Do Mormons Worship a Different Jesus?
A Review of Robert Millet’s A Different Jesus?
by Keith Gibson
Over the last several years Mormons have increasingly attempted to portray themselves as just another Christian denomination. BYU professors such as Stephen Robinson and Robert Millet have attempted to recast the Mormon Church in a more Evangelical light. The most recent example is a book by Dr. Millet entitled A Different Jesus? which was unfortunately published by the Christian publishing company, Eerdmans. In this book, Millet does a very nice job of presenting a softer, gentler version of classic Mormonism. He makes frequent references to his “Christian brothers” and “Christian friends of other denominations”. Dr. Millet demonstrates that he is very familiar with a number of Christian thinkers. Further, he tries to downplay and reinterpret early statements Joseph Smith said he heard directly from God such as, “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt;” “that they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me”; “they teach for doctrines the commandments of men; having a form of godliness but they deny the power thereof”, stating they referred only to the anti-Mormons of Joseph’s day and not to Christians in general.(1)
Additionally, Dr. Millet seems very likeable and sincere throughout the book. He discusses how it pains him when he is accused of not being a Christian. Overall, the book is a good resource on current LDS theology and thought. However, the danger is that its attempt to mainline the Mormon Church could prove persuasive to an uninformed reader.
By far the most damaging sections of the book, however, do not come from Millet but from Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw. This is the same Dr. Mouw who recently apologized to the LDS people on behalf of Evangelicals everywhere for what he perceives as the spreading of false reports by counter-cult ministries. Dr. Mouw contributed both a forward and an afterward for the book. In the afterward, Dr. Mouw comes to the following conclusion, “I think that an open-minded Christian reader of this book will sense that Bob Millet is in fact trusting in the Jesus of the Bible for his salvation.”(2) (emphasis added). This disastrous statement is tantamount to declaring Bob Millet and Mormons like him to be Christians.
At the risk of placing myself outside the camp of the “open-minded”, I would like to evaluate this conclusion. Mouw’s statement is patently shocking to most of us familiar with the classic LDS theology which Bob Millet affirms on every page of the book, despite his gentle style.
Let us examine the Jesus Dr. Millet affirms in his book. The Mormon Jesus:
• Is the literal first spirit offspring of the Father(3) who is also an exalted being and who was not always God(4)
• Is a separate being from the Father. Jesus and the Father are very close, but they, along with the Holy Spirit, are completely separate personages and not part of the Trinity.(5)
• Is the spirit brother of the rest of mankind who are also the spirit children of the Father(6)
• Attained divine status as he grew over time in his premortal existence until he became “like unto God”(7)
• In his incarnation differs from other men in that he is the literal offspring of a union between the Father and Mary(8)
• Is the spirit brother of Lucifer(9)
• Presented his plan for the salvation of humanity before the divine counsel (of the gods) and was chosen to be the redeemer(10)
• Was subject to sickness(11)
• Provides a salvation that is based on faith plus works and not faith alone(12)
Does this sound like the Jesus of the Bible? These differences are substantive. Dr. Mouw seems to minimize these differences. He states, “…reading this book has made it even clearer to me that many—not all but many—of the arguments that I as a Calvinist evangelical have with Mormons are not too far removed from the arguments that I have pursued with theologians who represent traditions that are clearly in the Christian mainstream.”(13)
One wonders how Dr. Mouw could possibly be serious in this comment. I understand the desire of one academic to be congenial to a fellow scholar, but this goes well beyond the bounds of being congenial. It is true that Joseph Smith relied heavily on the Arminian tradition for much of his theology, but there is no traditional Christian denomination that holds to any of the doctrines we have just sited.
This is more than perspective. These doctrinal differences go to who Jesus is in His essence. Let me illustrate the difference. I am approximately 5’ 9”. Now to someone who is 6’5” I might be considered short and to someone 5’1” I might be considered tall. This is a difference of perspective. Each person is viewing the same Keith Gibson from their own vantage point. But both would agree that I am a male. Maleness is not a perspective. It is a part of my essence. Anyone speaking of a Keith Gibson who was not male would be speaking of a different Keith Gibson.
In the same way, speaking of Jesus as having a beginning is an issue related to His essence. This is a different Jesus altogether than the eternal Jesus, the second person in the Godhead that the Bible presents. One wonders when the differences will become big enough for Dr. Mouw to consider them significant. I asked him this very question in an email correspondence but received no response.
Dr. Millet’s book can be very valuable for anyone wanting to understand current trends and thought within Mormondom. His style is easy to read and his arguments are well thought out. Since I do not know Dr. Millet personally, I will not attempt to make any judgments concerning his motives. However, it might be good to allow a Mormon General Authority to answer Dr. Millet’s question. In an interview with the LDS “Church Times,” current President and Prophet of the Church, Gordon B. Hinkley, stated that the LDS
do not believe in the traditional Christ. No I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. (Church News, June 20, 1998)
I appreciate President Hinckley’s candor and most certainly agree with his assessment. The Jesus of the Bible and of the historic Christian faith is a different Jesus from the one proclaimed by Mormons. It is for this reason that we strive to reach the Mormon people with the truth of the Biblical Jesus. The salvation of 12 million Mormons is at stake. The gospel demands that we are clear on this issue. In answer to the question, “Do Mormons worship a different Jesus?”, the Christian must resoundingly answer, “Yes!”
by Keith Gibson
Over the last several years Mormons have increasingly attempted to portray themselves as just another Christian denomination. BYU professors such as Stephen Robinson and Robert Millet have attempted to recast the Mormon Church in a more Evangelical light. The most recent example is a book by Dr. Millet entitled A Different Jesus? which was unfortunately published by the Christian publishing company, Eerdmans. In this book, Millet does a very nice job of presenting a softer, gentler version of classic Mormonism. He makes frequent references to his “Christian brothers” and “Christian friends of other denominations”. Dr. Millet demonstrates that he is very familiar with a number of Christian thinkers. Further, he tries to downplay and reinterpret early statements Joseph Smith said he heard directly from God such as, “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt;” “that they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me”; “they teach for doctrines the commandments of men; having a form of godliness but they deny the power thereof”, stating they referred only to the anti-Mormons of Joseph’s day and not to Christians in general.(1)
Additionally, Dr. Millet seems very likeable and sincere throughout the book. He discusses how it pains him when he is accused of not being a Christian. Overall, the book is a good resource on current LDS theology and thought. However, the danger is that its attempt to mainline the Mormon Church could prove persuasive to an uninformed reader.
By far the most damaging sections of the book, however, do not come from Millet but from Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw. This is the same Dr. Mouw who recently apologized to the LDS people on behalf of Evangelicals everywhere for what he perceives as the spreading of false reports by counter-cult ministries. Dr. Mouw contributed both a forward and an afterward for the book. In the afterward, Dr. Mouw comes to the following conclusion, “I think that an open-minded Christian reader of this book will sense that Bob Millet is in fact trusting in the Jesus of the Bible for his salvation.”(2) (emphasis added). This disastrous statement is tantamount to declaring Bob Millet and Mormons like him to be Christians.
At the risk of placing myself outside the camp of the “open-minded”, I would like to evaluate this conclusion. Mouw’s statement is patently shocking to most of us familiar with the classic LDS theology which Bob Millet affirms on every page of the book, despite his gentle style.
Let us examine the Jesus Dr. Millet affirms in his book. The Mormon Jesus:
• Is the literal first spirit offspring of the Father(3) who is also an exalted being and who was not always God(4)
• Is a separate being from the Father. Jesus and the Father are very close, but they, along with the Holy Spirit, are completely separate personages and not part of the Trinity.(5)
• Is the spirit brother of the rest of mankind who are also the spirit children of the Father(6)
• Attained divine status as he grew over time in his premortal existence until he became “like unto God”(7)
• In his incarnation differs from other men in that he is the literal offspring of a union between the Father and Mary(8)
• Is the spirit brother of Lucifer(9)
• Presented his plan for the salvation of humanity before the divine counsel (of the gods) and was chosen to be the redeemer(10)
• Was subject to sickness(11)
• Provides a salvation that is based on faith plus works and not faith alone(12)
Does this sound like the Jesus of the Bible? These differences are substantive. Dr. Mouw seems to minimize these differences. He states, “…reading this book has made it even clearer to me that many—not all but many—of the arguments that I as a Calvinist evangelical have with Mormons are not too far removed from the arguments that I have pursued with theologians who represent traditions that are clearly in the Christian mainstream.”(13)
One wonders how Dr. Mouw could possibly be serious in this comment. I understand the desire of one academic to be congenial to a fellow scholar, but this goes well beyond the bounds of being congenial. It is true that Joseph Smith relied heavily on the Arminian tradition for much of his theology, but there is no traditional Christian denomination that holds to any of the doctrines we have just sited.
This is more than perspective. These doctrinal differences go to who Jesus is in His essence. Let me illustrate the difference. I am approximately 5’ 9”. Now to someone who is 6’5” I might be considered short and to someone 5’1” I might be considered tall. This is a difference of perspective. Each person is viewing the same Keith Gibson from their own vantage point. But both would agree that I am a male. Maleness is not a perspective. It is a part of my essence. Anyone speaking of a Keith Gibson who was not male would be speaking of a different Keith Gibson.
In the same way, speaking of Jesus as having a beginning is an issue related to His essence. This is a different Jesus altogether than the eternal Jesus, the second person in the Godhead that the Bible presents. One wonders when the differences will become big enough for Dr. Mouw to consider them significant. I asked him this very question in an email correspondence but received no response.
Dr. Millet’s book can be very valuable for anyone wanting to understand current trends and thought within Mormondom. His style is easy to read and his arguments are well thought out. Since I do not know Dr. Millet personally, I will not attempt to make any judgments concerning his motives. However, it might be good to allow a Mormon General Authority to answer Dr. Millet’s question. In an interview with the LDS “Church Times,” current President and Prophet of the Church, Gordon B. Hinkley, stated that the LDS
do not believe in the traditional Christ. No I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. (Church News, June 20, 1998)
I appreciate President Hinckley’s candor and most certainly agree with his assessment. The Jesus of the Bible and of the historic Christian faith is a different Jesus from the one proclaimed by Mormons. It is for this reason that we strive to reach the Mormon people with the truth of the Biblical Jesus. The salvation of 12 million Mormons is at stake. The gospel demands that we are clear on this issue. In answer to the question, “Do Mormons worship a different Jesus?”, the Christian must resoundingly answer, “Yes!”
NOTES
1. Robert Millet, “A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-Day Saints”, William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 2005 page 54-55
2. Ibid page 183
3. Ibid page 20 and 73
4. Ibid page 144-145
5. Ibid page 67-68
6. Ibid page 19-20
7. Ibid page 20
8. Ibid page 74 It should be noted that though Dr. Millet states in a footnote that there is no authoritative statement regarding how this literal incarnation and conception took place, other Mormon leaders have clearly taught that it was sexual and it is difficult to interpret the statement that Jesus is the literal offspring of the Father in any other way. Further Dr. Millet himself states that Jesus is not the son of God in a mystical or metaphorical sense. What option is left?
9. Ibid page 21
10. Ibid page 21
11. Ibid page 67 This statement is serious because it would mean that Jesus had a fallen human nature.
12. Ibid page 100 In fact the entire chapter “Salvation in Christ” elaborates on this
Ibid page 181
posted by Jason Dollar | 11:50 AM
3 Comments:
It is either a huge fraud of immense proportions or it is as claimed. Given the traditional Christian understanding is still based on human understanding, tradition and individual interpretation. It makes sense to practice what the Mormons suggest is the only real way to discover the truth. That is, fast and pray about what you read, asking for divine guidance and the presense of the Holy Ghost to bear witness of the truth of what you are reading, because you do not want your eternity to based on the understanding of men. Then, once you discover what the promptings of the Holy Ghost feel like, try reading the Book of Mormon. I suggest you will find the same spirit present in both books. Don't just believe men. Get humble and teachable and ask God. Don't make your mind up in advance. If you are sincere, honest in heart and truely want to know you will find out.
I recommend the book "How Wide The Divide?" by Craig Blomberg (an Evangelial scholar) and Stephen Robinson (a Mormon scholar). Although Mormons are not Calvinist , the LDS view is thoroughly Arminian.
Anon,
the only way to decide whether the claims of mormonism are true is the fruit test: "You will know them by their fruit" (Mt. 7:16). Thereby prophets are identified as true or false. Fruit is self-evident. And this test is commanded by the scriptures.
Post a Comment
<< Home