Robert L. Millet

This book contains essays about many of the more controversial aspects of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is intended to help the reader gain a better understanding of these topics in a faith-promoting, but scholarly and honest environment, against the flood of misinformation available online today. Indeed, the editor notes that "The Internet is filled with thousands of pages of anti-Mormon polemic, and it is extremely difficult for people to receive an honest and fair appraisal of Mormonism without significant effort on their part" (page viii).

Besides those by the editor, Robert L. Millett, the book contains essays by Daniel L. Belnap, J. Spencer Fluhman, Steven C. Harper, Brian M. Hauglid, Daniel K. Judd, Kerry Muhlestein, Ugo A. Perego, Brent L. Top, and John W. Welch. They are split into four categories: Restored Christianity, Latter-day Saint Church History, Scriptural Perspectives, and Doctrinal Teachings. The topics include what it means to be a Christian, the various accounts of the First Vision, the Smiths' involvement in money-digging and the supernatural, the Kinderhook plates, Joseph Smith's youngest plural wife, DNA and the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and Jesus Christ and salvation, among many others. Many of the topics are written by experts in the area - for example, a population geneticist discusses DNA and the Book of Mormon, two egyptologists discuss the Book of Abraham, an editor of the Joseph Smith Papers tackles the subject of multiple versions of the Fist Vision. I would like to concentrate on a few topics of particular interest to me in order to give an idea of the overall book.

Kent P. Jackson's cleverly titled "Are Christians Christians?" discusses what it means to be a Christian from the point of view of mainstream Christianity and where it came from. He examines statements from the Presbyterian and Methodist churches that declare us to be unchristian. He explains why their definition is unbiblical, and happily admits that we should not be included in it. "We, of all people, should not be offended that other churches consider our baptisms invalid and do not recognize the authority of our priesthood holders to officiate in their ordinances. Since the first days of our church's history, we have denied the validity of the authority and ordinances of all other churches (see D&C 22). We concede that we are not members of the historic Christian church that includes our Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant brothers and sisters. But to consider us not Christians on issues of belief is another matter" (page 55). He then goes on to explain that our definition of the word Christian is scriptural (although we have no official statement of such), and that by that definition we would also include those of other faiths previously mentioned.

Steven C. Harper, an editor of the Joseph Smith Papers, wrote about the accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision, saying it "may be the best documented theophany (vision of God) in history." He finds the five different known accounts in eight statements (plus contemporary hearsay) to be "rich documentation" and "a good reason to believe him" rather than being evidence of an inconsistent and evolving story as others contend. (Page 63.) He describes how Fawn Brodie and Wesley Walters shaped the criticisms that are popular today, and did not reconsider their interpretations even when new evidence against them came to light. He points out that "Those who share the skeptics' assumptions will likely arrive at the same conclusions as the skeptics. But those who are open to the possibility that Joseph told the truth can discover other meanings from the same facts" (page 71).

Ugo A. Perego, who holds a PhD in genetics and biomolecular sciences, handles the question of whether DNA proves or disproves the Book of Mormon. He goes into great detail explaining how DNA is used in research, the current theories about migrations into the Americas, and describes the various theories for and against the Book of Mormon based on available DNA evidence. He points out the problems with each of these theories (such as evidence showing up in the wrong time period, wrong assumptions being used, and misunderstandings of the limitations of DNA research) and arrives at the conclusion that DNA evidence can neither be used to prove nor disprove that the people in the Book of Mormon actually existed. (In fact, he points out that it can't even be used to prove that Jesus existed.) He says that "I find no difficulties in reconciling my scientific passion about Native American history with my religious beliefs. I am not looking for a personal testimony of the Book of Mormon in the double helix. ...Anyone using DNA to ascertain the accuracy of historical events of a religious nature - which require instead a component of faith - will be sorely disappointed" (page 208).

One of the essays on the Book of Abraham is by Kerry Muhlestein, who has a PhD in egyptology from UCLA. He begins by explaining how he got interested in the Book of Abraham, and why egyptologists outside the church dismiss it. He also found that many members of the church who struggle with the issues involved with the Book of Abraham aren't looking for an excuse to leave the church, but have "encountered well-written (though not necessarily well-documented or researched) arguments...and did not know how to answer the questions posed by these arguments." He found that those publishing critical information are generally unaware that is is "based on incorrect information and bad assumptions. They are misled by the mistakes, lies, and trash put out by a few, and they unwittingly pass the information along without really looking into their sources." (Page 219.) He then goes on to debunk some of the misinformation, such as the idea that there was no human sacrifice in ancient Egypt. He also found that one of the words supposedly made up by Joseph Smith (Olishem) has been discovered in two ancient texts. He discovered that Egyptians had access to biblical stories by 200 BC (which was the right time period for the papyri), and were particularly interested in Abraham. He presented this information to a conference put on by the Russian Academy of Science and received positive reviews. He talks about evidence that what we actually have possession of today was a very small part of what Joseph had, and gives reasons why it likely was not the source of the Book of Abraham, other than Facsimile 1. He also briefly discusses the mystery of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, which were not likely to have been used in the translation process, as some critics have claimed. Another important point he makes is that "written by his own hand, upon papyrus" does not mean that the actual papyrus we have was written by the hand of Abraham, but that it is a copy of the original that Abraham would have written on much earlier. He also devotes several pages to Facsimile 1, pointing out many evidences (and some possible theories) for the authenticity of the interpretations provided by Joseph Smith.

Overall, I thought the book was quite good, although some essays were better than others. Some of the more doctrinal ones, in particular, presented a few points as given that not all members would agree on. But such is the nature of Mormonism. The book could be used to answer questions for oneself, to help a member friend or an investigator, or for inoculation against misinformation and half-truths encountered in a hostile environment. It would be useful reading for those preparing to serve a mission, for families, and for any individual interested in learning more about these issues, getting their questions answered, helping others, or defending the church.… (meer)

I thought this book was extraordinarily good: the best outwardly-directed explanation and irenic defense of LDS Christianity that I can recall reading. Its publication by Eerdmans, a prominent Evangelical publisher, was really a landmark. When InterVarsity Press published How Wide the Divide?, an Evangelical scholar, Craig Blomberg, had opportunity to respond to each of the claims of the LDS scholar, Stephen E. Robinson, and the focus (as I saw it) was very much on differences. In _A Different Jesus?_, LDS scholar Robert Millet had the floor for 95% of the book, with Evangelical scholar Richard J. Mouw merely providing a friendly foreword and an afterword.

For a while, this book was displayed on the homepage of Christian Book Distributors. Just like Amazon, CBD allows customers to write online reviews, and Millet's book accumulated 10 different reviews, each of which gave the book 0 out of 5 stars and expressed horror that Eerdmans and CBD would give aid and comfort to the enemy by, respectively, publishing and selling it. (CBD never published my 5 out of 5 stars review, so maybe they're not turncoats after all!)… (meer)

In another recent review, I faulted the authors of a recent apologetic resource for their tone (though I signaled my substantial agreement with their claims and theological commitments). Talking Doctrine: Mormons & Evangelicals in Conversation is an altogether different approach. Edited by Richard Mouw, Reformed theologian and past president of Fuller Seminary and Mormon theologian Robert Millet, Talking Doctrine is a window into a interfaith dialogue that has been happening between Mormons and Evangelicals for the past fifteen years. Because this volume has contributors from both groups, the concerns of both Mormons and Evangelicals are articulated; yet there is something else too. Each contributor has sought to listen charitably to the other and friendship and trust has grown across the theological divide.

The book's two parts give us an overview of their discussions and some of the sticking-points for each community. Part one examines the 'nature of the dialogue.' The contributors summarize their dialogue and offer autobiographical reflections about what the conversation has meant, and can mean for each their communities. In part two, the authors share the mutual understanding (yet continuing disagreement) on specific doctrinal issues.

When these Mormon and evangelical scholars first met, they regarded each other with mutual suspicion. Both groups have grown used to the other making assumptions about the veracity of their faith experience (terms like 'cult' and apostasy have been bandied about). And yet as they sat down to these conversation and really tried to listen to what the other group actually believed, a surprising common ground emerged. Craig Blomberg, observes:

We have recognized that the most effective forum for mutual understanding comes when we agree that none of us in our joint gatherings will try to proselytize the other, though what two of us might decide to do in some entirely private conversation elsewhere is entirely up to us. At the same time, we have all expected that our communities would continue to proselytize each other actively, but that they need to do so with much greater awareness of each other's beliefs, misunderstandings, stereotypes, 'red-flag' issues and the like (34).

There was not a single convert to Mormonism or evangelicalism in these gatherings. Each participant was (and is) immersed meaningfully in their group's theological and religious culture. However real change happened. The evangelicals realized their own characterization of the Mormons as believers in 'works righteousness' The conversation revealed a mutual commitment to the efficacy and finality of Christ's atonement and his work on the cross. The Mormons affirmed their belief in divine grace (especially Camille Fronk Olson's essay). This gave the evangelical contributors pause about making declarations on the eternal salvation of their Mormon friends. At the same time, several Evangelicals recognized the Mormon critique of their lack of theological unity and a central authority.

Certainly sticking-points remain and the evangelicals (or Mormon) participants would not commend the others' faith to seekers. What has emerged from dialogue is not bland relativism of theological commitments but mutual respect and understanding. As J. Spencer Fluhman (one of the Mormon scholars) says:

We've all found it much more difficult to dismiss a theology when it is embodied. Perhaps some of our evangelical counterparts are even less convinced that we're real Christians. But I doubt it. I am sure of this: I would be perfectly comfortable with Richard Mouw or Craig Blomberg or Dennis Okholm answering questions about Mormonism in the press or in print. I would expect them to be clear about positions they disagree with--heaven knows they have been clear with us--but I know my name or my faith is safe in their hands. The dialogue has been demanding and it has forced some tough questions, but for the most part I have been moved by the displays of generosity and humility on both sides (31).

Without summarizing all of the essays or content of this book, some of the stand-out essays I enjoyed are: J. Spencer Fluhman's essay on his experience of the dialogue and Blomberg's dream for future dialogue (both cited above), Dennis Okholm's essay on 'apologetics as if people mattered' more than arguments, Gerald McDermott's essay on the nature of serious (rigorous), devout (where each contributor is committed to their faith) and Holy dialogue (aimed at proper understanding and encounter with God), Sarah Taylor's autobiographical essay about learning respect for the faith of Mormons while attending BYU as an undergrad, Camille Fronk Olson's exploration of the doctrine of grace in Mormonism and Robert Millet's essays about authority and revelation.

This gets an enthusiastic five stars and I am excited to see where this conversation will go!

Note: I received this book from IVP Academic in exchange for my honest review.
… (meer)