whole pond contributed completely unintentionally to our condition than to have focused anger or praise.

It seems to be common wisdom that men have a stronger sexual drive then women. I feel this is not really accurate. I have seen in scientific studies and from my own experience that there are five major factors among the differences between men and women that may lead to misconceptions about sexual desire. I will place these under the following headings:

• Adolescent Development
• Sexual Desire Level Cycle
• Arousal Time
• The Menstrual Cycle
• Emotional vs. Visual Traits

Adolescent Development

When the average male reaches puberty his sexual interest is sparked and develops quite rapidly. By age 13 or 14 he is well on his way to reaching his peak in sexual interest. By age 18 he has reach that peak and remains there pretty consistently the rest of his life, declining only slightly, until about age 60.

The average female’s sexual desire develops more gradually. Sexual interest begins at puberty, like the male, but develops comparatively slowly until about age 18 then begins to develop a little more rapidly. She does not reach the same level of sexual interest of the average male until around age 25.

Studies have shown that the average female’s sexual desire level actually exceeds, slightly, the male’s in her mid to late 30s. Her body may be telling her that her biological clock is winding down and she better start reproducing soon. Her sexual desire soon returns to the same level as the male’s.

So, there is a gap or area of variance between the developmental experiences of males and females (see figure 1) where conflicts, pressures, and other divergent misconceptions about sex can be formed, particularly in females, that can be carried on and influence the rest of a person’s life and attitude toward sexual relations. The boy is fully developed and “ready to go,” so to speak, considerably earlier than the girl. He is also learning how to manage this new, and quite powerful, desire and may make some mistakes in the process. The girl, not yet at his level, may understandably develop habits of resistance if she is overexposed to sexual pressure before she has reached a coinciding interest.

Figure 1

Although these differences in development are eventually negated, the effects of adolescent experiences during the process, whether traumatic or benign, can have a powerful effect on adult perceptions. A woman who was continually pressured about sexual matters in her teenage years may read more into her husband’s sexual advances than is really there—thinking his sexual desire (like those gross teenage boys) far exceeds hers. Likewise, a man who had met continual resistance to physical attraction in his younger years may think all women don’t desire sex nearly as much as he does. If both are fully aware those experiences may only be a result of developmental differences, they may come to realize their sexual desire levels are probably more on a par than they thought now that they are older.

Advise to young men: It is important you understand that although your passions may be fully developed, your experience and maturity are not. You are not ready for the powerful emotions and responsibility that comes with that passion, and you will only hinder its enjoyment later on by not harnessing and channeling it towards constructive results now. Anything you try too soon will come back to haunt you, usually pretty quickly.

Advise to young women: Understand that there is a reason those boys are a little crazy right now. You must also know that you will not fully comprehend their motivations or desires right now, but you eventually will. Meanwhile, you need to beat those boys off with a stick while at the same time having compassion for their predicament and realize that with your own maturity and experience you will fully enjoy such passions in the future, when you are ready.

Sexual Desire Level Cycle

Probably the most apparent difference between the sexes is the “mood” cycle. Anyone who has been married for more than a day will understand this perfectly. Men are predicable, very predictable, when it comes to being in the mood for sex. People say the man wants sex all the time. Well that’s not quite true. There are times when he wants it, and times when he is indifferent, but these desires are pretty consistent and don’t vary much or go to any great extreme, usually.

Women, on the other hand, can change their mood almost continually. There are infinite variables that have an influence on her sexual desire level. It is not uncommon for a woman to change her clothes several times a day to match the mood she is in at the moment, whereas a man would wear the came outfit indefinitely if it didn’t start to smell bad. This cycle in women, like everything else about women, is multifaceted and complex. The woman is capable of reaching much higher highs and much lower lows than a typical man on a daily, weekly, monthly, and even seasonal basis. The female mind is more adept at processing variable data than the male’s; she therefore may have many more sources of influence having an effect on her mood and desire level. These influences and moods can change rapidly or slowly and can overlap on many levels. She may be in a “funk” for several weeks, with periods of excitement, or she may be energetic and happy overall for a time, but have occasional episodes of melancholy. It is all typically more extreme than men’s emotions, and is almost completely unpredictable.

Figure 2

Thinking of men as some sort of “Steady Eddie” while women are “Wacky Wanda” can be misleading when forming ideas about sexual desire levels. Yes, men seem to want sex a lot, but if you look at the graph (see figure 2), you may notice that he typically does not have very far to go to change his mood from indifference to wanting sex. But, there is a trade off. You will notice that his desire level usually does not exceed a certain level. Women, on the other hand, are capable of reaching much higher planes of sexual enjoyment than men, but they can also have periods where the very idea of sex is abhorrent.

Arousal Time

Another factor in the misconception of sexual drives is the difference in the time it takes for men and women to “get in the mood.” Women usually need 15 to 20 minutes—sometimes more, sometimes less—of romantic and emotional stimuli before they are ready for a sexual or even sometimes just a physical experience. The typical man, on the other hand, can be ready in as little as 30 seconds. (If he is over 40 years old, 32 seconds. Sigh…)

Simply because men can be easily aroused does not mean their level of interest is necessarily greater than a typical woman’s. Likewise a woman’s sexual drive may be just as powerful as a man’s, but simply needs more effort to be aroused.

Menstrual Cycle Influence

A major influence in the woman’s sexual interest level is her monthly “period.” This may have a wide range of different effects on different women and may not always have the same influence every month. In addition to the 4 or 5 days where sexual intercourse is not reasonably practical, there is the period of time just before menstruation begins and the couple days after it has ended that can have a strong effect on the woman’s mood. Premenstrual Syndrome, or PMS, can have a profound influence in attitudes towards sex and can be quite negative. When someone is experiencing cramps and hormonally-induced mood swings, sex is usually the furthest thing from their minds, and in fact they can even get hostile to the very idea. PMS is not an issue with some women, and some may experience it only infrequently, but it still may have some effect. On the plus side, though, there is a period of about 3 days or so about 14 days before menstruation begins when the woman’s body is ovulating (an egg cell within her ovary is ready to be fertilized) where she may be particularly interested in sex. An observant husband can keep mental notes (I wouldn’t suggest keeping a written record—that’s a bit weird) of his wife’s cycle and be conscience of her body’s needs. Knowing when, and when not to suggest intimacy will go a long way in dispelling misconceptions about sexual drive.

Emotional vs. Visual

Women focus on the emotional

Men focus on the... well... visual

Finally, there is one major disparity between the sexual motivations for men and women. Men are primarily influenced by visual stimuli whereas women tend to enjoy the emotional and romantic side of sex more. In one study, men and women were shown a picture of a couple making love and then asked a series of questions about what they thought when they saw the image. Almost all the men described how they thought it would be like to have sex with the woman in the picture, and almost all women described how they thought it would be like to be the woman in the picture. The male wants to “do” and the woman wants to be “done to,” to put it crudely.

Now, this does not mean men are necessarily more “shallow” than women, or even have stronger or more “depraved” sexual needs. It is only a matter of emphasis. Women, of course, care about a man’s appearance and can be “turned on” by the sight of a handsome man, but it is a much less important factor to her than the emotional. These emotional factors include the man’s ability to provide for her and protect her; to give her security, comfort and peace of mind. Romance and seduction are much more powerful in the woman’s sexual experience than for the man.

I have often thought of the habit of lying in adults to be a mark of immaturity. Their lies may be more complex since they have more fully developed their intellect, but contrary to their intelligence, their emotional development has been retarded or has ceased altogether. My theory is that such development becomes impaired during their late adolescence when sin, serious sin, becomes a possibility.If they fail to repent from such mistakes, fully and soon, all other aspects of emotional maturity cease to develop. They have no other way to justify such sin except through a lie (to themselves and others), and since their intellect is not quite set, the habit of lying gets ingrained.

Examples abound within public figures where we say, “I can’t believe he thought he could get away with that lie.” He may be very intelligent, even brilliant, but he is morally stuck with the self-preservation paradigm of a little child.

The honorable Senator Harry Reid begins his speech with family anecdotes and a brief personal history. He mentions his early childhood in poverty and his mother’s admiration for Franklin Roosevelt. He also gives an account of how he and his wife were converted to Mormonism. It is a beautiful and touching personal story which is beyond any criticism. I will concern myself here only with his political statements given within the speech.

Senator Reid: “I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it.”

Well, Mr, Reid, I am a Republican because I am Mormon. Apparently we have differing views of what it means to be Mormon. Really, the only difference between the two parties is the question of means. We are both for helping the poor and downtrodden, and I don’t appreciate the insinuation that I, being of the other party, somehow hate the poor or don’t care about the less fortunate. Many have come from the same poor background as you, Mr. Reid, and yet do not ascribe to your solutions. Bringing up your poverty-stricken background does not lend any moral authority to your political persuasions, any more than it would to your religious ones. In case you are wondering, the difference is this: FORCE. Democrats believe in using force to correct or change society (or don’t even think about it), and Republicans do not. Simple. Don’t get me wrong, force often works, but nothing lasting ever comes about by force. Try forcing people to “convert” to Mormonism and see how that works out in the long run.

Senator Reid: “Social Security is the most successful social program in the history of the world.”

As “social” programs go, maybe so. Observe: I am forced to “contribute” 12.4% of my paycheck to a program in which literally everyone else has a say in how my earned money is to be used. This fact alone tells you that it is not going to be used very efficiently. And of course, these people, through their elected representatives, have decided to use my money for other purposes than for what it was intended and have left me promissory notes in the form of government-issued bonds (issued to itself, incidentally) in exchange for my money. And it is my money—I earned it, not them. But, if by some miracle I was allowed to sue for its return, they couldn’t give it to me—they don’t have it. They must borrow it. That 12.4% (6.2% from me and 6.2% from me through my employer’s cost of employing me) could have earned interest at an average rate of 10% a year if I was allowed to invest it (my own money) in the most conservative stocks. It would have even earned more if I had just left it in my bank account. It still would have been better off if I just stuffed it under the mattress—at least it wouldn’t have been “borrowed.”

One can make the argument that I am being “forced” to support the military, police, roads, etc. There is a subtle distinction here, though, that most current Democrats cannot see: These things have to do with public and general protection and natural monopolies, not individual security or welfare. The constitution and social compacts dictate what the government can do. We can only give another entity power we already possess. I cannot force my neighbor to save for his retirement and he cannot force me to pay for his personal retirement either. The very idea is ludicrous. However, I have a right to travel on open land or roads held in common and to protect my home and possessions, and therefore can give that power to someone else in the form of community and national police and local roads and large highways which are natural monopolies.

So, as far as “social” programs go, Social Security is about as successful as any such kind of immoral program can get. People do manage to get money back in their old age (for now), at least on paper, if you don’t factor inflation honestly, or the cost of lost opportunity through their own investments and purchasing decisions. This only proves the earlier point: When a good principle (saving for old age or insurance against the uncertainties of such) is implemented through force, it eventually accomplishes almost the opposite of its intention, or at best, nothing of worth.

A near-perfect case study in this would be the forced “conversions” in early Islam and Christianity. Yes, we have a lot of “Christians” and “Muslims” in the world as a result, but these religions would not be recognizable to their founders today—massacring innocent people and justifying almost any carnal or low inclination in their name. The very beauty of Mormonism is that it is a choice. Choice is essential and central to all of Mormon doctrine. Having social security is also beautiful, no sane-minded person would argue that, but it is the means that negates its intended effects—much like sex is beautiful if the proper relationship is there, but if force is involved in any way… The same applies to Mr. Reid’s “social” programs. It is akin to prostituting what is beautiful.

Mr. Reid: “I say government can be our friend.”

Wow! That is one of the scariest thoughts I have ever heard. If you were going for shock-value there, Mr. Reid, you couldn’t do better. No one is my friend who ultimately holds the gun. Try not paying your taxes or “contributions” because you don’t want your neighbor to meddle in your personal affairs and see what happens. Government is force, plain and simple, and we must try to get by with the least amount of force in our lives, even if that means suffering. According to Mormon theology, that is why we are here. Government by its very nature is a necessary evil. When it grows, evil grows, or at the very least has more avenues within which to spread.

Mr. Reid: “…during a crisis, people have only three places to look for help: family, government and God.”

Slightly out of order there, but subtlety is apparently beyond the good Senator’s grasp. I am glad he remembered to capitalize “God” and not “government,” though. Interesting term, this word “government.” As far as I can see, it has no root in “relief” or “help.” It ensures justice and protection, but should never be in the business of providing. It provided quite well for the king and nobles in the past, but I thought we fought a revolution or something to get rid of that. Apparently the fight really never ends. Whether you’re providing for yourself (king) or the poor (socialism) under the threat of force, there is no difference to the one being forced.

Mr. Reid: “I say unions are responsible for the forty hour week, decent wages and safe working conditions.”

Well, you can “say” that, but it does not make it true. The facts are the forty hour week did not come about until there was no need for a sixty, eighty, or more hour week. Economic growth brought on the forty hour week. An ancient farmer, or even one in the Third World today, works well beyond forty hours in a week because he absolutely must to survive. Likewise, child labor laws did not go into effect in the U.S. until the economic need for child labor was gone. If your family is going to starve, your children are going to work, it is as simple as that. They “jumped the gun” economically in Thailand when they passed child labor laws there. The economy could not yet handle it. Children lost the means to sufficiently contribute to the support of their families and were forced into illegal economic activity, like prostitution and drug trafficking, just to survive. As soon as technology and the economic efficiency of production reached critical-mass, consumerism required less time and resources be spent at work. Only then did business, and public opinion support the forty hour week. Before that, the majority of the voting working class (and particularly the farmers) were hostile to a set number of hours per week and any laws dictating such.

This brings up another point to ponder: Why is there no Welfare system in places like Thailand, Mexico or the Philippines? Two reasons: (1) There is not enough economic wealth in the form of “rich people” to finance it and (2) any immoral practice (the forced taking from one to give to another by a third party) requires a certain amount of virtue within the society at large to prop it up to any level of functionality. If we in the U.S. all had no moral fortitude or compunctions, we would all head down to the Welfare office today and find varying ways of qualifying for “assistance” and the whole system would collapse overnight. Many Third World and semi-Third World countries do not yet approach the baseline of honesty required for socialist programs to work. It’s a chicken-and-the-egg dilemma. Are they dishonest and immoral because they are poor, or are they poor because they are dishonest and immoral?

Mr. Reid’s general statements about the environment and energy reform.

Global warming or the more technically correct term “climate change” may very well be taking place and is being influenced by human activity. But, given your propensity, Mr. Reid, for wishing to force others to what you think they should do or what may be thought of as right, you must forgive us conservatives for being concerned as to your true intentions. It is not beyond reason to expect “environmentalists” to someday tell us what color to paint our houses (assuming we are still allowed to live in such) so that it does not disrupt the “natural color of the surrounding biosphere and possibly interrupt the proper rhythm of migratory birds.” This is all a Pandora’s box of  evil “control freaks” we freedom-loving conservatives are not going to open ourselves up to. It is no coincidence almost all socialists are also “environmentalists.”

Mr. Reid: “Some say that if you help the wealthy, they will crate jobs and it will trickle down and help all.”

Okay, this would be true in some cases and in some respects, but this is a case of repositioning the assumptions. What does Senator Reid mean by “help” the wealthy? They already are punished and treated differently than everyone else based on their earning ability. Sort of like punishing someone because their skin color is different. Someone’s talent or circumstances are such that they become a candidate to be singled out for different treatment. So, “helping” the wealthy by bringing their tax rate to the same level as everybody else, is not “helping” them, it is only treating them the same under the law. That is equality.

And a funny thing happens when you allow everyone the same level playing field. The only way someone can then get wealthy (legally, of course) is by providing a product or service that someone else is willing to pay for. If they do not, or cannot, they will eventually cease to be wealthy or will never become such. Both parties see a benefit in every willing transaction. This particularly works in the employee/employer relationship. If an employee is to be successful, and maintain and grow in his job, he must provide the best service to his employer for the price. Likewise, if the employer is to be successful in maintaining customers or a market for his services, he must have the best and and most content and therefore most productive employees for the price. On the whole (the macro level) everyone wins. There is no “trickling.” Each gets the best deal they can going both ways, in the aggregate. It is only when a third party, like the government—which can have no concept of the individual variables at stake—comes in and tips the playing field in one direction or the other, that inequality on massive scales starts to occur.

Mr. Reid then mentions unions as the saviors of the working class. Well, what he really means is not unions, which are just another natural market variable, but the tipping of the playing field in the union’s favor. There is no natural favoritism in the market over the long run. If all parties are left free all inequalities are eventually leveled out—sometimes within a day or two, sometimes within years, and sometimes within a generation or two. An example: I am paid by my employer every two weeks. Now I’ve performed almost two week’s worth of labor for the price agreed upon, but have not yet received my compensation. Meanwhile, my employer is collecting and earning revenue or interest on the money owed to me. This is an inequality that will be settled in a day or two at the end of the pay period. Compensation for this inequality has already been addressed through market interactions. If there is another variable introduced, like hyper inflation of prices for consumer needs, that would impel me to seek (and maybe organize with others and demand) a daily or even hourly pay structure. Such happened in pre-WWII Germany with absolutely no government or third party involvement in the employee/employer market-driven contract (except to cause the hyper inflation in the first place).

Senator Reid concludes his speech by stating many examples of service given by Mormon church leaders and others in government capacities. All service is noble if it is given willingly and not first funded by forced “contributions.” The Peace Corps is noble insofar as it promotes security for the citizens of the U.S. who are funding it for its purpose of ultimately protecting their property and freedoms. When such “service” goes beyond that, and promotes things unrelated to our natural rights which we can give it, such becomes not service but is ultimately evil in nature. To quote Pope Benedict XVI: “Whenever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.”

There is much else in Mr. Reid’s speech that I can take no issue with. I don’t wish to infer that Senator Harry Reid is evil. He, like the rest of us, is human and prone to imperfections and muddled thinking. Some of his notions are therefore the product of his own prejudices and incomplete experience. I feel it is important to attempt to correct such wrongs whenever we can to the best of our understanding at the time.

Children are incapable of rendering assistance and therefore have no use for empathy—it would only impede their own survival (evolutionarily speaking). They will react, in-kind sometimes, simply because it makes them uncomfortable, but not out of the more genuine concern that a mature parent might have.

We’re all selfish to some extent and therefore not fully mature; but those who abuse their children or neglect them are much further down the maturity/emotional development ladder than the rest of society. Jesus recognized this. It is why he said “those who will lose their life [unselfishness] will find it, and those who will save their life will lose it” (John 12:25 paraphrased).

A small selfish child is not terribly aware of his world—pretty ignorant. As we lose our selfishness we lose our ignorance and gain knowledge or understanding. Those we disagree with or fail to understand can be reconciled by losing our selfishness, or our focusing on our own hurt, in a word, being mature. We can then gain the knowledge or further understanding we would not otherwise get and find peace.

We all mistreat each other at times. Sometimes without even knowing it. We lack judgement, fail to take all into account. Instead of becoming defensive or warring, we need to take into—actually internalize—the reality of the other person’s view or feelings, knowing that even if their perception or interpretation is faulty, we also are not immune to such imperfections.

War begins when we seek revenge in our hearts. The swinging of blades is a mere formality.

Christ’s atonement works in two ways: It forgives our sins and offers us all we need to be able to forgive others. Christ offers to pay the price for those who have hurt us so that we need not seek revenge or harbor hatred in our hearts.

The author produces many juxtapositions of texts from within the gospels and other ancient sources to make a case that the gospel writers were only rehashing older and unrelated accounts into the Christian story and theology. I think one can prove almost anything by this method if he is really creative in his comparisons and Mr. Helms seems to do this to some extent. Just because someone used the same word in Greek for a certain description of Christian events as another source uses to describe a pagan story does not in itself verify that the gospel author copied it. However, the connections Helms brings up do have some credence when simply trying to account for the great number of them. That said, it doesn’t mean all were plagiarizations . I’ve read Edgar Allan Poe’s famous poem The Raven. Now, if a raven today were to fly into my room, similar to the account in Poe’s poem (which is certainly within the realm of possibility, though improbable) I would probably find myself using some of the terms Poe used in his writings to describe the event in my journal. This would be especially true if The Raven was among the very few writings I had ever read. This would not mean that my account is untrue, but simply that my way of expressing it was influenced by another’s (and in this case fictional) description. Such a “borrowing” may even help me to better communicate my thoughts and feelings of the incident, as well as color my perception.

Helms presents the argument that the Gospel of Mark was written first (about or soon after 70 A.D.) and that Matthew and Luke copied from it extensively—”fleshed it out” so to speak. Some 600 of Mark’s 666 verses, for instance, can be found, many almost word for word, in the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew and Luke were both written, independently, as much as a generation after Mark, according to Helms, and the Gospel of John was originally written as a Gnostic gospel before being edited later by a more traditionalist writer.

Mark’s gospel was written as an “end of the world” text. It was written soon after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple as reassurance that Christ’s final coming was near. It also emphasizes the “secretness” of the gospel during Christ’s mortal ministry to point out its nature as a preparatory period and that now all could be revealed since the end is soon.

The author of Mark appears to not have been a Jew and was somewhat unfamiliar with all of Jewish culture. Some evidence is given that he might have been from Syria. He uses the Septuagint version of the Hebrew scriptures in his quotes, showing he was more familiar (or only familiar) with the Greek translation. He also mixes up and misquotes Isaiah and Malachi.

Helms makes the argument that Mark moves the Transfiguration scene—which he claims was originally a post-resurrection story—into the mortal ministry of Christ so that he could more easily make the case that Christ is about to return in glory by showing that, though Christ was resurrected, He has not yet returned—but He will soon—like He said He would.

Luke was really a woman, according to Mr. Helms. He provides many examples in the Gospel of Luke and in Acts (also written by Luke) of “pairings” where nearly every story concerning a man also happens to a woman in a similar fashion, often in a better light. There is a strong presence of widows and their sufferings and their needs throughout Luke and Acts which Helms gives as evidence that Luke “herself” was also a widow. The account of the widow of Nain whose son is brought back to life closely parallels the account of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath.

“She” also presents women, Mary and Elizabeth, in a better light than their husbands. The angel comes to Mary and to Elizabeth and announces that her child’s name will be John (unique to Luke). Also, there are soliloquies from Mary and other women not found in the other Gospels. Although Luke may have a more “feminine” touch, the evidence within the text of the Gospel is not at all conclusive, in my opinion, and I’m sure many would agree. It certainly gives a unique perspective, however.

The Gospel of John originally plays down the role of Peter and elevates the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” There is evidence in the text that a later editor of John restored Peter’s position but not thoroughly enough to eliminate all evidence of the motive of the original author to abolish the literal theology of the other gospels in favor of the figurativeness of the gnostic view.

I’ve heard of the adage that if something seems a little too confusing or muddled, it is probably because the author has an agenda. This was all too apparent in this book. Although I’m sure Mr. Helms is quite a scholar, he seems to bend the evidence to his viewpoint almost to the point of absurdity. There is no humility in this book, to speak of. Helms may say that we don’t know certain things, but then goes on to describe events as if they actually happened in a certain way based on mere supposition taken from very scant evidence. However, if one recognizes the scholarly “arrogance” (for lack of a better term) of the author’s style for what it is, there is still much to learn and digest in this book.

Paul has been a source of division ever since the beginning of Christianity. Early apocryphal writings of Peter and James, in the second century, would refer to Paul as a tool of Satan. Paul has been perceived down through the centuries as a prophet of doom and gloom and self-loathing. Some have even claimed he “hijacked” Christianity and that since he never met Jesus during His mortal ministry he effectively founded his own religion. They claim that Christ’s teachings only have a bare influence on Paul’s writings and philosophy. Others, of course, claim he was one of the most inspired of Jesus Christ’s disciples and worthy of all due respect and emulation.

Garry Wills makes the argument that most are not really reading Paul correctly and are not taking into account the circumstances, culture, and purpose of his writings when they make harsh judgments.

Following are insights I gleaned from this book and my thoughts upon reflection on it later. These do not necessarily reflect exactly what Garry Wills wrote or intended, but were inspired by his diligent study. On a side note: Although I know nothing of him other than from this book, Mr. Wills seems to me to be a somewhat unpleasant or at least unhappy man. As might be reflected by the book’s title, the arrogant tone and exclusionary interpretations Wills gives sounds a note of caution in taking this book as too much of an authority on what Paul really meant.

We have reason to believe Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian writings that we have. They predate the four Gospels and other New Testament books. If this is so, Paul’s perspective on the doctrine of Christ may be the most fresh and accurate.

Although Paul preaches that women should follow a certain decorum, a sort of subservience to their husbands, his long track record of working directly with and alongside women shows a more complex view. He honors all the women he mentions with affectionate or respectful titles such as “prophetess,” “emissaries,” “fellows in the struggle,” “protectress” or even like his mother. Women shared prison time with him. His council not to marry he applied equally to women showing that they could be independent of men in bearing witness of Christ. There were even pairs of women missionaries. He also speaks favorably of women prophesying  in meetings. This would seem to run counter to his council that they should remain silent in all gatherings.

Paul’s views on marriage may be understood in the light of how desperate he saw his mission to be. He knew a revolution on a world scale was coming, though he may not have known perfectly the specifics. At it turned out, the change he was implementing was the conversion of the known world to Christianity and not the immediate second coming and the end of the world that he may have thought. But if the end were coming, marriage among the missionaries and the raising of children could be considered a distraction to the conversion effort.

Paul’s council that women should ask of their husbands in private gospel questions reflects his perceived need of a tempering influence, or stabilizing effect that many women benefit from in a marriage. Likewise, men receive equal benefits from the influence of their wives, like a better sense of compassion and commitment. Giving husbands this sort of loyalty or reverence strengthens their ego and feelings of worth that enables them, if not abused, to be better providers and protectors.

Also, mere conjecture, Paul was running the risk possibly of creating a religion primarily of only women. Evidence of this might be found in his lengthy advise about part-member couples and families. The gospel of Christ might have had more appeal to women in that time—a time and culture that may have been highly patriarchal among the pagans. His council to the women of the church of difference to men may have been an attempt to make the gospel less threatening to men in some way.

Six of the seven “most authentic” letters of Paul are directed to gatherings with specific problems. We could think of Paul as trying to implement “damage control.” We must recognize that this is not the complete Paul and that he may not be the grumpy hard-liner we perceive. We get good ideas of the more pleasant Paul through his sermon on charity and other instances.

Although Galations is Paul’s most vitriolic letter, it is important to note that we don’t have the other side. He may be fighting fire with fire. He also later regretted his harsh tone. This letter, probably like most of his, was dictated to a scribe, but he put his own hand to the end of it to write with emphasis in an effort to convey his anger at the time. This is also his only letter addressed to a whole region and not a specific city. He sent copies to several towns in the area. Again, we don’t know the specific attacks leveled at him in this dispute, but they were probably equally heated.

In Paul’s letter to Philemon he asks that Philemon’s slave, who was probably assisting Paul as scribe of this very letter, be returned to him after payment of some debt. He was probably successful in his request and the slave’s continued service probably ensured the survival of this particular letter.

It is interesting that slaves made up as much as one-third of the urban population during Paul’s time. In his preaching that slaves obey their masters Paul was probably quite practical in not wishing to stir a revolution or social upheaval of such a great scale. Additionally, slavery at that time was much different than what we are familiar with in the American South of 150 years ago. Most slaves were educated and did much of their master’s business. They acted as tutors, scribes and bureaucrats. These slaves could join and act within the church and often when a master joined the church his/her whole household, including slaves (who were considered part of the family), joined with them.

First and Second Corinthians are a jumbled mess of cobbled together letters that were probably only a few of many. Often when new letters arrived at a gathering of the church, they were simply added onto the end of the same scroll as previous letters. Then when they were copied, no notation was made to indicate where one letter ended and another began.

Paul was combating arrogance and segregation within the Corinthian gatherings into the spiritually “more gifted” and “less gifted.” Paul seems to step back from simple rebuking (may not have been working) by acknowledging spiritual gifts, but clarifies their real purpose—to bless all church members. These charismatic spiritualists (who were taking money for their services) were probably indeed more advanced in some understandings, like in the eating of meat from idols issue, but were missing the whole point of Christ’s gospel of love. Also, the “anything goes” attitude that seemed to be growing among them may have led to Paul’s rebuking of the “unlawful,” at least to the sensibilities of the time, marriage of one of their number to his late father’s second wife, who was of no blood-relation and maybe even the son’s own age. Just postulating: this may be an effort on Paul’s part to reign in the arrogant members and help them see the value and reality of the spiritual sensibilities of others, even if they are “less enlightened.”

In Romans, Paul spends most of the book showing that God still honors his commitment to the Jews. This is in reaction to the Gentiles’ dominance among the church members in the area and their persecution of the Jewish members for their continued observance of some of the Jewish dietary laws. Paul then councils all to be considerate of each other’s proclivities and stresses the dominate role love must play in these matters. One can get caught up in trivial matters at the expense  of the whole point of Christ’s gospel.

Paul says that God has not repudiated the Jews, but elsewhere says those under the Law are under a curse. He is not anti-Jew but anti their observance of old and now fulfilled covenants. He did not “leave” the Jews to join an as yet unformed Christian church structure in opposition. He was really only on one side of a family quarrel. There were only Jews who did not accept Christ, Jews who did accept Him as the Messiah of the Jewish people, and Gentiles who were being “brought in” to accept Christ as the Messiah of the Jews. Paul uses only the Jewish scriptures and puts all in the context of the Jewish tradition. He was never an anti-semite. When he talks about Jews obstructing the gospel, he is often speaking about the church-member Jews who are not living up to their new commitments and trying to incorporate unnecessary aspects of the Law and impose them on their new Gentile brothers. He is not denigrating the Jews as a people.

It is interesting to note that it was the Christian Jews that betrayed Paul and Peter to their martyrdom in Rome. One can see the battle for the soul of the new religion right from the outset. The apostasy was in ful force even before the deaths of the first apostles.

A misunderstanding is also prevalent in Paul’s supposed denial of the Jewish Law. Some extrapolate from this that he is anti “works” for the sake of faith, which is the basis of most of Protestantism. Rather, Paul was only trying to reconcile Jewish traditions with those of the “new Jews” brought in from among the Gentiles. Remember, Paul did not think of himself in an “us versus them” mentality in the sense of “Christian” and Jew. All were in a continuation of the Jewish faith through the advent of the Messiah. To him this was all merely a “revolution” within Judaism that also extended the benefits of the Jewish faith to all people, becoming more inclusive, but still honoring its roots, or foundation. Some wanted to enforce all the Law upon their new-found brothers among the Gentiles and others wanted to throw off too much in the liberation they saw in the Messiah. Paul is trying to chart a path of reconciliation between these two groups. He attacks both camps (both of which he addresses as Jews) in their extremes of law observance or their abandonment of moral values.

Paul talks of “natural law” or the conscience or general knowledge of right and wrong as being akin to the “Law” given to the Jews. Having the gospel of the Messiah, previously only promised to the Jews (or so they thought), now given to the Gentiles was meant to humble them. But it was, and is, a great blessing in the end because, through them, the whole world will be blessed. The Gentiles were being more faithful to their natural law than the Jews were to their covenant law. Both laws were from God, and so both are worthy of the Messiah’s atonement. Paul is saying this is all part of God’s plan.

The new Gentile converts in Rome were not honoring the traditions of their Jewish brothers. This was the specific problem Paul is addressing in his letter to the Romans. The Jews, including the ones of the “Christian” sect, had all been expelled for a short time from Rome under Emperor Claudius. After his death, they were allowed back. The Gentile converts, who had never left, were having trouble with the demands of the Jewish minority who insisted on still observing aspects of their old Law. They had been on their own for a time, still growing and benefiting from the spiritual effects of their faith and did not develop or see the need for these outer observances. Paul is trying to get them to respect the Jewish customs and give them honor for being the caretakers of the Messiah’s holy scriptures and prophecy. At the same time, he is trying to get the Jews to value the fact that the Gentiles are now “chosen” also and much of their custom is of equal worth to God.

Paul puts the blessing of the gospel to the Gentiles as a side-effect to the betrayal of trust found among the Jews. This is good doctrine used to keep the Gentiles humble, but I feel it was only used for this purpose. God never “chose” the Jews to be better than the Gentiles but to bless the Gentiles. Now the Gentiles were being set up to be a blessing to the Jews. The Gentiles should not brag about being grafted into the root at the expense of the natural branches, they are still dependent on the same root. It was mainly for this very same bragging on the part of the Jews that the natural branches were cut off.

Paul views Gentile converts as “honorary Jews.” To him, there is no shifting of God’s promise or covenant from the Jews to the Gentiles. Though man may go back on a promise or violate a covenant, God will never betray. How the non-converted Jews will still receive of the promise, Paul leaves up to God.

Jesus never founded a “new” religion, but rather fulfilled and continued the Jewish one on the track for which it was always intended. Jewish customs, to an extent, could be continued as a reminder of the path and covenants God had made to Israel and expressed also by Jesus. At the same time, these customs, not all of them, did not need to be necessarily followed by Gentile converts.

The idea of a Zion society, both geographically centered and spread throughout the world, is found in Paul’s pleading to the church gatherings to contribute to the welfare of the Jewish church members in Jerusalem. He talks of the need to help and take joy in each other within the body of Christ much like the different parts of our physical body complement each other, never taking advantage or being jealous. He is specifically adamant that Jerusalem be aided, it being seen as the headquarters of the movement and the location of prophecy for much of the last days. Aiding Jerusalem by the rest of the world could also help express gratitude for the spiritual heritage the Jewish members there are now granting to everyone. Paul also saw a danger of divisions arising among the now wide, and soon to be wider, spread gatherings. They all needed to be rooted in the source, the city and culture of the Messiah. The Jerusalem brethren also needed reassurance that as the church grew they and their contributions will not be forgotten.

When Paul takes these contributions to  Jerusalem he may have caused a showdown with James and the church leaders there. They were already having trouble with the “unconvinced” Jews there and were being accused of corrupting Israel with their Gentile converts. By accepting this large contribution from the diaspora, the church would be exacerbating the situation. Paul knew this but probably underestimated the precariousness of the situation. On the other hand, he may have wanted to incite a showdown that would force a choice among the Jews. The record is silent on what happened to the contributions he brought. Whether or not it had an effect on the downfall of the church in Jerusalem we don’t know.

There seems to be continued conflict between the diaspora and the church in Jerusalem. James, the brother of Jesus, who was not supportive of Jesus during His mortal lifetime, is now the leader of the church there. Some, including Paul, may have had issues with this. Paul seems, however, to be desperately trying to reconcile the factions.

Some inconsistencies in the text of Acts and Paul’s own words lead us to suspect whether he was actually a Roman citizen. He says he was flogged on several occasions by Romans which was illegal to inflict on a citizen. Paul himself never mentions or infers his citizenship in his own writings.

It appears through other sources that Peter and Paul were betrayed by their own. Tacitus states that most Christians were discovered during Nero’s persecution through informants. Clement of Rome, writing in about 90 AD (30 years after Paul’s death), describes Peter’s and Paul’s deaths after a dissertation on the ill effects of rivelry, such as that between Cain and Abel, David and Saul, etc. Though the details of their execution may have been forgotten by this time, the reasons and the effects were probably still fresh.

Some sources hint that Paul was able to make it to Spain, which was his goal—the western-most region of the known world. He probably then went back to Rome to try to deal with the problems there. Clement says he “won through to the trophy of endurance”—indicating that he was tortured in the end and/or died an ignominious death—one that Luke may not have been able to bring himself to include in his book of Acts.

Paul is often misread, based on Luther’s take on his writings, to champion “grace” at the expense of “works.” This has led to no end of strife through the centuries. Believers in “grace” often become proud and even arrogant in their “helplessness,” feeling those preaching doing good works are controlling and even somehow evil.

Overall this work by Garry Wills was overly opinionated. I found myself saying, “What?” a little too often. The author seems to put too much value in the contrary views or at least gives “more equal” credence to what seems to be simply arbitrary interpretations. Mr. Wills seems to have some sort of agenda, though it is hard to pinpoint what it might be. I would not recommend this work for an introduction to Paul, by any means. However, I think it does have some cautionary value if you are fairly familiar with the standard Paul taught in Sunday School.

Chapter 1: In the Spring of 1820

• Quakers believed in modern revelation and that the Bible contained errors.
• Unitarians and Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in a separate Godhead.
• Universalists and a Unitarians believed in eventual salvation for everyone.
• Joseph Smith’s first vision prove the reality of Satan.
• It also proved the separateness of God the Father and Jesus Christ.
• Later  Joseph Smith stated that God has a physical body, though this did not seem to be a major doctrinal issue at the time. It was several years (1842) before a statement was clearly made. Or at least that we have a verifiable record of.
• There is a distinct order in heaven with God in charge and Jesus next. This was made clear from the first vision where God the Father spoke first and introduced His Son.
• Joseph Smith is the head of a Gospel Dispensation like Moses, Adam and Jesus Christ. As such, he is the leading prophet and main source for doctrine. Prophets since him are sort of caretakers, though they do have all the same authority as he had. The major and foundational revelations came mainly from Joseph Smith.
• It was specifically revealed that other churches do not contain the complete Gospel and have a few fundamental flaws holding them back. “They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”

Chapter 2: Setting the Keystone

• The Book of Mormon is the “most correct” book in terms of Gospel truths and not necessarily in grammar, structure or other content.
• The Bible contains the fulness of the Gospel, but not in the same coherent form as the Book of Mormon.
• It verifies the reality of miracles and the divine mission of Jesus Christ. It backs up the Bible.
• The Book of Mormon does not contain all the latter-day doctrines, such as eternal marriage, but contains the fulness needed for salvation and leads one to exaltation.
• It makes plain and clarifies the Gospel found in the Bible and other scriptures.
• Acceptance of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is critical for acceptance of the rest of latter-day doctrine and Joseph Smith as a prophet.
• Book of Mormon precepts are often contained in the “And thus we see…” passages in the book. These are simple and concise restatements of the preceding story or idea. Easy to remember maxims that bring the remembrance of the story or idea and how it may apply today.
• There is no other credible explanation of the origins of this wisdom in the Book of Mormon except as Joseph Smith said.
• The significance, if not the truthfulness, of the book can be attested by the nature and intensity of those who attack it. It is of no harm to them or society in and of itself.
• The Book of Mormon specifically address our time. Unlike the Bible which, though it addresses prophecy, does not talk directly to the people of the future.
• Book of Mormon prophets saw our time and chose stories and writings and speeches that would best apply to our situations.
• The sword of Laban symbolizes the effort, struggle and sacrifice that has been put forth to bring and preserve holy scriptures.
• Valuing the Book of Mormon by studying it regularly has a power beyond the mere words or specific teachings. A power to change your heart, to resist error and to understand life more deeply.

Chapter 3: Living Doctrine

• All our doctrine is rooted in the Atonement of Christ and His mediation and mercy. All other doctrines are only appendages.
• Keeping the doctrine pure: 1. Teach directly from the scriptures. 2. Present doctrine in the same way it is taught to us by our prophets and apostles. 3. Use scriptural commentary from apostles and prophets found in General Conference addresses and other sources. 4. Focus on plainness and simplicity. Do not teach on the edge of our knowledge. It is not always wise to relate all truth. 5. Acknowledge there are some things we do not know, but what we have is sufficient.
• The doctrine of “blood atonement” that was spoken of by Church leaders in the past is an example of “revival rhetoric.” (Compare Enos 1:23)
• What is our doctrine?: 1. Teachings of the Church as a whole are narrow and focused on key principles, not on peripheral subjects that have little to do with salvation. 2. Many of the Church leaders’ statements of the past are misquoted or taken out of context. Doctrine taught today supersedes the past. We are commanded to pay more attention to living oracles. 3. If something is questionable, we ask if it is found in any of the following: a) The four Standard Works of scripture; b) official declarations or proclamations; c) taught or discussed in General Conference or other official gatherings of the Church leaders; d) in the General Handbooks of the Church; e) in approved curriculum of the Church. It should meet at least one of these criteria. This does not preclude that their are some things that fall under “sacred silence,” such as doctrine contained within the Temple ceremony.
• We do not believe in prophetic or apostolic infallibility. Not every word of the Bible is exactly how God spoke it. Moses, Peter, Paul, Joseph Smith and others made mistakes and had their human weaknesses. We cannot discount the whole man because of some imperfection in statements or opinion. A whole life and mission must be taken into total context, much like the Bible and other scripture.
• Seeing that the Lord still trusts imperfect leaders shows that there is hope for everyone, even in their weaknesses.
• Every prophet, every apostle, and every Church leader is going to be flawed. They have the right to be wrong at times and to change and improve. The inspiration and guidance from God can still come to them just like it can to each of us.
• True doctrine has “sticking power.” It grows and deepens, clarifies as years go by.
• Innocent speculations are often taken as doctrine by others not of our faith.
• All faiths have imperfect histories. Catholics had the Crusades and the Inquisition. Martin Luther wrote anti-semitic works. Southern Baptists justified slavery.
• Much of Christianity believes in theosis—human deification. The Bible plainly teaches it. See 2 Peter 1:4, Romans 8:17, 1 Corinthians 2:16, Matthew 5:48, 1 John 3:2.
• The light and insight received in revelation in June 1978 supersedes all the speculative slivers of light or darkness that preceded it like the sun would outshine a star. Reasons may only be known to God.
• If some doctrine is not currently being taught or is not found in current official Church publications it does not necessarily mean it is true or not true. It only means it is not important at this time and need not take our undue attention or energy.
• God and humans are not of a different species.
• We know absolutely nothing about God before He became God. It is not a central or saving doctrine. It need not be believed or understood to be in good standing in the Church.
• We do not know whether Jesus was married or not. Such knowledge does not pertain to our salvation. Beware of too much speculation.
• It is just as important to know what we don’t not know as it is to know what we know.
• This does not mean that we should be satisfied with a superficial understanding of doctrine.
• One can have a testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel without understanding much of it, but to retain that testimony one must continually strive to learn and understand the Gospel on deeper and more complete levels. (Many truths thus revealed are only for ourselves—we paid the price. It is up to others to put forth the effort on their own to get similar insight.)

Chapter 4: Christ’s Eternal Gospel

• God’s plan for human kind is not so readily apparent in the Bible, but is spelled out more clearly in the Book of Mormon.
• In my opinion: This is one reason there are fewer denominations based on the Book of Mormon as opposed to the Bible.
• Acts 10:43, “To [Christ] give all the prophets witness.”
• The Bible gives the impression that God’s plan of salvation evolved over time or changed. A closer look shows that He was battling the weaknesses of the people more and maybe could not reveal as much.
• Scripture was not as valued in ancient times. The king Josiah “discovered” scripture in the Temple.
• We believe the plan of Atonement was always the same from the beginning.
• All covenants and obligations have existed form the beginning and have never changed.
• Ancient prophets had priesthood authority and were called to the office and did not assume their roles on their own.
• Jacob had the temple endowment and “key words” were given to Adam, Noah and others.
• 2 Nephi 29:7,12. The Lord will inspire all people of the earth and they shall write it. All that God thinks they should have. Alma 29:8.
• Relics of truth can be found among other cultures and religions, temple practices and myths.
• All truth comes from God and Jesus Christ.
• Truth is eternal and always has been. Any change is in our own perceptions.
• Though ancient and modern religious rites may be similar to ours, they are a parody of the complete truth. As such they are still of value and worthy of respect. (The ancient Egyptians knew their rites were incomplete.)
• The temple endowment is an allegory of the basic truths of our existence and duties. As such, it is flexible to the understandings of the times, but it is still complete and whole. It was revealed in whole, in its essentials, and was not cobbled together from disparate sources like much of the rites and practices of others.
• Everyone is blessed with a certain amount of light. If they are true to that light, they are blessed with more.
• In many ways, coming to the knowledge of more truth is really an awakening to what we formally knew in the preexistence.
• Converts to the Church don’t “leave” another church, usually, but obtain more or “come home.”

Chapter 5: The Infinite and Intimate Atonement

• The Atonement is timeless. It is “retroactive” and has always applied even before it actually occurred in time.
• The Atonement overcomes death. Corruption must put on incorruptibility.
• The Atonement defies mortal law and logic. How we are forgiven defies our complete explanation. The justice of right and wrong, mercy and forgiveness, restitution and punishment are not all fully understood.
• The Atonement is infinite and eternal because Jesus Christ is an infinite and eternal Being.
• The Savior redeems all that He creates. The Atonement is infinite in time, putting and end to preceding prototypes and animal sacrifice, and infinite in the number of people redeemed. This includes all people on other worlds created by Him.
• The Atonement goes beyond payment for sins. It covers all infirmities, mistakes and weaknesses—anything that is corrupt or corruptible.
• Christ can heal us, cure us of burdens and fears. We can leave our burdens at His feet and trust Him. By following Him like a righteous parent we can be at peace.
• The Atonement is infinite in power or scope, but personal enough for every single person. Christ knew each of us individually, incomprehensibly, through His atonement and suffering on the cross.

Chapter 6: What Happened to the Cross?

• We need to probe and ponder the Atonement and try harder to understand it on a much deeper level. Each of us is not limited, except by ourselves, from the same knowledge of it as the prophets. Though probably none of us fully comprehend it in this life.
• Paul gloried in the cross precisely because the Jews and Romans despised it. The Jews believed anyone “hung from a tree” was the vilest of scum (as indicated by God in Deuteronomy) and crucifixion had a long heritage of being the most degrading way to execute the despised. (Think of ways many people would think of “disposing” of Adolph Hitler.) How could a God allow Himself such an end? Paul thought that that was the very reason Christ chose such a form—to show He descended below all things to understand and raise all.
• The symbol of the cross did not come into use until the 4th and 5th centuries.
• We have no quarrel with the use of the cross as a symbol. We use symbols ourselves like the angel Moroni and CTR rings as reminders of the holy.
• Baptists too did not use the cross until the 1830s.
• Puritans did not use the cross and may of the early LDS were of Puritan descent.
• There are many direct references to the cross in our latter-day scriptures and hymns and official writings.
• We have no official doctrinal position on the use of the cross as a symbol.
• We are somewhat unique among many Christians in that we put more emphasis on the part of the Atonement that took place in the Garden of Gethsamane.
• The Garden Scene is not depicted in art and ceremony as much as it should.
• It is in the Garden that Jesus necessarily suffers the withdrawing of God the Father’s spirit. This is to complete the Atonement in some form, but this also happens on the cross.
• Sweating blood from every pore is only found in the Gospel of Luke. Scholars have argued that it might have been a later addition to prove Christ’s divine nature.
• The sweating of blood has been backed up as a reality by modern scripture.
• All the agonies of Gethsmane reoccurred upon the cross. The cross is still the culmination of the Atonement sacrifice.

Chapter 7: The Greatest Gift

• All the programs of the Church do not save or redeem us. Our salvation lies only in Christ the Person.
• All our works and efforts are ultimately insufficient. We have not the power within ourselves.
• Faith unto repentance is made possible to us through giving us the Atonement to look to.
• The Gospel of Christ is not only of salvation in “the by and by,” but is an influence for change here and now. The power to forgive, overcome weaknesses, and restore what we cannot restore can have their effect here in mortality to make us happy and give us peace. Not all may be reconciled or fully overcome in this life, life by its very nature is hard and a struggle, but comfort—supernatural power—can be a gift to everyone through their faith in Christ’s Atonement.
• True faith always manifests itself through works, righteous actions, and proper relations. Not always perfectly, but neither is our faith always perfect.
• It is therefore important that we are judged by our works. Someone who has done non-repented evil works cannot abide the presence of God.
• We cannot rely on ourselves to be saved, but must work in concert with Christ to produce the change of heart within us to become as He is. He will not save us against our will. Once our will is changed, faith and works are inseparable.
• We must open our hearts and put forth our hand (works) to accept the proffered gift of grace. His grace will not save us if we do not accept it, or go through the effort of accepting it—meaning the effort to be close to Him by doing and being as He would have us be.
• Hebrews 12:2. We are incomplete. Christ is the “finisher” of our faith that fills in a huge gap. We are complete “in him.”
• We are not saved “after” all we can do, but more in spite of all we can do. Sometimes all we can do is turn from our sins and the Lord takes it from there. This is a daily and lifetime pursuit, a maturity and growth.
• We need to always balance our longing to improve with the hope and happiness or comfort that with Christ we will make it.

Chapter 8: Beyond the Veil

• Death is only a transition from one state to the next. We died from pre-mortality to come here.
• Joseph Smith said that God instilled in us a natural fear of death so that we would not corrupt His purposes by trying to go before our time. We would do everything we could to get there if we did not have this fear.
• Prophets and other Church leaders have hinted and hypothesized about the nature of the joy and rest the righteous have awaiting them in the next world unencumbered with bodies and certain limitations.
• No righteous person is taken from this life before his time.
• It is our limited vision that keeps us from rejoicing at the opportunities given to the righteous dead.
• The post-mortal spirit world is here on this earth around us.
• Those who go to Spirit Paradise grow in wisdom, have no pain and rest.
• The entire spirit world is a prison of sorts because we are incomplete without our bodies.
• Persons in the spirit world are aware of the happenings in this world.
• 1 Peter 3:19 refers to the prison of the spirit world as not having bodies. Christ did not go to the “hell” part but organized missionaries to go (D&C 138:30).
• Once ordinances are done for the dead, they are free to go over to Paradise if they accept the Gospel.
• Lorenzo Snow believes a great majority of those in the Spirit Prison will accept the Gospel. The conditions of Satan’s temptations will be gone and our own characteristics will come forward. Habits, traditions and flaws developed  in this life will need to be overcome, however.
• Spirit matter will course through our veins instead of blood in our resurrected bodies.
• Our resurrected bodies will be raised to that glory for which we are worthy. These bodies will be given a “portion” of that glory we attained to and then a “fulness.” We will grow to a complete joy in our eternal world. Except the sons of perdition. D&C 88:28-32.
• We will always retain our individual identities. Others will recognize us and us them. We will grow to everlasting and unchanging perfection just like Jesus Christ and God the Father, but, like Them, retain our own identity.
• The atonement redeems everyone in the sense that we will all be allowed back into the presence of God, at least temporarily, to be judged and sent to our kingdoms of glory.

Chapter 9: God and Human Tragedy

• God will not force us to be careful or righteous. To do so would violate our agency for which we are here to prove.
• Many of us don’t want a Father in Heaven so much as a senile grandfather in heaven. A benevolent force that ensures a good time is had by all. But growth and understanding cannot be acquired this way.
• God cannot give us free will and at the same time ensure we always use it the right way.
• We are in the “second act” of the Plan in this mortal life. We are here to learn and grow through trial, suffering and tragedy. Most rewards and happiness is reserved for the next life. “Happily Ever After” does not occur here.
• The Lord Jesus Christ can reveal to us the lessons we need to learn and how to overcome. He has descended below it all.
• We learn more about ourselves and our strength and faith through trials. We learn more about who we are.
• Continual repentance is the best contribution anyone can make toward solving the problem of evil.
• Evil is never just “out there,” but is also “in here.” We need to address our personal issues and control what we can.
• We can borrow on God’s eternal perspective to help us deal with pain and sorrow here and now. God does not “mope” around in despair over the suffering and choices of His children. Past, present and future are all one eternal now for Him. He has an infinite and eternal perspective.
• We can have confidence despite our trials because we know in the end the Lord and righteousness will prevail no matter what the “score” is at the moment.
• A key to Christ’s mission in mortality and the doctrine of His Gospel is to give us hope, a promise of a better world, a reason to “hang on,” to replace despair with peace.

Chapter 10: The Blessings of the Temple

• 1 Corinthians 15:19. “If in this life only we have a hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” Why or how would someone in the afterlife need a “hope” in Christ? If this life is their only chance, it would be too late for “hope.” They either accepted Christ or they didn’t. We would be most miserable if we or loved ones did not have a fair opportunity to accept Christ regardless of our state of life.
• Concerning baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:28-29), Paul would not, of all people, have argued for the foundation doctrine of the Resurrection using a questionable practice. Baptism for the dead had to be authentic.
• There are several account of preaching to the dead in the Apocrypha, and the accepting of Christ by the dead. Coincidence? Even if the Apocrypha can’t be fully trusted?
• Peter’s brief mention of preaching to the dead suggests that is was common knowledge to the extent he didn’t need to expound upon it (1 Peter 3:19 & 4:6). Taken at face value there is no other interpretation other than what they say, namely that Christ’s redemption practices extend beyond the grave.
• Joseph Smith: “It is no more incredible that Christ should save the dead than that he should raise the dead.”
• The endowment in the Temple seals us to the Abrahamic covenant.
• Jesus taught many things pertaining to the kingdom of God during the 40 days of His post-resurrection ministry to the apostles and others. This was the time the Church was fully established and with the day of Pentecost became endowed with power.
• Many ceremonies such as washings, anointings, sacred clothing, new names and sacred marriages are mentioned in the apocryphal ancient Forty Day literature.
• Similar outpourings of the Spirit and visitations and visions, like the days of Pentecost, occurred during a four month period to many Church members in 1836.
• The temple ordinances affirm our link to the ancient priesthood, the power of God and the eternal covenants He made with Abraham and gives those same promises to us.

Chapter 11: The Living Canon

• Many of the Apocrypha books are included within the scriptures of the Old Testament up through Martin Luther’s time. They were usually designated as such by being placed together after the Writings.
• The books of the New Testament were slowly cobbled together during the first centuries. They did not reach their present order and content until the end of the fourth century. Many books were disputed that we consider authentic simply because of long tradition.
• Much of the Apocrypha writings do not have the restraint the canonized works of the New Testament have. They try too hard to fill in the gaps and expound too deeply on fanciful ideas.
• However, with a limited canon one might assume if the scriptures don’t specifically address an issue, God must not care. This can also lead to scripture worship or “Biblioidolatry.” (This is what the Jews were guilty of in part with their worship of the Law found in their scriptures.)
• Revelation precedes scripture which is merely the product of revelation. Revelation is the true source of knowledge even when we have scriptures.
• Those who have reason to fear are the ones who cry, “We have enough and need no more.”
• Is not our message as Latter-Day Saints the same as the early Church—that the heavens have been opened and revelation has come again?
• All Christian churches rely on doctrine and tradition outside the scriptures. Even Evangelicals rely on post-New Testament councils and creeds and linguistics.
• And there is no final authority on scriptural interpretation when differences arise.
• The Bible is a record of revelations and the ministries of Christian churches turned it into a handbook. The Bible became a text to be interpreted rather than an experience to be lived.
• Joseph Smith stood for direct divine revelation in the same way as the earliest Church, not on a mild influence-like revelation or the single revelation serving for all time in the incarnation of Christ.
• The Bible is foundational in nature. The Book of Mormon assumes a working knowledge of the Bible and the mortal ministry of Jesus Christ.
• Although each canon of scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants) contains the fulness of the Gospel individually, they build upon each other, and particularly upon the Bible, to reach fuller understanding.
• We revere divine revelation whenever it comes and from sources like living apostles and prophets as well as ones past on, but the ones canonized in the Standard Works are the ones binding upon all saints.

Chapter 12: A Personal Witness

• Our testimonies are always fragile. They change and grow. The testimony we have now may not be the same as we have years from now.
• You usually don’t need to answer anti-Mormon questions and arguments because it is not answers they are looking for. They only wish to tear down and are filled with hatred though calling themselves Christians.
• Refuse to allow things you don’t know to tarnish or unsettle the things you do know.
• God is pleased with all sincere and inspired religious devotion, no matter the specific circumstances of church membership, but the Latter-day Saints have special gifts to offer to the world’s religious discussion—our pre-mortal existence, the real purpose of our being here, eternal perspectives on marriage that would revolutionize and revitalize society.
• The work of God and His Church is ongoing, expansive and everlasting.

Below, I’ve listed some of the things I learned about him that may not have been common knowledge to the average Mormon:

• Brigham Young  had more than 30 wives. Not all at once, of course, he outlived several and at least 10 and possibly 2 more divorced him. Two or three younger ones were only married to him while they crossed the plains and then divorced him. I guess marriages were a bit more “fluid” in those days. A divorced General Authority in the Church today is completely unacceptable. (Other GAs back then were divorced from plural wives as well. Orson Pratt eventually divorced his first wife.)
• Brigham was considerably enlightened when it came to dealing with the Indians. Although he said the Mormons were prepared to kill every Indian if necessary, he could not figure out why a man would shoot an Indian for stealing something when the Indian didn’t know any better and not a white man for doing the same thing who was taught it was wrong. The culture of the Indians was quite exasperating to Brigham, however, and he tried to convert and civilize them as best could be done.
• He tried to be a good steward of nature. When annual celebrations were held in the mountains commemorating the arrival of the Saints in the Salt Lake Valley, he personally stayed afterwards, alone, to make sure all the campfires were completely put out. He advised settlers to minimize the number of trees they cut down and encouraged sawmills and frame houses to make the most use of the wood. He went to great efforts to preserve City Creek Canyon in its natural state and lamented the creek’s necessary destruction within the city.
• Brigham was somewhat self-conscious about his lack of formal schooling, particularly his inability to spell correctly. (His spelling was really bad—even worse than mine.) This may have been a contributing factor in his development and encouragement of the Deseret Alphabet. One goal of this unique and totally phonetic alphabet (which was loosely based on short-hand techniques) was to aid foreign-language converts to be literate in the English language’s often irrational spelling conventions. Of course this idea was a total flop, but Brigham was certainly not unique in his attempt to make the English writing style more reasonable. He thought he might just have the power to start a revolution in this arena of society, being isolated as the Mormons were at the time. Didn’t have some conspiracy to control all, just wanted to take advantage of every perceived opportunity. Some ideas paid off, for the betterment of the human race, and others didn’t.
• Much more to come. (If I get around to it.)
• For a graphic I created that compares Brigham Young’s wives, when he was married to them, and how many he had at a given time, click here: Brigham Young’s Wives