A Different Jesus?, pt. 2

Chapter 1: Jesus Before Bethlehem

So he starts by buttressing LDS belief in pre-existence of souls by showing that "many have perceived" something similar, like William Wordsworth and Marcel Proust. Okay, so Millet's proved that he survived Survey of Western Lit II, but that's about all.

Describing the pre-mortal state he says,

We developed and matured according to our adherence to God's eternal law, and in spite of the fact that we walked and talked with God, it was necessary for us to exercise faith in God's plan for the ultimate salvation of his children.

"Ultimate salvation," a phrase nicely slipped in. Wonder when that'll come back up and be explained (I'm guessing never)....kinda sounds like a Reality TV show...probably on Pax or TBN.

Millet quotes Bruce R. McConkie, saying that Christ

is described as being 'from everlasting to everlasting' (D&C 61:1), and 'from all eternity to all eternity' (D&C 39:1).... He was born, as were all the spirit children of the Father.

Now let's stop for a second here..."everlasting to everlasting" and "born." Ummmm, 'scuse me? Isn't that kind of a tough thing to pull off--he's eternal, but he had a start. And yeah, I know the LDS have some convoluted explanation for this, but Millet doesn't even bother to give it. This'd be a great time for it, but it's nowhere to be found.

Throughout this chapter there are several quotations from D&C that resemble/quote the Bible, but he only cites D&C. There's strategery here...on the one hand, you might think of citing both texts to imply that the D&C says the same as the Bible. On the other hand, by simply quoting D&C, you get evangelicals to think "oh, that's where that phrase is" (or something to that effect). There's pluses and minuses to both. On the whole, I'd go with the other tack, but that's just me.

One of his points in this chapter is to show that myths/legends/other religions have elements of truth mixed in (holdovers from early man having the truth).

In as much as the doctrines of rebirth, regeneration, resurrection, and the immortality of the soul were taught from the beginning, why should we flinch when we discover the doctrines of reincarnation, transmigration of souls, and rebirth in such traditions as Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism, or when we encounter a people like the ancient Egyptians who are obsessed not with death (as some suppose), but with life after death?

Now not saying anything about the truth of this claim for the Egyptians (don't know, not sure I care), but you just don't throw something like that out there without defending it. C'mon Robert, we deserve a footnote at least. Sloppy. I think the argument he's making is intriguing, and I'd like to see him flesh it out some more, but he damages his credibility with tactics like this.

Everyone has access to some measure of light and truth from the Almighty. Brigham Young thus declared that there has never been "a man or woman upon the face of the earth, from the days of Adam to this day, who has not been enlightened, instructed, and taught by the revelations of Jesus Christ.

Nice assertion, why don't you argue for it more. Oh, too busy?

He attempts--shamelessly--at this point in his conclusion to bring C. S. Lewis in to argue his case. Now whatever problems Lewis had (there are many!), there's no way he's trying to make the same case as Millet. Period. No way. This does illustrate some of the problems with Lewis' Tao. But when Lewis talked about those "who are slowly becoming Christians though they do not yet call themselves so. There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. He's talking about a Christian malgre lui (a la O'Connor's A Good Man Is Hard To Find, not someone taught by revelations of Jesus Christ who just haven't been led to a higher light in the gospel (either in this life or the next). This is downright dishonest.

Some of these comments might seem picky, but they're the same complaints I make of evangelicals when I read 'em, Millet deserves nothing less. I'm not saying that my complaint about the Egyptian line (for example) disproves Millet's thesis, I'm just saying it takes points away from him.

All right, that's it for Chapter 1.