Rating: 
Summary: Informative
Review: As a Christian looking into Mormonism, I found it interesting to finally read a book that took an honest look at what LDS believe. So many of the books out there are so biased and full of inaccuracies or misleading statements that they are close to worthless. This book lets a knowledgeable Mormon state his religious views in his own words, comparing them with evangelical positions. An evangelical does the same thing, and the two authors' writings complement each other well. I thought that Robinson was at his strongest in his questioning of the evangelical views of the Trinity, and Blomberg was strongest in stating reasons he believes the Book of Mormono was written in the 19th century. (FWIW, I think they're both right about these.) I sometimes wonder if the harsh critics of this book have really read it. It's as objective of a look at Mormonism and evangelicalism as you're going to find anywhere. I'd highly recommend it for anyone familiar with evangelical jargon who is studying Mormonism, and for Mormons who want to know what other Christians believe. I think both will be surprised.
Rating: 
Summary: Typical
Review: Considering that Craig Blomberg is a New Perspective advocate (he thinks N. T. Wright is more correct than Luther and Calvin) who has some gripes with the way classical Protestants have always understood the Mosaic Law, God's grace, and justification by faith it is no surprise to me that he is trying to reach some sort of compromise with a pseudo-Christian group like the Mormons. It is unbelievable that a professed evangelical scholar would try to make some positive connections with Mormonism. There is absolutely no connection between evangelicalism and Mormonism. Blomberg thinks Mormonism is "okay" because it doesn't advocate antinomianism (as long as they don't advocate antinomianism then any group that calls itself "Christian" is good). I'm not surprised by this considering that Blomberg is more concerned about ecumenicism and fighting antinomianism (faith alone doesn't lead to antinomianism, by the way), than about guarding the uncompromising tenets of the Reformed faith.
Rating:
Summary: Very Good
Review: Great book to see the views of LDS and Evangelicals contrasted and compared. Neither pulls punches and this has been endorsed by both Evangelicals and Mormons. In a sea of anti-LDS books which have misrepresented LDS beliefs (see previous review), this book rises above it all and allows the Evangelical and Mormon to defend their own positions and clear up these problems using reasoning and scriptures. This book does not call these two groups to agree on everything, only to get a better picture of what they actually believe without having the other put words in their mouths (see previous review). I dont think the previous reviewer even read the book by his/her comments. A must read for a scholarly view of these two groups beliefs
Rating:
Summary: Perhaps Missing The Subtle Point
Review: I have just finished reading Profs. Blomberg and Robinsons' book -- and have also read extensively many of the reviews of this book contained here. Many of the reviews reflect careful and considerate thought given to the authors themselves as well as the contents of the book. In my own case, as a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I was thoroughly intrigued with the premise of this book and cannot say I am disappointed after having finished it now. I would not maintain, as apparently some of the reviewers here, that the two authors purported to carefully represent the absolute tenets of belief of their respective sects. On the contrary, I felt that each author went to great pains to explain that much of what they expounded was personal belief as opposed to hard-core dogma of the sects to which they each belong. Most people would agree that in virtually any religion or system of belief, much of what one believes is ultimately related more to personal experience and study. Perhaps the beauty of theology itself is that God has not decided (at least not yet in my opinion) to be very "definitive" about really much of anything so far -- in almost any religion -- there are yet many possible interpretations to almost all tenets of belief, and indeed, even within Mormonism one can routinely find many "authorities" that have expressed widely divergent views on a host of "basic belief" and doctrine. It seems to be mankind's propensity to spend precious time trying to define everything in horrific detail (oftentimes likely completely missing God's real point), and then work to persuasively argue a man-made conclusion to all within earshot, to the exclusion of all else. Many of the reviewers here, at least in my humble opinion, may not have then properly understood the subtle conclusion to which I personally believe the authors were trying to bring their combined audience: each side (and including other non-Christian religions as well) are ultimately just trying to make some sense of a body of experience, knowledge, tradition, scripture, and things so ethereal as "inspiration" etc. such that it is easy, after all, to forget the main tenet or thread of theological doctrine that should bind most of mankind together in nearly all religions: love; -- and denial of self in favor of others. It is a startling act of self-discovery for one to find that nearly always -- the attacking, belittling, and otherwise diminishing of other's beliefs, culture, or tradition is, in and of itself, only a clear demonstration of the innate inability of one professing a belief system to truly comprehend the real heart of the doctrine or teaching being debated and denied. Many important religious figures have noted this tendency in humankind. As Christ, one of these, well said (to paraphrase) -- "too many people here are busy getting ready to cast stones, all the while forgetting what it means to truly love someone". To the extent that the authors of this book are, in all sincerity, asking each of us, whether practicing Mormon, ex-Mormon, anti-Mormon, Catholic, Evangelical, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or adherents of any other religious persuasion to re-evaluate the motives and objectives behind the often hateful and ignorant vitriol that is all too commonly flung (like stones) at one another (and from all sides), and to consider instead a humane approach of careful talking, listening, learning, caring, and ultimately loving, -- all of mankind could find that the energy required to bring us together in commonality of purpose and progress as humans is much, much less than that required to tear each other ultimately and negatively apart. As a believer in God, I am not so sure He cares so much about how I have personally decided that He manifests Himself or really exists, as opposed to how I am learning to love as He surely does. Whereas it is important to ultimately comprehend love, it may not be so important to be "right" about what God "looks like" or whether "He's insulted or not insulted" by what we think He is -- or is not. In my own humble view, it's likely that no one, in any "Christian religious denomination", is really Christian that cannot take the time to reflect on this important matter. Those who profess to be Christians probably would do well, each of us, to spend less time contemplating feelings of moral superiority over each other and the "rightness" of our beliefs and the sect to which we belong and instead spend more time being our brother's kind and caring keeper. One day, it will most likely only be Christ himself that can look at us and say that we are, as we have given ourselves the appellation, been true Christians. I laud the authors for having sensitively tried to serve up this point to those who would receive it and thoughtfully listen.
Rating: 
Summary: Great concept, great book, but it has its flaws.
Review: I was greatly interested in this book when I saw it, because I am interested both in the study of apologetics and Christian theology, as well as comparative religions. As far as my study of comparative religions goes, I prefer to let the adherents of those religions speak for themselves. So when I saw this book, which is authored by one Evangelical Christian and one Mormon, I was sold. Though the authors are very direct and honest about how strongly they feel about their positions (as they should be), they are unbelievably charitable. There is a lot to be learned here, not just for those interested in learning the language the other groups speak and how they define some terms differently, but in learning the language we all should speak; that of love. My only complaints come in some factual blunders committed by the authors. Some of them are pretty big too, and for the most part show an ignorance of history. The first big one occurs on page 39 when Bloomberg is discussing how the canon of Scripture came about, he refers to the councils of Hippo and Carthage as "Ecumenical" councils. This is simply untrue. The councils were actually provincial or local councils, and certainly did not include all of the world's Catholic Bishops as do ecumenical councils. This may seem minor, but the distinction is actually massive in regards to the authority of the council's decisions. The next red flag came about on page 57, where Robinson is discussing what it means for Scripture to be inspired. In the last full paragraph of the page, he states what are, in my firm opinion, ideas contrary to 2 Peter 1:20 (even though he quotes that verse in the next paragraph). My advice therefore is simply to refer to that passage carefully as you read this page. Moving to page 61, Robinson claims that "Mormons do not believe that the fullness of the Gospel has been available to Orthodox Christians since the 2nd or 3rd century." My problem is that I have read many of the writings of the early fathers - and even those which are pre-Nicene in origin sound completely orthodox to me, a devout Catholic. If nothing in those "pre-apostasy" writings sound any different doctrinally than things written in the 4th, 5th, 13th, or even 19th or 20th centuries, just what did they get wrong, and where do purely Mormon ideas appear in those early writings? I think this a major problem that more Mormons need to address. A valid point that Robinson makes on page 69 seems to be a valid challenge only to those who adhere to "sola Scriptura." He asks Bloomberg, "Give me some biblical criteria of canonicity that exclude LDS Scriptures, and you create a problem for me." His point, which Bloomberg actually concedes, is that Protestants have no Biblical criteria to declare a closed canon, at least in principle. This is another case where it seems that neither author ever considers that the Catholic Church might be the actual Orthodox Christian body. In any case, this question would have been painfully easy for a Catholic to answer, and literally impossible for a Protestant. The Canon is closed because the Church established by Christ acted upon the teaching authority given to it by Jesus Christ and infallibly declared it so. From this point forth I found little objectionable in the book, and even applauded Bloomberg's implicit acceptance of the idea of the development of doctrine on page 126, regarding the Trinity. Overall an excellent book, but like all things, this should simply be a starting point for more serious students of comparative theology. I wish a book such as this existed between Evangelical Protestants and Catholics.
Rating:
Summary: Informative
Review: Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormons") and conservative Protestants generally haven't done a good job in trying to understand either other's beliefs. Part of this problem lies in some of the relatively poor apologetic work that has been written against Mormonism. This book seeks to rectify that problem by presenting a "Crossfire" type approach to theological differences between Protestantism and Mormonism, with Prof. Craig Blomberg presenting the case for Protestantism and Prof. Stephen Robinson the case for Mormonism. The following topics are dealt with: (1) Scripture; (2) God & Deification; (3) Christ & the Trinity; and (4) Salvation. It therefore avoids non-essential topics like polygamy. My biggest problem with this work concerns Prof. Robinson's presentation of Mormonism. He isn't a member of the church hierarchy, which is fine, but I wonder how accurately he presents church doctrine. For example, he starts out the section on "God & Deification" with the statement "In the LDS view God is omniscient, omnipotent, infinite, eternal and unchangeable." [p. 77.] Now, as Prof. Robinson goes on to explain, he certainly does not believe in these attributes in any way remotely similar to that held by most Christian theologians. He also states, "Many Evangelicals are convinced, wrongly, that Latter-day Saints believe in a finite, limited or changeable God, even though that notion is repugnant to us." [p. 88.] Again, this statement is clarified, but I wonder why he makes it. Considering that Joseph Smith taught that God was once a man and that men can become gods, it is clear that Mormonism should be considered polytheistic. [See Joseph Smith's "King Follet Discourse" in The Essential Joseph Smith, p. 235. ("For we have imagined that God was God from the beginning of all eternity. I will refute that idea . . . . He was once a man like one of us . . . .")] To present his semi-Evangelical version of Mormonism, Prof. Robinson has to, in effect, distance himself from some of the more extreme statements of past leaders of the church, but on what grounds? Prof. Blomberg's comments on Mormonism generally hit their mark. He is particularly effective in arguing against the Mormon claim that the orthodox view of God is based on Greek philosophy rather than the Bible.
Rating:
Summary: A good book for reference, but ultimatley their opinon.
Review: The authors are very capable men. The book is at least an attempt to objectivly explain one's own religon without attacking another's religion. I've found that often Christians think that the only way to share their own religion is to attack others. For Mormons it is a good course in understanding other christians. For evangelicals it is a good way for them to learn that Christ intended his Gospel to be shared with love, not by tearing others down, but building them up. However Ultimatley this book is only these two men's opinon. Robinson can in no way speak for 10 million Mormons living today, not to mention the millions that have lived since 1830. As A Mormon I sometimes found Robinson more interested in trying to ignore real differences in the religions. There are differences between Mormons and evangelicals, otherwise God would not have saw fit to inspire Joseph Smith to restore the true gospel of Jesus Christ. And I'm sure Blomberg doesn't speak for the who know's how many Evangelical Christians, or Christians in general there are. Overall its a good book, it probably glosses over differences in order to make the thesis of the book fit, but an intelligent reader can easily see where they are straining to find common ground where there is probably none.
Rating:
Summary: This book changed my life
Review: This book is essentially an exercise in intellectual honesty. Both authors (a) realize that there has been virtually zero healthy books written by Evangelicals and little more written by Mormons on the subject and (b) decide to do something about it. Less than a year before I read this book (subsequent to my having read The New Mormon Challenge, which had inspired me to read this) I remember making the comment, based on my only having read Evangelical Christian(?) critiques of Mormonism, "the term Mormon scholar is an oxymoron." Gosh, I felt [stupid]when I read these 2 books. I'm reading Craig Blomberg, who I have been familiar with for some time as an excellent New Testament scholar, actually losing some points to Stephen Robinson. Needless to say, I was shocked! Those guys weren't kidding in The New Mormon Challenge when they said there actually were good Mormon scholars winning the debate for Mormonism over evangelicalism (this was in a paper presented by Mosser and Owen entitled "losing the battle and not knowing it"). I by no means think we (evangelicals) have lost. I don't even think that Blomberg's points were totally defeated, but the book makes you sure of one thing - Nearly all Mormon-evangelical material in the past has been sub-par. This is the 1st step in making it a healthy relationship. I'll never forget how many times I've heard the phrase, "Mormon's just don't know what they believe." Stephen Robinson deals with this statement well. If nothing else, this book should bring some balance to the discussion, whether you're a Mormon who's never heard strong arguments from the Evangelical side, or an Evangelical who's never heard strong arguments from the Mormon side. It is my hope that this book will be the stepping stone to a plethora of scholarly and fair books on the subjects involved with Mormon-Evangelical relations.
Rating:
Summary: Incredible!!
Review: This book is outstanding. It clearly defines and explains the beliefs of Mormons and Evangelicals. If anyone will take the time and digest the arguments that these two scholars presents ,they will be more knowledge and have a better understanding of who God is. It will also cause you to feel a deep appreciation for both faiths and the process of loving each other as Christ would desire can come about it.
Rating:
Summary: A New Approach to Analyses of Mormonism--Honest Comparisons
Review: This book is the first of its kind in the field of Mormon studies: an honest effort by a Mormon scholar and a theologian of another religious tradition to understand each other's views. While most comparative studies of Mormonism with other religions and churches tend to emphasize the distinctive and divergent points, this studies maintains a perspective and balance that acknowledges the similarities as well as the differences. It also does a great service in identifying many points which appear divergent but which in fact have great similarity, a fact that is hidden by divergent terminology about the same concepts. Most important, it lets members of each religion explain the beliefs of his own church or tradition, rather than insisting that believers in the other church believe things which most individual members in fact do not believe. This book sets a new standard for honest and informative scholarship on the Mormons and helps place that church in the context of the American Christian tradition. It should be the first in a series that compares Mormonism with Catholic, Orthodox, and non-Evangelical Christian beliefs. One suspects that a great deal of work and time went into this study by both authors--which is probably why most books examining Mormonism are so poor in comparison, because their authors are not willing to do the heavy lifting.
|
