Rating: 
Summary: Very informative.
Review: This is the most unbiased books on the subjects of Mormons and Evangelical Christianity that I have read. Both Scholars were allowed to make there presentations with respect for the other opinion and without name calling or slander. I believe that the book asked many important questions of each others religions without many misrepresentions of the other's faith. The debate was open and helpful, many important questions were asked and answered. Although this book delt with 4 areas of the LDS faith I would be interested in reading similar books comparing say Evangelicals with Fundementalists, or Catholics with Protestants. The LDS position seemed to be the side that was investigated and explained. It would be interesting to have more mainstream religions answer similar questions from a defensive position. This format informs without insulting any party. I would like to read other books from both authors. The book was excellent.
Rating:
Summary: A great dialogue
Review: This truly a landmark book. Where a Mormon and Evangelical can speak clearly to each other and not being able to succor punch the other. They discuss four areas of belief: Scripture, God and deification, Christ and the Trinity, and Salvation. Both represent there version of what their beliefs on these items are very well. They then talk about what the differences and common grounds are. Both show a very great respect for the other. I certainly recommend this book to anyone wanting to know about some of the differences between Evangelicals and Mormons. This book has recieved some negative reviews. Some have attacked Stephen Robinson for not knowing his own faith. I want to mention that Robinson is a life time Mormon, has spent many more hours studying his churchs beliefs than those who think they know more then he does about Mormons. Some have attcked Craig Blomberg for not knowing how big the differneces between Mormons and Evangelicals and for allowing Robinson to give a sugar coated view of Mormonism. Trust me, Blomberg being a Evangelical scholar knows of all the little attacks Evangelicals have used against Mormons far better then those who say he does not. Blomberg was just very respectable and used commen sense in knowing that Robinson knows his Mormon beliefs better then he does. These two criticisms of the authors is done by extreme ignorance. I don't really have any criticisms of the book. I will say that I do believe the divide between Mormons and Evangelicals are not as wide as some think but that they are wider than the conclusion of this book. I would recommend also reading FARMS (Foundation of Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) Review of Books, Volume 11, Number 2, 1999. Which reviews this book. I know this a Mormon publication but the first review in it is done by Evangelicals Paul Owen and Carl Mosser. So you do get both sides of the coin in that Review. Also the reviews in this Farms Review of books does give more views and does give the book How Wide the Divide some more balance.
Rating: 
Summary: A disservice to Christianity and mormons alike?
Review: While I generally respect Blomberg's works in other areas, I think he has done a disservice here. It is true that the conversations between Christians (and I include Catholics here, not just evangelicals) and Mormons have often been bellicose. However there is a reason for this. The long-standing mormon doctrines that God declared all other churches to be an abomination in his sight, frequent insulting comments from mormon general authorities towards Christians and the 60,000 missionaries trying to convert Christians into mormonism with a sugar coated version of their faith have inevitably led to Christian resentment. Like many conversations I have had with mormons and especially missionaries, Robinson dances around controversial doctrine making it hard to pin him down. Sure mormons talk about Jesus and God, but they mean something completely different than is meant by Christians. One reviewer praised the book for ignoring "minor" issues like polygamy. When Joseph Smith and subsequent "prophets" declared and affirmed polygamy as a "new and everlasting covenant", even implying for many years that Jesus was a polygamist, it is hardly a minor or inconsequential point of doctrine. I think Blomberg misses the point here that needs to be emphasized to Christians: we do not attack mormons as individuals, but we do not accept the teachings of the mormon church and leadership as compatible in any way with Christianity. Our conversations with mormons absolutely must be done in love, but without concession. By Blomberg going out of his way to avoid what are referred to as "tired, old arguments" against mormonism, he misses the mark. The reason that these arguments have been around for so long is because they are so damaging to the mormon claim as the exclusive church, and have never been refuted. There are plenty of books out there that compare Christian and mormon doctrine and do so without kid gloves for fear of offending anyone. I would rather offend a mormon and maybe save their soul than be afraid to witness to them until it is too late. I am a former mormon and have been through the temple, and I can say unreservedly that what goes on inside the mormon temple is absolutely contrary to what is taught in the Bible. We as Christians owe it to mormons, who are generally wonderful people, to testify to them with both love and truth.
Rating: 
Summary: Good conversation starter
Review: _How Wide the Divide?_ is a groundbreaking attempt at getting beyond the heated rhetoric Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints often throw at each other to actually trying to understand one another. For this reason alone, it ought to be read widely by people from both traditions. It has already served as a useful point of reference to begin other conversations between Mormons and Evangelicals. As a former Evangelical and current Latter-day Saint, I could not be happier. The authors have chosen only four topics for this discussion: scripture, God and deification, Christ and the Trinity, and salvation. Even on these topics, Blomberg and Robinson tend to stick to some of the very basics. This book is a good conversation starter, and will serve as a good introduction to both traditions. Those looking for depth will need to look elsewhere. The reader should peruse the notes for further sources on each tradition's theology. Both authors have attempted to write with a charitable sprit, yet without pulling their punches. They have succeeded to a remarkable degree, but not perfectly. Neither author erects a strawman to tear down. Evangelicals might even fault Blomberg for failing to exploit a weakness or two in Robinson's arguments, but this book was not meant to be a full-blown debate. However, Blomberg might be faulted for occasionally flinging barbs that seem to mock LDS positions. Robinson sometimes sounds too defensive, as if he were fighting anti-Mormons like Jerald and Sandra Tanner. Even while disagreeing with the creeds forming the basis of Evangelical theology, he could and should have shown better understanding in their development and at least allowed they are legitimate interpretations of the biblical material. Blomberg deserves extra credit for representing the breadth of evangelicalism well. Evangelicalism is more a movement than a Church, and includes a bewildering diversity of members from different churches. It is not easy to speak for a movement that (among others)includes Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecostals. But wherever there are divergent strands of thought on a given topic, Blomberg usually briefly presented them. Sadly, Robinson does not similarly represent the full breadth of Mormonism. This is despite the fact he admits "LDS orthodoxy can be a moving target" (14). (Full disclosure: Even given the true range of Mormon "orthodoxy," I am admittedly heterodox on some issues.) Robinson's theology could be called (following Richard Mouw and Blomberg) "Evangelical Mormonism." This is in large measure why Blomberg and Robinson could agree on so much. Though it is orthodox, it is, despite Robinson's protests, a relatively new way of thinking in Mormonism. However, there are other strands of thought in Mormonism that can be and are debated vigorously - even staying within the bounds of orthodoxy! Yet Robinson is at best silent and at worst disparages these lines. The effect is doubly negative. It will leave many Latter-day Saints straining to recognize themselves, and it opens him to the charges of deception other reviews have made. On a personal level, I am very leery of Robinson's brand of Mormonism, even leaving aside my heresies. I joined the LDS Church in part as a _rejection_ of Evangelical positions. Why in the world would I want to go back to them? Do not get me wrong here. I am not saying Robinson should have said something about all the fringes of Mormon thought. And I am not asking him to endorse those views. However, he could have at least noted many Mormons would not agree with the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" or the debates on what kinds of limitations God has. Finally, I am concerned with Robinson's attempt to delineate "official" sources of LDS teaching. He would limit them to the Standard Works and official statements of the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Everything else is "supplemental," "commentary," "expansions," or "speculation." I readily grant that Latter-day Saints need some way of separating Church doctrine from the "faith promoting rumor." But, again, is this Mormonism? I doubt it in a church which has traditionally been reluctant to proclaim a creed. Rather, it reminds me of certain Catholics who loudly proclaim their fidelity to the Pope, but wind up confusing the Magisterium for Catholicism itself. Robinson also does not seem to realize the paradoxes of his position. He supports his position not with the Standard Works or one of those official statements, but with an address of Elder B. H. Roberts. In effect, he is using something he would otherwise consider as a supplemental speculation to establish official Church doctrine! By Robinson's standards, we have no official statement telling us what constitutes official Church teaching. Furthermore, at least some of the official statements which Robinson would hold to be authoritative are not merely interpretations. They are extrapolations. One immediately thinks of the concept of Heavenly Mother, which is found nowhere in the Standard Works. For someone who complains so bitterly about "extra biblical creeds," Robinson may find himself in a precarious position. Nevertheless, I would not necessarily want to be held to some statement made by Brigham Young any more than Robinson would. I doubt any modern Lutheran would want to be held to Martin Luther's anti-Semitic remarks, either. Better to let Brigham Young be out of date, placed in context, or just plain wrong. If Evangelicals do not want to deal with how we are now, that is their problem, not ours. Where does this leave us? Hopefully, we are at the beginning of a better relationship between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals. Whatever criticisms I or anyone else may have, this is indeed a revolutionary publication. If you follow Robinson's theology, the divide does not seem so wide. For other Mormons, the divide will seem much bigger. Clearly, though, a new era where Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints actually listen to one another has dawned. May the day not pass too quickly!
Rating:
Summary: Good conversation starter
Review: _How Wide the Divide?_ is a groundbreaking attempt at getting beyond the heated rhetoric Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints often throw at each other to actually trying to understand one another. For this reason alone, it ought to be read widely by people from both traditions. It has already served as a useful point of reference to begin other conversations between Mormons and Evangelicals. As a former Evangelical and current Latter-day Saint, I could not be happier.
The authors have chosen only four topics for this discussion: scripture, God and deification, Christ and the Trinity, and salvation. Even on these topics, Blomberg and Robinson tend to stick to some of the very basics. This book is a good conversation starter, and will serve as a good introduction to both traditions. Those looking for depth will need to look elsewhere. The reader is advised to peruse the notes for further sources on each tradition's theology.
Both authors have attempted to wri!te with a charitable sprit, yet without pulling their punches. They have succeeded to a remarkable degree, but not perfectly. Neither author erects a strawman to tear down. Evangelicals might even fault Blomberg for failing to exploit a weakness or two in Robinson's arguments, but this book was not meant to be a full-blown debate. However, Blomberg might be faulted for occasionally flinging barbs that seem to mock LDS positions. Robinson sometimes sounds too defensive, as if he were fighting anti-Mormons like Jerald and Sandra Tanner. Even while disagreeing with the creeds forming the basis of Evangelical theology, he could and should have shown better understanding in their development and at least allowed they are legitimate interpretations of the biblical material.
Blomberg deserves extra credit for representing the breadth of evangelicalism well. Evangelicalism is more a movement than a Church, and includes a bewildering diversity of members from different churches.! It is not easy to speak for a movement that (among others) includes Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecostals. But wherever there are divergent strands of thought on a given topic, Blomberg usually briefly presented them.
Sadly, Robinson does not similarly represent the full breadth of Mormonism. This is despite the fact he admits "LDS orthodoxy can be a moving target" (14). (Full disclosure: Even given the true range of Mormon "orthodoxy," I am admittedly heterodox on some issues.) Robinson's theology could be called (following Richard Mouw and Blomberg) "Evangelical Mormonism." This is in large measure why Blomberg and Robinson could agree on so much. Though it is orthodox, it is, despite Robinson's protests, a relatively new way of thinking in Mormonism.
However, there are other strands of thought in Mormonism that can be and are debated vigorously - even staying within the bounds of orthodoxy! Yet Robinson is at best silent and at wors!t disparages these lines. The effect is doubly negative. It will leave many Latter-day Saints straining to recognize themselves, and it opens him to the charges of deception other reviews have made. On a personal level, I am very leery of Robinson's brand of Mormonism, even leaving aside my heresies. I joined the LDS Church in part as a _rejection_ of Evangelical positions. Why in the world would I want to go back to them?
Do not get me wrong here. I am _not_ saying Robinson should have said something about all the fringes of Mormon thought. And I am not asking him to endorse those views. However, he could have at least noted many Mormons would not agree with the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" or the debates on what kinds of limitations God has.
Finally, I am concerned with Robinson's attempt to delineate "official" sources of LDS teaching. He would limit them to the Standard Works and official statements of the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of th!e Twelve Apostles. Everything else is "supplemental," "commentary," "expansions," or "speculation." I readily grant that Latter-day Saints needs some way of separating Church doctrine from the "faith promoting rumor." But, again, is this Mormonism? I doubt it in a church which has traditionally been reluctant to proclaim a creed. Rather, it reminds me of certain Catholics who loudly proclaim their fidelity to the Pope, but wind up confusing the Magisterium for Catholicism itself.
Robinson also does not seem to realize the paradoxes of his position. He supports his position not with the Standard Works or one of those official statements, but with an address of Elder B. H. Roberts. In effect, he is using something he would otherwise consider as a supplemental speculation to establish official Church doctrine! By Robinson's standards, we have no official statement telling us what constitutes official Church teaching.
Furthermore, at least some of the official statem!ents which Robinson would hold to be authoritative are not merely interpretations. They are extrapolations. One immediately thinks of the concept of Heavenly Mother, which is found nowhere in the Standard Works. For someone who complains so bitterly about "extra biblical creeds," Robinson may find himself in a precarious position.
Nevertheless, I would not necessarily want to be held to some statement made by Brigham Young any more than Robinson would. I doubt any modern Lutheran would want to be held to Martin Luther's anti-Semitic remarks, either. Better to let Brigham Young be out of date, placed in context, or just plain wrong. If Evangelicals do not want to deal with how we are now, that is their problem, not ours.
Where does this leave us? Hopefully, we are at the beginning of a better relationship between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals. Whatever criticisms I or anyone else may have, this is indeed a revolutionary publication. If you follow Robinson's !theology, the divide does not seem so wide. For other Mormons, the divide will seem much bigger. Clearly, though, a new era where Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints actually listen to one another has dawned. May the day not pass too quickly!
|
