A Different Jesus?, pt. 1

For a change of pace (and to keep myself reading this book), I'm going to be live-blogging my thoughts on Robert L. Millet's book A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (Eerdmans, 2005). Yeah, I said Eerdman's--as Dr. White, Dr. Svendsen, and several others have chronicled reactions to and by Eerdmans publishing an apologetic work by a Latter-Day Saint (those links are just a sampling from each site, btw, look around on all of them). I personally, think it somewhat fitting that a company named for an indifferentist (to use Machen's term) like Charles Eerdman would later sellout the gospel, still, it bugs me no end. From the get-go, this book doesn't appear to be what it claims for itself--an explanation to evangelicals of LDS belief. It's an argument for it. Period.

Forward by Richard Mouw. Mouw assures us, "I still have some serious misgivings" regarding LDS thought "But I also have to admit that the misgivings do not run quite as deep as they did earlier." This is thanks to discussions with Millet and other LDS scholars. He also casts some aspersions on books by Christians on Mormonism. He makes it clear that you can't trust Christian writers on this topic, at least not as much as you can Mr. Millet. Outrageous! Because of co-belligerence on Right-to-Life work, as well as on other fronts, LDS and Evangelicals are working together more, so this is a chance for bridges to be built and us to be a "wonderful demonstration of civility in our increasingly uncivil world." Zowee! A demonstration of civility! Nothing like being civil while souls are rushing to destruction.

Why This Book Was Written
Millet starts off asking some questions:

Do we worship the same Jesus worshipped by our Friends of other Christian Faiths? [how many Christian faiths are there? Eph. 4:5] This question is not answered quickly or easily. It strikes at the heart of who the Latter-day Saints are and what they really believe. Gordon B. Hinckley, fifteenth president of the Church, asked: "Are we Christians? Of course we are! No one can honestly deny that. We may be somewhat different from the traditional pattern of Christianity. But no one believes more literally in the redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ. No one believes more fundamentally that He was the Son of God, that He died for the sins of mankind, that He rose from the grave, and that He is the living resurrected Son of the living Father."

One might ask: Why does it matter so much to you that some refer to you as a non-Christian sect? [see the Introduction below for Joseph Smith's thoughts on the "traditional pattern of Christianity"] For years it didn't' I felt that it really was no big deal that persons of other faiths simply didn't understand who and what we are. That was their problem. In recent years, however, it has become more of a personal preoccupation to assist others to know what we do believe and why we claim Christian status. It began to dawn on me when someone commented that 'Mormons are not Christians" that major misconceptions were being conveyed. Does it mean we do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ or accept the truthfulness or historicity of the New Testament? Do we not believe that our sins can be forgiven and our natures changed through the power of the blood of Christ? Do we not believe we should seek to emulate his matchless life? Do we not believe in the resurrection and the immorality of the soul? Are we like Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus when it comes to our perception of Jesus?

This book is going to be his attempt to show how the LDS view Jesus Christ "his identity, his distinctive mission, his matchless teachings, his sufferings, death and resurrection, and his transforming power." Millet makes clear this isn't authorized by the LDS church, it's his perspective. That's important to remember--only the LDS church can authoritatively speak on doctrine. No matter what this guy says, it ultimately doesn't mean it's what the church teaches. This is a nice little escape clause, don't ya think?

Introduction: How It All Began
Now according to Mouw, most evangelicals writing on LDS belief can't be trusted. So imagine my surprise when I learned nothing whatsoever in Millet's introduction where he traced the histories of J. Smith's First Vision; the roots of the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine & Covenants; a sketch of the LDS view of Revelation and Scripture; and so on. The only thing different in this intro to what I'd read previously was the "spin" put on the events and views. Whereas Evangelicals consider it all hooey, Millet considers it true--otherwise, like I said I've heard it all before.

A couple of things to highlight. First, these quotations from LDS leaders: "My mind was opened to conviction, and I knew that the Christian world had not the religion that Jesus and the Apostles taught. I knew that there was not a Bible Christian on earth within my knowledge." (Joseph Smith) "I did not join any church, believing that the Church of Christ in its true organization did not exists upon the earth." (Wilford Woodruff, 4th president of the Church) "convinced that the sects were all wrong, and that God had no church on earth, but that he would soon have a church on earth whose creed would be the truth" (describing Willard Richards, a counselor to Brigham Young). OOOOkay, why all this fuss over whether we think you're a Christian or not, Robert? Your past leaders consider us to be non-Christian, why can't we think the same of you? Are your feelings that fragile?

On the subject of the open canon of the LDS, one leader writes, "What makes us different from most other Christians in the way we read and use the Bible and other scriptures is our belief in continuing revelation. For us, the scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge, but what precedes the ultimate source. The ultimate knowledge comes by revelation...through those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators." I hope he picks up this idea some more later, because I think it's worth dwelling on...if he doesn't I'll try to return to it myself.

Okay, I think it's pretty clear I'm antagonistic to this book at the start--it's not impressing me yet. I'll try to dip into Chapter 1 tomorrow, "Jesus Before Bethlehem." That's sure to be a doozy.