Customer Reviews

Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is the best volume on the subject (inter-faith debate between Evangelical and LDS positions) since _How Wide the Divide?_ and it is double-duce the book that _Bridging the Divide_ is (see my other review of that text). I tend to buy books in doublets and triplets when I have decided it is time to tackle a subject and have done that here - though I am a little slow in getting this review out. If one or more of my critiques bore you simply skip down - each new point is generally prefaced with a reference to the page in the book I am about to discuss.

On Dr. McDermott's comparison of the term "Evangelical" and "Fundamentalist" (see page 10) I have a bit of a problem. There is so much overlap between these two groups that splitting them out is not especially useful and the manner in which it is done by Dr. McDermott is even less helpful. Certainly back in the day (and yes, I know that day was all too recent) Bob Jones College forbade "interracial" dating - as if there were more than one race of humans - and you can still find people like that. However, all of the "Fundamentalists" I know (and I know quite a few) are as non-racist a group as you could name. I think a better distinction between "Evangelical" and "Fundamentalist" is to say that a "Fundamentalist" does not mind being labeled so; whereas an "Evangelical" is often quick to point out how he's not a "Fundamentalist" - as we see Dr. McDermott do straightaway in this book in good "Evangelical" fashion.

In contrast there are moments of sublime charity as when Dr. McDermott says (pages 65-66); "For theologians such as Jonathan Edwards, the moral life is not something we try hard to do "down here" in order to be worthy of our calling. No, it is different by a quantum leap: it is actually participation in the mystical communion among the three persons of the Trinity. This means that all human love is a refraction of the love among the three divine persons. When a Christian loves her neighbor, she not only imitates God's love in Christ but participates in the mutual love between the Father and the Son. To love the neighbor, then, is not simply to be like God but to *have* God" (emphasis in the original). Nothing Dr. Millet said in this book, in his own words, even begins to compare with that.

Dr. Millet shows considerable difficulty in dealing with the nature of the LDS conception of the Godhead. While he decries the orthodox view, ["Three persons cannot be one person, nor can I conceive how three persons can be one being", p. 80], he says of the LDS; "Wise Latter-day Saints do not worry about which aspects of God's nature we participate in when we worship; that is, when I say I feel the Spirit of the Lord in my life, I do not stop and ask, Is this the Spirit of the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit? Frankly, to me it doesn't matter. . ." Taking that last statement at face value: It apparently matters great deal to God because so much of the New Testament and the Book of Mormon (for that matter) talk on this very issue. So, Dr. Millet; Why doesn't it matter to you? Apparently God thinks it should.

Like _How Wide the Divide?_ there are a number of places in this book where the LDS proponent flubs his understanding of the biblical text. On page 80 Dr. Millet has a question he apparently thinks is a tough one for non-LDS; "Why is it the Christian Church should fight and struggle for centuries and even millennia to maintain Jewish monotheism?" As it happens, Dr. McDermott provides a quick and clear answer on page 89; "Jesus himself quotes Torah, "The Lord our God is one Lord" ([Mark] 12:28 - 29), thus affirming Torah's insistence on monotheism".

Another is found on pages 98-99. Here Dr. Millet is discussing the atonement of Christ - which for Mormons actually begins in the garden of Gethsemane - and says, "Mormons believe and teach that one of the consequences of sin is the withdrawal of a portion of God's Spirit (see Alma 34:35; D&C 19:20), and that what we feel as emptiness, alienation, disappointment, disapproval - these are but manifestations of the loss of the Spirit. . . as Brigham Young pointed out, it was the withdrawal of the Father's Spirit that caused [Jesus] to suffer; to agonize..." etc. at Gethsemane.

Yet we read in the Bible that *effective* prayer is aided by the Spirit of God (Romans 8:26-27). We read there that Jesus prayed while under duress and, even though the cup could not be taken from Him, God *heard* and *approved* those prayers by sending an angel to comfort Jesus at Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36-42, Mark 14:32-42, Luke 22:40-46 & Hebrews 5:7).

The Bible teaches that the "bitter cup" which Jesus had to "drink" was suffering for our sin upon the cross (John 18:11). We see that Jesus' words on the cross, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46), are consistent with this understanding (as well as the rest of the Bible) for Jesus was made to suffer the loss of the Holy Spirit when our sin was imputed to Him at Golgotha. These accounts (LDS and biblical) are in conflict in that they teach a different and irreconcilable understanding of the same historical sequence - Gethsemane to Golgotha.

Overall I find Dr. Millet's teaching about Christ's atonement to be inconsistent and how could it be otherwise since he holds, in equal regard, conflicting testimonies.

Here is another difficulty I noticed - President Snow's dictum;
"As man is, God once was;
As God is, man may become"
The main problem for this LDS doctrine is, in essence, that it means God was once a sinner. In order to get around this clear implication Dr. Millet must change this unambiguous teaching of the Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the LDS Church into;
"As man is, Christ once was;
As Christ is, man may become" (p. 85)
And this goes right to the heart of this issue - even Dr. Millet, after 30+ years learning and teaching in an official capacity of the LDS Church, cannot accept several of the teachings of his Church - of which this is but one.

On page 122 a reference is made to a BoM passage (3 Nephi 28:20-22) wherein Jesus tells three of the apostles in the Americas, circa 34-35 AD, that they will remain living on earth until the Second Coming - and nothing that might befall them here on earth will cause them harm. Three apostles is all it takes to maintain the power and authority of the one-true-church. Fot it is taught by the LDS that between these three they posses all the keys of the Kingdom of Christ. So then I ask; why does the LDS Church teach of a complete apostasy of power and authority?

On page 129 there is a rhetorical question asked by Dr. Millet that is supposed to help convince the reader that Joseph Smith Jr did not simply make up (most of) the Standard Works of the LDS Church. That, in particular, there is no contradiction of Mr. Smith's earlier revelations with those that came later in regards to the nature of God. Dr. Millet says, "To begin with there is a very practical question to be raised: if in fact Joseph Smith made all of this up, if he simply had a fertile imagination, if he was enough of a religious genius to produce thousands of pages of scriptures and teachings and set in motion the most successful indigenous American religion, wasn't he bright enough to recognize those seeming contradictions"?

This bit of rhetoric just quoted has many fallacies attached to it. The most striking one is that of ignoratio elenchi (a.k.a. - Red Herring). The best way to elucidate my point is simply to make the following argument:
Islam is the religion everyone should convert to. It is obviously the most true because the Prophet Muhammad was entirely uneducated and illiterate yet his teachings are the direct basis of the most successful world religion to date. The success of the LDS Church pales in comparison to that of Islam. So any contradictions you might find in Islamic scripture are your own stubborn fault.

Dr. Millet is also attempting to appeal to the LDS faithful by leaning on the popular sentiment, among members of his church, that Joseph Smith, though not highly educated, was certainly no fool (aka - an appeal to loyalty).

Dr. Millet also ignores, as does my appeal to Islam, the fact that Joseph Smith did not bring his religious views into a vacuum but into an environment of a very well established and widely taught Christian religious system. A system Joseph Smith was steeped in from his earliest youth. Furthermore, the point Dr. McDermott makes (the Book of Mormon has many unambiguous passages that are specifically Trinitarian in teaching - see page 123 and also, e.g., BoM - 3 Nephi 11:27,36; Mormon 7:7) is the very point Dr. Millet is trying to counter here on page 129, which can be seen to be a likely outcome of Joseph Smith's upbringing. That is, it took Joseph Smith some years to throw off the Trinitarian teaching of the first twenty years of his life and as a consequence his early revelations follow along the lines of his youthful indoctrination. Not the result one would expect given the nature of Joseph Smith's purported revelations nor the harshness with which God apparently views these heretical ideas (see JSH 1:19).

On page 130 Dr. Millet counters this last criticism directly by stating flatly that; "The references from the Book of Mormon that Professor McDermott cites do not mean what he thinks they mean, at least as far as mainline and mainstream Latter-day Saints are concerned. Again, such passages (e.g. 2 Nephi 31:20 {should be 2 Nephi 31:21}; Mosiah 15:5; Alma 11:44; 3 Nephi 11:27, 36; Mormon 7:7) speak of the Godhead as "one God," but very few Mormons would consider this to refer to anything other than one infinitely united Godhead".

This would be a reasonable rejoinder except for one little fact Dr. Millet overlooks. All of these passages cited refer to "the one God" and not one talks explicitly about a "Godhead" - a term that is as foreign to the BoM as the word Trinity is to the Bible. This is precisely what Dr. McDermott is getting at and Dr. Millet gives the appearance of considering the argument while actually ignoring the main thrust entirely. These passages from the BoM, in their native context, are entirely consistent with classic Trinitarian thought.

Continuing from page 130: Dr. Millet proffers the following argument in favor of showing the historicity of the BoM; "Latter-day Saints are also quick to suggest that time and patience are needed when it comes to "proving" Book of Mormon historicity. Biblical scholars have had centuries to establish the historical veracity of the people and events of the Old and New Testaments, and some things have only been corroborated within very recent years". This seems reasonable until one considers the actual facts of archaeology and paleography. The number of reputable scientists effectively conducting such work in the 1800's can be counted on one hand, perhaps two, with essentially 100% of the work being done after the year 1820. In the Twentieth Century the number of reputable scientists conducting such work before the Second World War was similarly few.

So you see, this appeal to inadequate LDS scholarly development is itself a fallacy because there has been essentially equal time for BoM archaeology/paleography to show results. But there are none. There are "Biblical Archaeologists" of most any persuasion - Christian, Jew, Muslim, Agnostic and Atheist - but there are none who are "Book of Mormon Archaeologists"; not even a Latter-day Saint. It would seem then that it is certain the Bible is an historical document dating from the ancient world - even atheist scholars admit this. It would seem equally certain that the Book of Mormon is historical only in the sense it dates to the early 1800's or repeats information from then extant ancient sources (a.k.a. the Bible).

On page 132 Dr. Millet says; "You have been at this business of apologetics, of defending the faith, for two thousand years; we're just a little over halfway to Nicaea, in terms of years, when it comes to providing a reason for the hope within us". This statement is another red-herring. First of all, the writings of the anti-Nicene Fathers (with commentary) take up about 10 volumes. LDS scholars at the F.A.R.M.S./Maxwell Institute have produced more than net 10 volumes in just the last two years. The Journal of Discourses, from the Nineteenth Century LDS Church, takes up 26 volumes alone - one should consider the writings of the Orson Pratt especially.

This idea, that there has been insufficient time to marshal the arguments and evidence in defense of distinctive LDS teaching, is simply a canard. The paucity of evidence supporting LDS beliefs are not a direct result of the lack of evidence. There is plenty of evidence and it mostly points directly away from uniquely LDS positions (some of the evidence is equivical).

Consider also this: The reason for there needing to be a Restoration of proper Power and Authority is the state of chaos that Christendom finds itself in circa AD 120 to 1820. So from that perspective the LDS Church should have it easy - there is only 1,700 years of confused babbling by darkened minds to contend with. Now that the window of Heaven is open it should be a snap to set things right. The simplicity and clarity inherent in the Mormon system of revelation should outshine the best thoughts of men - even if these professors had 10,000 years head start - because who can out-do God?

A general trend to Dr. Millet's argumentation that I find disturbing is his tendency to selectively quote sources who are otherwise completely unsupportive of distinctively LDS teaching. For example: Ellery Channing (cf. Dr. McDermott's comments on page 135) or Barbara Brown Taylor (cf. reviews of her books at Amazon). I realize that this is his prerogative but the way in which he cites/quotes from these authors make it seem as if these authorities would be in favor of his position. This is deceptive and unflattering to his cause. I suspect Dr. Millet is banking on most members of his church simply being ignorant of whom it is he's citing thus making it seem a good argument to them.

On page 188 Dr. Millet, having gone over some of the difficulties regarding salvation in Christ, says; "To be sure, there have been misunderstandings, misapplications, and abuses of these specific truths by both our faith communities". This is a fine statement to make and I cannot disagree with it. However, in light of this admission, I have a question: How is it, the "one true church" - led personally and unequivocally into restoration by the Holy Spirit of God - can be declared guilty of "misunderstanding", "misapplication" and "abuse" of a principle as important as salvation in Christ?

On the next page Dr. Millet lays valid criticism upon the teaching of some evangelicals; "Some evangelical writers have commented that the result [of teaching cheap grace] is that many born-again Christians do not tend to live any differently from worldly , nonreligious people". I agree. But the flip side of this should give Dr. Millet pause. For there are some evangelicals who live commendable lives - C.S. Lewis comes to mind since so many LDS authors approvingly quote him so often - yet according to LDS teaching these people cannot have the fullness of the presence of the Spirit of God in their lives. They have rejected distinctive Mormon teaching yet live exemplary, Spirit-filled lives. Better lives than we see in most Latter-day Saints. How is this possible?

On page 215 Dr. Millet says; "Yes, we do believe that each person who does not defect to perdition will be assigned to one of three degrees of glory hereafter (D&C 76), but this does not mean that either (a) there will be no consequences or suffering for sin, or (b) everyone will be saved in the presence of God and the Lamb". If there is a degree of "glory" less than that of which no greater than can be conceived then that means an eternity of suffering for sin. Clearly from the context Dr. Millet is not talking about some LDS flavor of Roman Catholic Purgatory, so, that leaves the lessor two LDS heavens indistinguishable from Hell. Oh sure, maybe the lower `heavens' are not so bad as Perdition proper but that's like saying the Supermax is not so bad as Guantanamo which is not so bad as a proverbial Turkish prison.

I understand that the position I argue here may just "seem" likely to me (and I could counter it directly by saying a good many LDS faithful also see the same thing and it troubles them too - cf. Dialogue 19 [1986]; pp 77-78 for starters) but there is a larger point to be made -> That in order to defend his position Dr. Millet will grasp at any argument, no matter how illogical or unfounded. If he was coming from a position of strength, a position of consistency, there would be no need whatsoever to stand on such poorly constructed rhetorical arguments.

Lastly, I was disappointed that Dr. McDermott failed to take Dr. Millet to task on his quotation of C. S. Lewis whose writings are not especially friendly to uniquely Mormon beliefs. In every instance in this book (pp 84, 95 & 185) Dr. Millet starkly misrepresents what Professor Lewis wrote. Given the renowned clarity of Professor Lewis's writing I can only conclude Dr. Millet is being either slack or disingenuous for distorting Lewis' words and ideas so badly. While space may be limiting when publishing a book I cannot excuse Dr. McDermott for letting this slide on that account.

Regards,
JS

The book is a sham... the dialogue is a sham..

Simply out, the game is in the names.. Jesus, Heavenly Father, God, The Lord, Baptism, Salvation [one or two] Blood of Christ, Redemption, The Cross, The Gospel.. all common enough words..but they have completely separate meanings to the Mormon and the Evangelical..

Smiles and gentle hearts abound, but the meanings separate the two sides across a thick wall of deceit. The author knows full well that he is playing the name game and loving it...

Mcdermott concedes that MC has been falsely persecuting the LDS for over a century. The three points he continues to dispute however are the nature of God, creation out of nothing, and modern authorized revelation.

First Mcdermott uses Old testament scripture to support the hellenized Nicence God. What he misunderstands about these scriptures is that nations surrounding Israel at the time worshiped various Gods but they were not the true God. Thus Moses, along with other prophets, would teach and warn there is but one God and no others beside him.

Mcdremott disregards numerous biblical verses that testify that God and Jesus are distinct beings with bodies. Jesus claimed that the father is greater the he, Stephen saw Christ on the right hand of God, God proclaiming that he is well pleased with his son, The great intercesssory pray, Jesus ascending to heaven in front of the disciples and the angels proclamation he will return in like manner, the significance of the resurrection, legion desiring bodies of swine to no body. etc. McDermott calls these plain and simple statments divine mysteries. But if such simple and plain language is a mystery, then what is to stop the whole bible from being viewed in this light. This reminds one of the broad way Christ warned of. That MC represents an anything goes as long as Christ is mentioned form of worship is easily dicernable. The danger is that MC worships a false God fashioned by Greek philosophers which keeps man in the dark. It refuses him lasting peace in this world and the obtaining of eternal life in the next.


Light (truth) is shining in darkness and the darkness rejects the light because its works are dark. These works are adhereing to false traditions, and the preaching for fame and fortune. It is the same obstacle Christ and his followers had to confront. Modern and ancient parallels are strikingly similar.

MC rejects the need for modern apostles and prophets (revelation) but the early church was built and maintained upon the rock of revelation. New apostles were ordained when a vacancy arose. If divine revelation ceases to flow through ordained individuals, Christ's church cannot exist. What amazes is that with the abundant evidence provided, MC continues to prefer darkness and keep souls from the light. The LDS church is a warning to MC and the world that it needs to repent and prepare for the return of Christ. The LDS church is going forth in the spirit and power of Elias. Elias has returned and restored these keys. Like Moses pleading with Israel to look upon the serpent and live, the LDS plead with the world to look and partake of the restoration and live.

The Apostle Paul warns us against "he that cometh [and] preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached," or offers "another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted" (2 Corinthians 11:4). Devious preachers may proclaim another Jesus, another spirit, or another gospel. With this in mind, how does one know which Jesus is the true Jesus? Do Mormons preach the true Jesus? Do evangelicals? Do Mormons and evangelicals believe in the same Jesus? These are the kinds of questions that Mormon scholar Robert Millet and evangelical scholar Gerald McDermott debate in Claiming Christ.

After providing background on their personal friendship, McDermott and Millet take turns interacting on various topics related to Christ. Starting with their sources of authority, the co-authors move on to a discussion of Christ before Bethlehem, the Trinity, Jesus' passion and atonement, the historical Jesus, the church and the sacraments, salvation in Christ, and the fate of the unevangelized. In each chapter, one writes the main article, the other follows with a response, and a final rebuttal concludes the section. This format allows the reader to grapple with both authors' views.

Unfortunately, McDermott's role as an evangelical contributor is compromised by his deficient view of the Bible. He denies biblical inerrancy, questions the sufficiency of Scripture, and rules out the principle of Sola Scriptura (i.e., that the Bible alone is our final authority in faith and practice). Thus, he says "'The real question, then, is not whether we will be influenced by tradition in our reading and interpreting, but which tradition?'" (20). Unfortunately, McDermott misses the point. Sola Scriptura does not mean that we can interpret Scripture apart from tradition; it means that the Bible is the Christian's ultimate standard of truth. We can (and must!) subject our traditions to what God has revealed in Scripture. The Word of God is the ultimate arbiter of truth.

Since McDermott denies these fundamental beliefs, he comes across as more interested in maintaining historic orthodoxy rather than in biblical faithfulness. A typical example would be his treatment of the gospel and the relationship between faith and works. Rather than expositing relevant biblical passages, McDermott gives the reader a comparative analysis of the views of Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards. In the following chapter on the destiny of the unevangelized, McDermott does not try to answer this difficult issue with Scripture; instead, he summarizes the positions of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, showing that Christians throughout history have been somewhat flexible. Often I was left asking: So what? How is one to know whether these Christians were right or wrong in their views? The Mormons, as it turns out, have an answer: An authoritative prophet tells us. McDermott never effectively counters the Mormon claim with the proper response--namely, that we have authoritative Scripture to enable us to discern truth from error. Orthodoxy is the result of biblical faithfulness. And while church history can assist us in understanding our faith, it must never be the basis upon which we establish our faith.

McDermott often fumbles when trying to point out similarities between Mormonism and historic Christianity. For example, he consistently maintains that Mormons believe Jesus is fully divine. He actually states: "Rejecting the Nicene definition of the Trinity but holding to the full deity of Jesus and salvific value of his cross and resurrection seems not as serious as denying the incarnation and the atonement" (221). But as I have written to him before:

". . . I do not know how you can maintain: 'On the LDS and Jesus, it is a fact that the Mormon view of Jesus is better than the Jehovah's Witness view, which is fully Arian. They do indeed believe Jesus is fully God.' While I have no problem insisting upon the defectiveness of the JW Jesus, the LDS Jesus is no less defective. The LDS do not believe that Jesus is fully God--if we are defining God consistently. The only way one could maintain that the Mormons believe that Jesus is fully God is by committing the fallacy of equivocation, for the God we refer to is nothing like the God of Mormon doctrine. The word 'God' is not some nebulous, abstract notion. God has revealed what divinity is to us.

"Essentially, the LDS church redefines 'God' when applying the term to Jesus. And in his case, it is no different from the Jehovah's Witnesses, because both refuse to accept Jesus as the eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient God. Both offer distortions f the one, true Trinitarian God. As you have stated, the LDS Jesus is not the Jesus of classic orthodoxy. He is a false Jesus--an imaginary Jesus who cannot save."

McDermott's equivocations throughout this work all too often prevent one from properly understanding the distinct and opposite beliefs which separate Mormonism and evangelical Christianity.

A truly helpful debate between Robert Millet and an evangelical has yet to be published. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that Mormons and evangelicals can engage in far better dialogues than this book presents, and I hope that a far more productive work will come out soon.

John Divito, Director
Africa Center for Apologetics Research