Millet and McDermott on “The Mormon Jesus”
I recently became aware of and finished listening to one hour public conversation titled “The Mormon Jesus” given at Roanoke College, Salem, Virginia on September 20, 2005 (mp3 audio here). The lecture was moderated by Dr. Paul Hinlicky. I personally like to hear audio conversations of this nature and enjoyed the interchange between Robert L. Millet and Gerald R. McDermott.
I found McDermott extremely well spoken and I felt he gave a rather accurate view of what he finds to be uniquely Mormon doctrine. It is very fortunate that this public lecture was recorded because the difficulties of discussing one’s beliefs really comes through. Again, I was struck with the fact that, even two Ph.Ds can have a difficult time coming to terms and understanding each other’s theological positions. However, this interchange clearly began with the fact that Millet and McDermott genuinely like each other and consider each other friends. This interchange is a good model of the kind of discussion which needs to take place with greater frequency.
Topics discussed include the incommunicable and communicable attributes of God, the canon (open or closed), the eternality of matter, the fall and original sin, the atonement, the Mormon view of grace, the trinity, and natural law.
I do want to mention a statement that Millet makes in the question and answer segment. Millet explains,
“I am trying to be true to my tradition on the one hand, and trying to be open to the fact that… Would I like people to understand that my faith is totally in Christ? Absolutely! Would I therefore, in order to accomplish that, would I relinquish something that I really hold to? No, I wouldn’t go that far… We are trying to take what the focus of the present church is today, and trying, without leaving behind the beginners of the faith…and yet, what we’ll have to insist on, is that people need to see Mormonism as what it is today, and not as it was necessarily as it was in 1830 or 1840.” (1:22:20-1:24:27)
Leave a Reply
sideblog – delicious
- Why Everyone Needs Theology
- Organizing the Doctrine and Covenants Lessons: Or, Why the Topical Approach Doesn’t Work
- Doctrine & Covenants in 2013: Introduction
- Studying the Doctrines of the Gospel in the D&C; and Church History this year by Jeffrey Marsh: A response
- The Pedagogy of Sunday School (part 1)
- The Burden of Church History and its implications for Mormon History
- Relief Society Lesson: The Life and Ministry of Lorenzo Snow
- How the Early Church Made Peace with Prosperity
- Its a Destructive Life: A Critique of George Bailey
- A Reply to Nate Oman’s Reply to my Reply to His Post on Liberal Mormons and Prophetic Power or Long Live the Bloggernacle
- Another Surreply: Nate Oman responds to critiques
- Mormons and Gays
- Another Liberal Mormon’s Response to Nate Oman
- New Church Website on Same-Sex Attraction Offers Love, Understanding and Hope
- Previewing 2013: A Look Forward to Exciting Books in Mormon History
Wow…what a great discussion that was!
I’d like to first take a moment to mention a bit about the difference I’m noting in this discussion between Millet and McDermott, and discussions I’ve heard previously between evangelicals/christians/mormons.
The spirit of this discussion was absolutely and impressively non-combative. Both men, as well as the moderator, did an excellent job in effectively communicating their beliefs, as well as where their beliefs differed, without a tone of condemnation-which I believe, to be completely essential if all faiths will move forward in a spirit of communication in the want for learnedness and understanding.
It’s my hope that we can do the same here, in your blog.
Secondly, there are a few points I’d like to bring forward, and then respond to your final thought in your post.
In listening to the discussion, I couldn’t help but feel some serious question concerning the polytheism issue within the LDS church. It was interesting, from my viewpoint, how McDermott proposed this as a pretty serious deviation from the Lutheran view, in his point, and the LDS view.
However, when responding, Millet, who is I must admit, intensely wonderful with communication, seemed to minimize that difference. (Later, McDermott mentioned his concern over this as well, which I also found interesting.)
Millet mentioned that while the doctrine did indeed, discuss polytheism, that he doubted that he would ever reach the level of God, etc..as man. McDermott then responded by eloquently explaining that although Millet’s response was beautifully worded, what it didn’t do was…close the door on polytheism within the LDS church.
The second issue I’d like to discuss is the view of Christ. I have to say, that in my discussions with LDS members, I see very little difference in Christ than my own beliefs. That said, I really begin to put thought into the discussion concerning viewing the LDS church as it is today, versus what it began as in the 1800′s.
When discussing the problems with LDS members thus far, concerning polytheism and the like, I’ve noted that many are very skilled in their responses, and equally to Millet, seem to somehow graze over the issue I find in it, while not entirely answering the question. I wonder if this means in fact, in my thoughts, that truly there may be some limits to where we can come together in agreement of faith.
I believed, in listening, that what I was hearing was that the LDS church is making great strides to try to move into the 2000′s and perhaps really, I’m not sure how to word this, place some of the issues with doctrine on the back burner, of sorts, until they are better understood, even by themselves. Would I be correct in this?
Wait…I have one more thought I’d like to add that came through as well in the discussion.
McDermott mentioned something that I absolutely have found myself relating to time and time again with my discussions with LDS members.
He mentioned that when listening to Millet speak, he found it difficult to find any problem with what he said..that they often could find agreement.
He also mentioned that his problem came into perspective when listening to what…Joseph Smith said.
Wow this was such a de ja vue experience for me, because it’s exactly how I feel when discussing theology with LDS members.
I find very few places where we disagree…however in my readings of Mormon doctrine, I find disagreement.
I honestly feel that this difference probably finds itself within what I listened to happening in McDermott and Millet’s responses concerning the polytheism issue.
The method in which the LDS members respond is much more…I can’t think of the word…it’s lighter, perhaps, than what I read within doctrine, which often leads many to questions. There seems, in my head I suppose, a sort of discongruence between question response, and actual readings. I know I’m probably not stating that terribly well, but I can’t think of a better way. Perhaps you can help?
Thank you so much for responding to my less than eloquent thought processes.
Let me first react to the quote you gave from Millet concerning the Godhead. I feel like I have very little arguement with that, however, eh, the arguement I do have that remains in that is pretty inconsequential in my mind.
I think the issue I have concerning the polytheism fear in the LDS theology comes from the teachings that men can become as god, or in striving to become..godly, they actually could in doctrine, become Gods…..planetary rulers, etc.
This is a huge deviation from my believe…am I making sense here?
I think yet again I have another comment. Really this could go on and on and on. I love that you’ve created this area where we can perhaps begin open discussion free from combativeness.
The issue of an open or closed canon.
This is something that’s discussed between evangelicals and mormons to no end.
I want to for a moment if I can, try to discern the difference between the general thoughts of the faithful, versus those who study faith for a living.
I believe this arguement, in my own mind, to be a bit…unusual. As I think most “general” believers would concede that they believe it clearly possible that the canon is open. I think most Christians, believe, that as of yet, nothing has been added to the canon which is accurate, which is in direct opposition to the LDS belief, but…that’s not to be equated into their belief that they believe the canon to be closed.
I think moreso the arguement isn’t whether the canon is open or closed, but moreso whether or not the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants are indeed, accurately part of the canon.
Thanks for the response, as always.
For a moment may I make a response to what my brain heard in the quote you offered from Millet’s response?
‘And while Millet agrees that LDS doctrine teaches that man and God are of the same species, Millet is quick to say that “I think there are some incommunicable attributes, things that God the Father possesses that men and women may never have.” Millet continues, “Jesus is, from my perspective and most thinking Latter-day Saints’ perspective, infinitely and qualitatively different than we are. And why? Because he is the Son of God in a way that I am not.”
My head enjoys reading that, and listening, but the portion where my mind starts to quiver a bit is in this statement, and choice of words…
–things that God the Father possesses that men and women may never have.” Millet continues, “Jesus is, from my perspective and most thinking Latter-day Saints’ perspective, infinitely ..
The word choice of adding the word “may” in that quote…”may never have” is where the difficulty in my theology would come in. I’d be more and more in agreement if he could have, which I’m almost sure he wouldn’t have…said “men and women will never have.”
The two, with one word difference, suggest incredibly opposing ideas and beliefs. The completion of his quote…including the word “infinitely” seems to…again, be in opposition to the addition of the word “may” above….
What’s your take?
Excellent points. I liked Millet’s closing statement.
I think Millet was wise in avoiding using the terms monotheism and polytheism because these two terms have such a long history and such connotations with them. Millet for example, like most LDS, doesn’t worship a multiplicity of Gods as perhaps someone in another faith tradition might. So, Millet is trying to instead speak to what we do believe and let people decide on their own whether to characterize that as polytheism, or something else. For example, some observers have tried to describe the LDS belief as Henotheism, which is the acceptance of many Gods but the worship of one One God. Even here though, it might not fully and completely overlap with the LDS belief. In fact, perhaps neither monotheism, polytheism or henotheism really overlap 100% with the LDS position. And in that case, our best bet is to simply not try to force the belief into pre-existing categories, but simply describe it the best we can. I think that is what Millet is trying to achieve.
I think Evangelicals would agree on all those 3 points with which Millet closes. The thing in which there is disagreement is whether the Father and the Son are of the same ‘essence’ or ‘substance’, the ‘homousion’, to use the language of the Nicene Creed. And the main reason why LDS do not accept this is because it contradicts the First Vision of Joseph Smith where Joseph sees the Father and the Son, and the Father points to the Son. However, Millet is quick to add that in all other respects, in love, in unity, in all aspects and qualities of Godliness that they are One. So, with that Millet leaves the listener to decide what that is and whether they can accept that.
Sarah, you rightly bring up the second reason why LDS beliefs seem to implicate a kind of polytheism (the first reason is that the Father and Son are two beings). And that second reason is the idea of deification or the doctrine that men and woman can “become more and more Christlike and more and more like God.” And while Millet agrees that LDS doctrine teaches that man and God are of the same species, Millet is quick to say that “I think there are some incommunicable attributes, things that God the Father possesses that men and women may never have.” Millet continues, “Jesus is, from my perspective and most thinking Latter-day Saints’ perspective, infinitely and qualitatively different than we are. And why? Because he is the Son of God in a way that I am not.” And I think here that Millet is just trying to say what he actually believes. So while it is true that LDS thought does have the doctrine that men and women have a destiny to share in the attributes of God, Millet feels that sometimes people overstate this or they incorrectly believe that LDS themselves don’t feel any difference between themselves and God.
I should point out that even in the Doctrine and Covenants, men and women only become gods, with the lowercase g, never with the capital G. Perhaps a different way to phrase the question is to ask whether the existence of sons and daughters of God constitute polytheism. Or in what sense it could, and in what sense it would not?
Sarah, to recap the discussion on this point: McDermott states,
Then after stating the orthodox view, McDermott says,
In response to this description of LDS theology by McDermott, Millet says,
The categories of ‘incommunicable’ and ‘communicable’ attributes of God haven’t been part of traditional LDS discourse and thought. So what we have are terms developed in one theological tradition, and trying to apply them to another theological tradition. You don’t hear LDS sermons which say, okay here are the communicable attributes and here are the incommunicable attributes of God. I think this points to what he said when he was asked by Evangelicals what they could do for the Latter-day Saints, “Cut us some slack. Give us a little time. You’ve had 2000 years to work through your theology, we’ve had 170 years and we’re trying to make sense out of ours.”