Truly helpful in clarifying points in the lecture of a feeds and feeding class. Could, however, use examples of ration formulations.

Third Edition: A thorough compendium on feeding most types of livestock. Nutrient needs of most classes of farm livestock can be found in many sources, but I bought the book especially because of the information dealing with feeding dogs, cats and rabbits.

I recommend the book to anybody interested in producing domestic stock or wanting to understand nutritional needs of their pet dog or cat.

I hope a future edition will include game and exotic stock, such as elk, deer, reindeer, mink, ostrich and emu.

This book is most useful for any who want a basic introduction to Jesuit spirituality--particularly discernment of spirits. While the author admits his method may seem complicated, the book is well illustrated and clearly written. Perhaps more important than slavishly imitating his method--something the author would hardly recommend--is the opportunity to see how someone else has gone about the nitty-gritty practical components of becoming a contemplative in action and thereby to be inspired to develop one's own method.

I bought this book as a text for Spring Hill College Summer Institute of Spirituality course...which, sadly, I was unable to take. I kept the book, though. Hauser, an academic, and a Jesuit priest, shows how to make comtemplative prayer not just a part of life--a part of one's day--but how to *integrate* into one's life. He bases his technique on the exercises of St. Ignatius, and at the end of each chapter, includes several questions for reflections.

His advice throughout is concrete and practical--this is not a book of esoteric theology. For instance, in the chapter entitled "Obstacles to the Spirit," he identifies bad moods as one obstacle to the Holy Spirit, and describes 5 courses of action the contemplative can take to overcome that obstacle.

Overall, well-written, direct, and concrete, with plenty of specific examples.

Not for over three hundred years has a full-length biography of Richard Hooker appeared. The man who wrote the defining work of Anglican Christianity in its infancy certainly deserves renewed attention as Christian traditions, striving for ecumenical unity, must first come to grips with their own unique identities. Professor Secor's biography admirably addresses the need and remedies the neglect of a great man who will be 400 years dead in November. His extremely readable account of Hooker's life makes Hooker and his times come alive for a modern reader. Though Secor frequently alludes to the inaccuracies of Hooker's 17th century biography by Walton, a biography which turned Hooker into a plaster saint, he certainly is no Hooker debunker but rather leaves his readers with an abiding admiration and even affection for Hooker. Blemished only by some typographical errors overlooked in editing, Secor's Hooker biography is an outstanding contribution to a twenty-first century reflection on the English Reformation.

Richard Hooker was without question the seminal thinker in the development of the Anglican Church as "The Via Media" - or what became known as the Elizabethan Settlement. Secor's book gives true insight into the influences that shaped the thinking of this man who contributed so much. For such an important academic work, the book is quite readable by the interested layman, as well.

An excellent presentation of how one minister's church responded to the search for God's will for a church and its people. It is sure to be helpful in at least some ways for all churches. Seeking God's will is always a first step. He has some excellnt ideas that have been proven in his church and I am certain they will work in most churches today. Revival of the "dead" in our churches is at a critical point. Too many people merely warm the pew. Rev. Wills gives some excellent and detailed steps to church renewal. Well written and easy to put into practice, with God's blessing, of course.

I was moved by this book and immediately gave it to my pastor, just as I did Purpose Driven Church. This book is much more spiritually oriented than Warren's approach, although I think highly of Warren's approach. To think a church the size and denomination background such as the author's would turn to spritual discernment in its council meetings is great. I went to a council meeting in our church the day I finished the book and had a whole different perspective on how much time we spent dicussing the cost of the pastor's car insurance. Not once did we discuss the areas of our church where God was calling us to action. Wills' story is a powerful statement on seeking God's will as a church body.

R.W. Southern's book is the second in a series of seven on the history of the Church. It begins with Pope Gregory II in the early eighth century and traces the development of the Church to the beginning of Henry VIII's reign in the early sixteenth century. Southern's emphasis is on the relationship between the Church as a religious institution and the political institutions of the Middle Ages, giving little attention to the Church's spiritual and theological components. The bulk of this volume covers the East-West schism of 1054, the papacy, the archbishops and bishops, and the various religious orders of this period. This book is scholarly in its approach, yet writtten in a very readable style. It gave me a much better understanding of the complex interactions between the Church and state during this period. I can recommend this volume to anyone interested in learning more about this era.

What Southern attempts is daunting, to say the least: In 360 pages, he seeks to analyze how the church and society interacted during the entire 700-year period of the Middle Ages. And he has done a superb job of it. His book is comprehenisive without sounding platitudinous nor mired in detail, subtle without being rarefied. Another reviewer criticizes him for not giving enough attention to spiritual and theological aspects of the Middles Ages. The first part of this criticism is flatly false--the spiritual, insofar as they interact with society, abound in the book--and the second part is unwarranted, since Southern states in his first chapter that theological discussion lies outside the purview of the book. The reviewer, however, is correct in saying that it's a highly readable book. If you love church history--or want to learn how it should be written--this is a book you can't miss.

As a student of religious history, I found Van Wagoner's book to be an acessible and thourough, yet comprehensive and in depth study of the history of Mormon polygamy. The nature of Mormon polygamy, its origins in the revelation of prophet Jos. Smith, and a historiographical analysis of the Mormon church are skillfully woven together to form an insightful narrative. Though the author was educated at Brigham Young University, he manages to maintain a highly professional neutrality and hard factualism in dealing with a subject which is controversial not only in wider American culture but within the Latter Day Saints and Reformed Latter Day Saints churches.

The only inclusion I would quibble with is the final chapter on cases of modern polygamy by so-called mormon splinter groups; it seems superfluous and bound to be outdated long before the rest of the book, and at a certain point any serious hitorical analyst must, in fact, pick up a newspaper for themselves.

In spite of this, Van Wagoners book is a benchmark work of the highest scholarship and a must-read for any scholar of American Religious History.

I first read Van Wagoner's book a decade ago, but I dusted it off recently as I read through Richard Abanes' excellent tome "One Nation Under Gods." Although Van Wagoner is, as I far as I know and understand it, LDS, he is very fair with the facts, even though he shows the LDS Church leaders from the turn of the 20th century in a less-than-honest light. I find it amusing where several previous reviewers on Amazon claimed that this is an anti-LDS work. Why should something be considered "anti-LDS" just because it gives the documented facts with the sources included? A religion that struggles with only encouraging "faith-promoting" materials is one that should be highly scruntinized before one attempts to become invovled with it.

The book's type is small--I estimate it at 11 point--so be prepared to put on the reading glasses. I do like the fact, though, that Van Wagoner kept the endnotes to a minimum. I also appreciated that they were at the end of the chapters rather than in the back of the book. (I wish publishers of academic works would cease from the pointless practice of sticking the endnotes in the back of the book. In fact, what's wrong with footnotes?)

Since Van Wagoner has written the book, much has happened in Mormon polygamy, including the public arrest and trial of one Utah polygamist who, I believe, was prosecuted thanks to the Salt Lake Olympics. I have known some Utah polygamists who hold to the very ideas officially believed by Mormons before 1890 (or 1904). In fact, they believe that the LDS Church is apostate because its leaders changed a vital doctrine of Mormonism. I would almost have to side with them in their contention that their version is much more authentic and closer in origin to the pure Mormonism as explained by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, among others. Polygamy is an ugly business, though, as I have seen firsthand some of the situations with which current polygamists have to deal. I recommend this book for anyone who wants to get a clearer picture of polygamy in America, especially as it was historically believed by the LDS Church.

This book is obviously well researched and documented, as evidenced by the thorough footnotes and references. The author does an excellent job avoiding subjective conclusions about the matter, and instead sticks to proven facts. The author does not insinuate that the current LDS church sanctions polygamy, it is simply a thorough look at the church's polygamous past, which can hardly be denied. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Mormon History.

I had been looking for quite a while for a book that would once and for all explain the history of Mormonism in a way that not only made sense, but in a way that could be documented through reliable historical sources (instead of sensationalistic opinion). Abanes has done it -- and in a big way (650 pages).

I especially like the flow of the book that goes from 1805 (birth of Joseph Smith) up to just before the Olympics of 2002. I finally got some straight annswers about polygamy, a really nasty doctrine called "blood atonement." whether or not Mormonism is "Christian," and why in the world Mormonism is often called a "cult." That title, in my opinion, seems to now fit given what I have read. The media PR about Mormonism and how that is used by the LDS church to further its goals is absoutely frightening (I'm talking Larry King, Tom Brokaw, and Dan Rather for gosh sakes).

Interestingly, the endorsements for this volume include Hank Hannegraaff (an fairly well-known evangelical Christian) and Michael Shermer (an absolute agnostic who publishes Skeptic magazine). Abanes seems to have done something right in this book. A seriously great buy.

As I've read through the reviews of this book several things have stood out. First, people either love it or hate it. Unfortunately, their opinion of the book seems, with a few exceptions, to be more in line with their world view than the merits of the book.

Depending on the reviewer's personal history the book is either labeled as biased or unbiased. The truth is that the book is biased. But, that means nothing. Every piece of literature is biased because of either its agenda or the author's world view. There is both a clear agenda and world view in this book. If there had not been an agenda there would be no purpose for the book. Abanes is cleary trying to uncover what he perceives to be a previously supressed history of the LDS Church. In doing this he also makes no attempt to hide his Evangelical Christian world view. Since all historians and journalists are biased to one degree or another and since a bias does not preclude truth the question then becomes...Is this book fair, honest and true? I submit that it is. There are times when Abanes editorializes and when there are undocumented statements, but never is the tone condecending nor can the book be considered as anything less than meticulously documented (1791 endnotes covering 141 pages). Abanes is a journalist not a historian and as such the book sometimes lacks depth. Since the text already is 467 pages it is appropriate. Further, he makes no claim that ONE NATION UNDER GODS is exhaustive and often refers the reader to sources of additional information. The journalistic style makes the book a good easy read and easily accessable to both the highly educated and the lesser educated. It does indeed read as a novel.

One, often cited criticism is that there is nothing new in ONE NATION UNDER GODS. Again this is both true and untrue. Abanes does heavily rely on previous research, which is appropriate for this journalistic document. But, he does not site just secondary documents. Many sitations are given for primary sources most of which come from LDS scriptures, documents and archives. What is new about this book is not the research but the presentation. The book is an excellent, concise and thorough overview of LDS history, which includes simple explainations of LDS theology and how that varies from orthodox Christian theology.

In short ONE NATION UNDER GODS is an excellent book. But, just a starting point. It is an overview. If indepth study is wanted the Recommended Resources and 1791 endnotes will provide plenty to dig your teeth into.

I received this book through a friend. I am a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, a Mormon. I was raised in the church and believe it is the Restored Truth of the Gospel. I read this One Nation Under Gods and it does tell accurately what we believe. But as I read through it, it seemed like I was reading these beliefes for the first time. In context of history, I started understanding why we believe the way we do. That was good.

But I also am now faced with some things about my church that I confess, I do not understand how it can be true. But I looked up some of the things Mr. Abanes talks about, and I found his references to be completely accurate. Again, I don't understand how this could be.

Everything is changing and Mr. Abanes' book has opened my eyes to, I suppose, truth. However, this is not pleasant. His explanation on polygamy, Utah life in the 19th century, and how our prophets have been leading us is disturbing. But the documents and quotes are there, which show what has been going on. This book has changed me, my thoughts, and I think, it might change my life. I need to read more. For now, this book seems like a good history, although not a pleasing one to have to read.

Non-Mormon and non-practicing Mormon reviewers have noted the "objectivity" of Mormon America. Indeed, the book is cleverly written to promote that impression. By focusing on controversial issues of doctrine and practice and by interviewing the same small set of critics that are always the focus of works like this (e.g., Excommunicated Mormon Michael Quinn is cited as many times in the index as current church President Gordon B. Hinckley. One wonders if Quinn actually was a ghost writer for the book.), the authors are able to create the feeling that the church does not have answers to the difficult questions raised. Responses by LDS scholars are given short shrift. For example, criticisms of the the Book of Mormon are dealt with in great detail, but supporting evidence from LDS scholars is only mentioned (e.g., word print analysis and Chaismus). More importantly, there is no discussion on the doctrinal contributions of the Book of Mormon and the reader is left hanging as to how the virtually illerate Joseph could have produced the book in such a short time span.

In most cases, the authors do a competent job in getting their facts straight. One glaring error is their understanding of the role of Christ in the LDS church. They portray his sacrifice as a great example, but not an actual atoning for sins. Nothing could be further from the truth. A closer reading of the Book of Mormon or virtually any other church publications on the topic would make the belief in an actual atonement crystal clear.

An interesting book, but just a bit more suble in its bias than the standard stuff written about the Church for years

The best book about the LDS church remains Leonard Arrington and Davis Bitton's 1979 "The Mormon Experience" which is still unmatched in its depth of insight. But if you are curious about Mormons and looking for a readable new book about them this is what you want. Someone has said that every reporter who visits Salt Lake for the 2002 Olympics with be carrying "Mormon America" as a handbook for local culture. That's probably accurate. The Ostlings wrote the recent cover story on the church for TIME magazine and have greatly expanded it for this effort.

Anyone who believes the sterotype of Mormons as brain-dead religious fundamentalists are in for a shock when they read this first-rate journalism. The Ostlings write with great empathy about the complexity of life for people who take religion seriously. The chapters on our intellectual culture are as balanced as anything I've read on that subject. The sections on practice are accurate, too. The Ostlings come very close to revealing what it's like on the inside--they ultimately fail to catch what it really feels like, however, because of the ultimately unbridgeable gap between description and the indescribable faith that lies at the heart of a believer's life. That's not really their fault of course--it's like trying to describe in words what the color "blue" is like. Orthodox Judaism has gotten a lot of respectful attention recently because of the nomination of Sen. Joseph Lieberman for vice-president. Many reporters have revealed a new sensitivity about how devout people live. The Ostling's book should be considered at the forefront of this new attention to the relationship of faith and American culture.

You can be sure that your Mormon neighbor will not want you to read this book, even though it is the most even-handed 'outsider' treatment of the subject available. That's because the Ostlings are not afraid to discuss LDS history and practice--which is not as lily-white as Church members and outsiders are led to believe. Mormon behavior is reviewed as well--in particular, the tendency throughout LDS history to resort to 'casuistry'--as it is politely phrased--when it comes to touchy topics, such as polygamy (e.g., Joseph Smith's public denial that he was practicing it while privately enjoying multiple plural marriages; also post-Manifesto deceit to cover up the practice), and, most recently, Gordon B. Hinckley's dissembling when asked during his interview with Richard Ostling (for Time magazine) about the Mormon belief that God was once a man, etc. That said, one has to read the book to fully appreciate the Ostling's mature admiration for the many good things they encountered within Mormonism. This is a must have book.

Richard Fletcher has written an exceptional work here. From the moment you open it several things are clear. Firstly, Mr. Fletcher speaks with obvious authority and knows the subject extremely well. He speaks about the most obscure characters and texts with striking familiarity. It is also apparent that he is a well read, high brow European and his writing is sometimes awkward to the American ear. Perhaps Fletcher's greatest acheivement is piecing together a comprehensive history from a time in which very little was recorded and preserved. He never gives too much weight to a particular source document, always weighing an author's account against any biases or hidden agendas.

The conversion of just about every group in western Europe is covered in detail and Fletcher gives us a well rounded chronicle of religious conversion on both the personal and societal level. He also never fails to iterate any or all of the reasons why an individual or people might convert.

Fletcher can be accused of going into too much detail at times. The chapters tend flow in biographies from one obscure monk to another with very little overview in between. This makes for difficult reading in the middle chapters. However, given the lack of published materials on the subject, this error can be overlooked.

Stellar research, recommended reading for any scholar of religious change or of the early middle ages.

This is certainly one of the better books on the vast, complex and multifaceted subject of how Europe slowly turned Christian over a period of a thousand years or so, how in this process the Roman Catholic Church and European societies deeply shaped each other, and how the Roman Church turned itself in one of the most enduring and successful transnational organizations, partly by design, partly by accident (as is usually the case in history). Fletcher describes, both in telling detail and in broad views, the proces itself, the problems that were encountered 'in the field' in very different times and situations in Europe, and poses some fundamental question about the relation between Christianity and paganism. An excellent book and i very much enjoyed reading it.

Fletcher's _The Barbarian Conversion_ is the best book on this subject I have read. As a longtime student of the early medieval era, I enjoyed Fletcher's perceptive and astute elucidation of this well-buried era. In some sections of the book, I had read (often repeatedly) every primary source mentioned, and I was continually astonished at the way he drew new insights out of familiar material. Although the middle section does drag a bit (particularly the chapter about the conversion of Scandinavia and Viking settlements), on the whole I love the author's style, his penchant for witty comments, and his eye for humor in his material. Seldom has a book on the early Middle Ages made me laugh out loud as much as this one. It's the details--a woman's garment that shows the adoption of Byzantine necklace fashions, the Greenlander who purchases a bishop for his fledgling settlement with a live polar bear--that bring history to life, and this book is full of them. Never forgetting the complexities of his material, and often showing that the line between Christians and pagans was never firm, Fletcher illuminates an often obscure story.

I also want to add that this book provides the best overview of the situation of the Jews in Europe during the early Middle Ages that I have ever seen (and I have been looking). Most authors begin with the persecutions of 1096 and only toss off a line about the tolerance that marked the first 500 years of the Middle Ages; Fletcher actually examines the tensions and accomodations during those centuries, and his account has thoroughly persuaded me that looking at the fluidity between Judaism and Christianity casts a needed light on the larger characters of both religions at that moment in history. Likewise, his extensive treatment of the conversions of the Slavic and Baltic regions alongside the more familiar terrain of Western Europe is a welcome reminder that the history of the Middle Ages must include Eastern Europe. Although only a devotee of the subject matter would want to read a 500-odd page book on the barbarian conversions, a medievalist who does will be richly rewarded.

Richard Hays has undertaken a highly important project. He is attempting to devise a system of morality for the modern era based on New Testament ethics. He approaches the subject systematically, attempting to discern what exactly it was that New Testament writers thought on a variety of subjects, from abortion to violence. Sometimes, his conclusions are exactly those of the writers themselves. However, on homosexuality, his conclusions are a bit forced. He does not seek to discourage it (though several NT authors do, most notably Paul in Romans), perhaps out of fear of offending some within society. But, he does not encourage it either. In the end, he effectively eliminates the possibility of homosexual union, but does not go so far as to impose abstinence on such persons, regardless that the Bible (more than just the NT) regards the practice as an "abomination." Therefore, Hays loses an opportunity to take a definitive stand on a subject. His inability to follow a strict line of interpretation therefore throws into doubt the rest of his conclusions, not for their lack of validity, but simply by association. In that regards, while Hays has taken an important step to get us thinking about such matters, he has more or less failed to provide anything of any real substance because on one point he refuses to draw his conclusions based on a strict biblical exegesis.

Richard Hays does a commendable job of meticulous research about the New Testament witness to vital ethical issues. He attempts to demonstrate the continuing relevance and importance of the New Testament towards pressing contemporary issues like war/peace, sexuality, divorce and abortion. The greatest strength of Hays' book is that it is a comprehensive work of reference; he really gets into the detailed text of much of the New Testament.

However, in my view, Hays' contemporary application is disappointing. As another reviewer has commented, Hays basically throws in the towel on abortion, even though he concludes that it is wrong from a Christian ethical perspective. He simply dismisses any action by the Church to modify or change the current permissive abortion regime as it exists under Roe v. Wade. This is the one public issue that the Church apparently has no business addressing in the "public square," unlike race, poverty, and so on. Hays does not explain why the Church should adopt this stance, other than repeating the tired liberal cliche about not legislating morality (or something like that). Further, Hays adopts a nasty, mean-spirited tone in his refutation of pro-life Scriptural exegesis. Hays may well be correct, but there is no reason for his arrogant personal attacks on people with different views. Hays seems to have a strong dislike of pro-lifers in general, which I believe warps his discussion of abortion.

I am also disappointed by his limp conclusion to the issue of homosexuality. After marshalling considerable evidence that the New Testament does not approve of homosexuality, Hays refuses to draw the necessary conclusions regarding church discipline. Just like with abortion, on the issue of sexuality, Hays adopts the shopworn liberal approach of saying "I don't approve of this, but I won't impose my views on others." Of course, this again begs the question as to why it is OK to legislate morality in some ethical areas but not in others.

In short, this book deserves a "4" or "5" for its Biblical studies, but a "1" or "2" for its contemporary application.

It may well be that the success or failure of Hays' book will boil down to whether or not one agrees with him that (1) Community, (2) Cross, and (3) New Creation are appropriate lenses through which one may view NT ethics. Hays does well to suggest reasons why these lenses are more appropriate than a more traditional lense such as "love":

(1) Hays argues that any focal image needs to find a textual basis in all the canonical witness. "Love," according to Hays is not a central theme or ethical warrant in several important NT texts (Mark, Hebrews and Revelation, and Acts). According to Hays, the 3 metaphors he elevates well encapsulate essential claims in a much larger plurality of NT texts.

(2) Love is itself not as much an image as it is the "interpretation of an image." "Love," in other words, is embodied concretely in the NT by the cross. Apart from the specific narrative context of the cross, "Love" loses any meaning. Thus, love in the NT is itself subsumed under the image of cross.

(3) "Love" in contemporary ethics has become a fluid, debased concept that covers "all manners of vapid self-indulgence." From the perspective of contemporary culture, elevating love as a functional metaphor may do as much harm as it does good.

My personal observation is that "kingdom" may be a more appropriate metaphor than "community," for Hays since "community" in many ways has becomed as distorted a concept as love. The notion of "kingdom" carries with it the idea of community united under the reign of God, embodied through the cruciform life of Christ. I find this a more helpful metaphor than "community," which today may carry the idea of a collection of self-interested individuals using the church to meet their own needs.

Perhaps the greatest strenght of this book is the degree to which Hays struggles to allow scripture itself to take priority over other sources of authority (tradition, reason, and experience). The reason Hays comes out such an ardent pacificist is precisely because his exegesis of NT texts leads him to believe that the NT is nearly univocal in the ethical stance it takes regarding Christian non-violence. Jesus' teaching of his disciples (contra Niebuhr) in the Sermon on the Mount is intended as a real way of life to be embodied in faithful obedience, not an impossible ideal that must be dismissed by informed realists. According to Hays Jesus' own life of costly obedience to God functions as a paradigm for his own disciples, and the NT itself suggests that this is to be the case (this is a theme well-embodied in Paul's letters and in Mark's gospel). Even tradition would lead us to believe that the early church was consistently committed to non-violence at least until the time of Constantine; thus other sources of authority outside scripture seem to confirm Hays' argument that the church is to be a people committed to non-violent love of the enemy. The strength of Hays' pacifism is that he is attempting to root it firmly in his exegesis of the NT. Thus, one must do more than dismiss him as an unrealistic pacifist superimposing his views on the church. Rather, one must begin at the exegetical level to explain where Hays is mistaken, why his conclusion that the NT voice is univocal in advocating non-violence as the way of the church is incorrect. Or another way to deal with Hays' pacifism would be to say that other sources (tradition, reason, or experience) need to take precedence over scripture even if Hays is correct that the NT voice is consistently non-violent. This shifts the debate back to the hermeneutical level (and it is at this level where most theologians will conflict with Hays).

There are two weaknesses of the book in my opinion. First, Hays does not spend enough time exploring the issue of how the OT is to function as a basis for Christian ethics. Admittedly, attention to this question would greatly expand an already large book. Still, the plurality of scripture is greatly expanded when one draws the OT into a discussion of Christian ethics. This makes an integrative study of OT and NT for Christian ethics all the more necessary. This becomes especially important for any non-violence reading of NT ethics.

Second, I would have like Hays to give more attention to the general epistles and Hebrews. I'm afraid Hays brushes them off by saying that they essentially echo ethical themes he covers in his close reading of the gospels and Pauline literature. I think this case remains to be demonstrated.