Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A step in the right direction, September 25, 2009
I shared this book with my mother after reading it. She is an Evangelical Christian and I am a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints of 13 years. My mom and I both share a love and devotion to Jesus Christ and a desire to pattern our lives after His. We both love and revere the word of God. I just happen to have a testimony of something that she does not; namely, that God continues to speak through a Prophet in modern times as he did in ancient times. Our conceptions of Deity also differ. Hers is based on the conception hammered out at the Council of Nicaea convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. Mine is based on the experience of a humble, 14 year old boy who read James chapter 1:5 and was inspired to find a quiet place where he could kneel and appeal to God directly through prayer for an answer.
Are there differences in the doctrines we accept? Absolutely. However, my mother and I have learned that while we may disagree about this doctrine or that, we can acknowledge the vital, central force for good that Jesus Christ has been and remains in our lives. For now we avoiding contentious discussions and focus instead on things that we both agree on, among them, that "ye shall know them by their fruits," not by their denominations. This book serves as a role model for effective interfaith dialogue and I commend its authors for their courage in addressing differences in such an honest, open, and respectful manner. On the road to greater Christian unity, it seems to me that Bridging the Divide is something that can only occur when both Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints take the proverbial "high road," as these two men have.
|
|
|
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Groundbreaking! So, When Does the Bridge-Building Start?, August 3, 2009
My purpose in buying this book to read was to get a grip on pretty much one aspect of Mormonism that I cannot understand - namely, the twain concepts of Restoration and Authority. The strong endorsement by Drs. Blomberg and Robinson also encouraged me to pick up this volume. As an aside I too was disappointed (see the other reviews) with the length of the book. At 186 pages, with large font and large margins this book is really only about 86 pages long.
This book does nothing to clear up just what was Restored, other than a vague notion of Apostolic Authority, or to tell us just how that "true" Authority ought to function.
Dr. Millet says, "Well then, what does `only true church' mean? More than anything else, it means that divine institutional authority (that we call priesthood) has been restored through Joseph Smith and that such power rests with the leadership of our Church. It means that doctrinal finality rests with apostles and prophets, not theologians or scholars" (page 36).
But that does not even begin to explain how (for e.g) Joseph Fielding Smith can speak as *the* Church spiritual Authority on matters pertaining to true doctrine of God Almighty and then the next generation is free to disregard those revelation(s) because the current group in Authority no longer actively teaches those same truths.
To use another example - I do not care that Brigham Young taught the Adam-God Doctrine but I do wonder what the meaning of Restoration is when later Prophet-Seer-Revelators say `we no longer teach that'. Why was it ever taught if it is not still true?
This confusion within the LDS Church (over time and even among living Authorities) really sounds qualitatively *no different* than the reason given by LDS faithful as to why there needed to be a Restoration in the first place. Given a few more million members and another generation or two and there will be quantitative parity between all these `corrupt' denominational professors (whose work is `abominable' in the sight of the Lord) and the collective views of LDS Church General Authorities.
Contradictions abound in this book, on both sides, but especially on the side of Dr. Millet. Many contradictions are covered under the other reviews for this book. Here is another interesting contradiction in what Dr. Millet says that has broader implications, page 51, "Our belief is that the works of man are a necessary but an insufficient condition for salvation"; page 53, "I do not believe we will be saved by the merits of our works, but rather by the merits and mercy of the Holy Messiah...".
Dr. Millet, if our works are "necessary" (albeit insufficient) then it cannot also be true that we will not "be saved by the merits of our work". What Dr. Millet seems to be proposing, and what orthodox Christians have always objected to, is the LDS doctrine that a synergy exists between us and God and with God's help we effect our salvation. This view is precisely stated in Dr. Robinson's "Bicycle Parable" found in his book, _Believing Christ_ (I think that was the book but at any rate it can be found at the following URL and no doubt elsewhere on the web - [...]
In the book _How Wide the Divide?_(1997) Dr. Blomberg takes Dr. Robinson to task for the glaring inadequacy of this parable. To his credit Dr. Robinson completely concedes to Dr. Blomberg's criticism (cf. Pages 158-159, 180-181 and attendant end notes in _How Wide the Divide?_).
This parable gets repeated at LDS Church sponsored public events, at university events, in books (Deseret) and in other publications (Ensign, etc). So who is in charge that this errant teaching keeps getting promulgated? Where's the Restoration of Authority?
Or, more to the point; Why then is it being repeated (in essence if not in actuality) here in this book ten years after Dr. Robinson repealed it? Drs. Robinson and Millet know each other well, as good friends and colleagues. Dr. Millet has read and studied _HWD?_ for himself and has no doubt conversed with Dr. Blomberg and others on this very issue. The fact that this thinking, and even the Bicycle Parable itself, can be perpetuated for decades inside the LDS Church makes one wonder just what kind of Authority the LDS Church actually possesses.
This complaint qualifies as a "show stopper" according to Dr. Millet and Rev. Johnson but it really ought not to. This criticism goes right to the very center of the divide. Any takers?
Regards,
JS
|
|
|
2 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
An Unsatisfying Conversation, November 20, 2008
Can evangelical Christians and Mormons be friends? How should we relate to each other? And what about the differences between our faiths? This book was written to answer these and other questions, but in a distinct way--one author is a Mormon while the other is an evangelical. Robert Millet is the Mormon contributor and a professor at Brigham Young University. Gregory Johnson is an evangelical who began the ministry Standing Together. These two friends seek to understand one another and their differences, publicly sharing their ongoing conversation to help members of both faiths relate to each other.
The outcome of their discussions is Bridging the Divide, an edited transcript from one of their public presentations. This book is broken into four parts: 1) the background of both authors, 2) questions they ask each other, 3) questions they both answer from the audience, and 4) their conclusion. The result is an easy-to-read conversation between two knowledgeable friends of different faiths.
Let me begin with some words of appreciation. Developing relationships with people of other faiths is a good thing. All human beings are important to God, and Mormons are no exception. Personally, I welcome evangelicals building friendships with Mormons and seeking to understand what their LDS friends believe. Johnson and Millet give us a public example of this difficult but important process. If anything clearly comes through in this collaborative work, it is that these men genuinely care for and respect each other.
At the same time, I have some severe reservations about some of the conclusions they have drawn through their relationship. While I could devote a lot of time and space analyzing and critiquing many of the points made by both authors, I would rather deal with the foundational errors that Johnson makes in their book.
To begin, many of his statements of faith are couched in subjective terms. For example, as Johnson introduces this book, he states: "as one who used to primarily engage Latter-day Saint people with an 'apologetics only' mentality, seeking to prove them wrong by contrasting their claims with my understanding of biblical truth, that a dialogue approach is frankly more difficult but at the same time far more rewarding" (xxx, emphasis added). On the following page, he continues: "Thus, in frankness, it is really not my job, nor is it within my ability to make Bob Millet embrace the truth of Jesus Christ as I see it" (xxxi, emphasis added). We have been called by our Savior to proclaim His revealed truth, not simply to share our religious beliefs as best as we understand them. Johnson seems to miss this vital subjective / objective distinction, all too often leaving his arguments in the realm of his own personal religious opinion. Rather than recognizing the need to clearly proclaim God's truth, he is content to merely compare and contrast his beliefs with those of his Mormon friend.
Consequently, Johnson sees himself and Millet as truth seekers on a common journey to know God. He says: "my role is to love Bob Millet, be his friend, to pray for him, share life with him, and honor him as my fellow human being and fellow truth seeker" (xxxi). Later, he writes:
"If we can imagine ourselves waling on a road, taking a long journey together, neither of us would be happy if the other one could not reach the final destination. Each of us might be happy that we made it but sad that our friend did not. Therefore the question you ask can never be answered in the spirit of 'I'm right and you're wrong' or 'I'm going to heaven while you're bound for hell,' but rather that we both long to go to heaven together and must be willing to do whatever it would take to help each other discover the Truth" (92).
And finally, he states: "It would be wrong to assume that neither Bob nor I are generally seeking truth and would be willing to embrace it wherever it might be found" (95). But is it really wrong to deny their common search? Biblically, no one seeks God unless he has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Evangelicals and Mormons are not traveling down the same path together--we have reached our destination in Christ while Latter-day Saints are running away from Him by rejecting the essential truths of who He is and what He has done.
Where do Johnson's errors lead? "If you were to ask me if my friend Bob Millet is a saved Christian, I would have to answer that I do not know for sure. But I can say that it is entirely possible that he and other Mormons could be saved Christians in that they have a sincere and genuine relationship with Jesus Christ" (89). Millet and Johnson go on to say together in their conclusion: "But we also know, as C.S. Lewis once stated, that there are many people even outside the ranks of Christianity who are being led by God's 'secret influence' to focus on those aspects of their religion that are in agreement with Christianity and, as he said, 'who belong to Christ without knowing it'" (128-129). This is nothing other than an open endorsement of inclusivism, a dangerous and unbiblical belief that ultimately casts aside the necessity of evangelism. With such ambiguity in evaluating Millet's spiritual condition, it is no wonder that Johnson shuns a more confrontational approach.
Thus Millet and Johnson's book is an unsatisfying conversation. While all evangelicals should strive to foster healthy relationships with our Mormon neighbors, we must not compromise our commitment to the exclusivity of Jesus Christ and His revealed truth. I pray that we will lovingly, patiently, and yet firmly proclaim the gospel of our Savior to Latter-day Saints.
John Divito, Director
Africa Center for Apologetics Research
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Robert L. Millet
by Prof. Royal Skousen
