Editor’s Note:  The “Worlds of Joseph Smith Symposium,” at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. on May 6-7, featured scholars from many faiths and backgrounds who discussed the Mormon prophet from five perspectives or “worlds.”  At each session, a scholar presented a paper to which three others responded.  These articles present highlights from each session. To read the report on Session I, click here.  To read the report on Session II, click here.  To read the report on Session III, click here. 

The scholars at the fourth session of the Joseph Smith Symposium aimed at the heart of the conference by examining how the theological contributions of Joseph Smith challenged traditional Christian thought in the nineteenth century and continue to do so today. Recurring themes included the concepts of:

1. Revelation ― whether God speaks through continuing revelation, which challenges the accepted Christian premise of a closed canon of scripture;
2. Authority — whether it is necessary to have the “keys” or authority to act in God’s name and, if so, how to determine who has that authority;
3. Joseph Smith as a prophet — whether Joseph Smith was the vehicle through which authority from God and divine communication with God was restored, along with “plain and precious” truths that had been lost from the time of the primitive church.
4. Christology ― how the Mormon view of Christ and his atonement compares to that found in other Christian groups.

Presenter David Paulsen, professor of philosophy at Brigham Young University, brings 33 years of teaching and a philosopher's perspective to the discussion of Mormon theology.   His fundamental position is that Joseph Smith’s understanding of both God and the mission of Christ — the basis for the theology that he presented to the world — was the result of “direct experience” rather than “reasoned discourse.”  Furthermore, this understanding has been corroborated through the testimonies and experiences of both ancient and present-day prophets.

Paulsen “set out Joseph Smith’s revelations,” identifying several areas that distinguish Mormon thought and challenge conventional Christian theology; then he compared these claims to several core beliefs of Catholics and Protestants. He also invited “everyone to examine their own theological world” in relation to each of these claims. 

But Paulsen reminded the audience that “Joseph’s most fundamental challenge to those who deny the possibility of extra-biblical revelation is not based on argument; it is grounded in his testimony of being recipient of direct revelation from God.”  The ultimate test of whether or not God actually spoke to Joseph Smith, Paulsen suggested, is by prayer and the power of the Holy Ghost as suggested by the Apostle James: 

Joseph Smith’s primary challenges to the theological world, Paulsen said, are that:

1. God has resumed direct revelation, and
2. God has restored divine authority to man to speak and act in His name

Both of these challenges have led to an enlarged and open scriptural canon.  In addition, Paulsen said that Joseph Smith presented a theology that includes “a clear and very high Christology that affirms that Jesus is both God and Savior,” plus this theology reaffirms “the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as opposed to the God of the philosophers and theologians.”  It also sets forth “an ennobling, theomorphic understanding of man and a comprehensive, consistent and inspiring soteriology that … solves the puzzle of the unevangelized.” (Editor's note: Soteriology is the study of the doctrine of salvation.)

A Crisis in the Early Church

Paulsen called attention to the situation of the primitive Church immediately after Christ’s death, and particularly after the deaths of the apostles. A turning point in the church, Paulsen said, occurred when John became the last apostolic eyewitness to Christ.  This situation led to a crisis in authority, according to Paulsen, who cited scriptures such as John 15:16 to support his position that the original apostles were ordained and given authority not only to perform healings and required sacraments, but also to settle questions of doctrine, church organization, and missionary efforts: 

Thus the apostles’ credibility and power to act in the Lord’s name were not merely consequences of their personal witness to the life and mission of Christ, but more importantly the results of a process through which they were called and bestowed with specific authority. 

“It should come as no surprise, then, that the loss of apostolic authority and its attendant revelation was traumatic for the early Christians,” Paulsen emphasized, and this loss was the beginning of an ensuing history of changes and divisions within the Christian church over the centuries.  He referenced Roger Olsen’s book, The Story of Christian Theology, which explains how the death of the apostles led to the beginnings of Christian theology.  Without apostles to settle doctrinal disputes, Olsen says the Church began to splinter and unsettled conflicts increased.  This has lead to disparate doctrines and what many would call a “cacophony of voices.”

(In a footnote to his paper, Paulsen discussed one such dispute to which Professor Balmer later referred in his response.  In Matthew 16:18, the Lord says, And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  Paulsen said that there are at least three different interpretations of this verse: 1)

1. “Catholics say the Rock is Peter, and are supported by the fact that Peter’s name is a play on petros, which is rock in Greek.
2. "Protestants say that Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ (verse 16:16) is the rock.
3. "Latter-day Saints believe that revelation is the rock, yet they find room in their theology for the other two views.”

A Clear Voice and Message

To these diverse voices, Paulsen suggested, Joseph Smith brought a clear and unequivocal message:

1.       God has resumed direct revelation to mankind in our day.

“Of all Joseph’s challenges to the theological world, none is more fundamental than his claim to direct revelation from God,” Paulsen said.  “This claim challenges every variety of Christian thought, and at the same time, serves to ground all of Joseph’s additional claims.” 

Paulsen referred to LDS theologian Hugh Nibley, who wrote that, “The true church must and will always have living prophets,” and to American historian Richard Bushman, who asks why God would reveal himself to prophets in ancient times, but not do so today.   In essence, many Christians make the Bible “an archive rather than a living reality,” Bushman says, leading him to argue: “If believers in the Bible dismissed revelation in the present, could they defend revelation in the past? [And] if revelation in the present was so out of the question that Joseph’s claims could be discounted without serious consideration, why believe revelation in the past?”

Citing various creeds and theologians, Paulsen examined the traditional Christian position that all truths are either explicitly expressed in scripture or else can be deduced by reading scripture.  When disputes arise or doctrines need clarification, the guiding principle historically has been to look either in the scriptures themselves or to apostolic tradition.   In this view, there is no need for further revelation and therefore no need for a prophet or additional scripture.  Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims thus directly challenged the concept of a closed canon, and Paulsen noted that a hotly debated issue in theology today is whether the canon is truly closed.

It is an issue, Paulsen said, that Evangelical Bible scholar Lee M. McDonald discusses in his book, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon.  McDonald asks whether “the church was right in perceiving the need for a closed canon of scripture,” and whether a closed canon somehow “limits the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the Church.”  He points out that Jesus and his disciples weren’t limited to Old Testament canon. 

McDonald also ponders whether a canon dating to the second to fifth centuries CE has significance for today.  “If the Spirit inspired specific, authoritative instruction on the issues contemporary to the biblical writers,” McDonald asks, “is there no such voice today to give such needed guidance in our increasingly complex world?”

Paulsen suggested that Joseph Smith answered these questions and taught there was no biblical basis for believing the inspiration of God is limited solely to the Bible.  Book of Mormon writers, Paulsen said, “explicitly reject the claim that God’s revelations would ever permanently cease.”  But what is important in Joseph Smith’s claim to extra-biblical revelation, Paulsen noted, is that it is “grounded” in his personal witness rather than developed through reasoned analysis. 

As for the process of interpreting the Bible itself, Paulsen related a passage from Joseph Smith’s history where the prophet recalls how he lamented that “the teachers of religion …understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.”   It was through a personal visitation from God and Jesus Christ, Paulsen said, that Joseph Smith began to understand, both explicitly and implicitly, some of the most fundamental principles of the Gospel:  Jesus Christ is the son of God and the resurrected Lord; the Father and the Son are separate personages; man is created in their image; man can converse with Deity; man can be forgiven.  

During the process of translating the Book of Mormon and receiving revelations, Paulsen said that Joseph Smith learned he would usher in the “dispensation of the fullness of times.”   The prophet claimed that through divine visitations that revealed the Lord’s will and restored His authority, as well as through recovered ancient scriptures, the Lord reestablished His Church.  Today, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints use 872 pages of scripture in addition to the Bible, which Paulsen said has increased their biblical knowledge and understanding, and also helped them access “plain and precious truths” not found in the Bible.  

2.       God has restored divine authority to man to speak and act in His name.

Paulsen observed that Joseph’s claim that he received direct revelation from God is “inseparably connected” with his claim that it was God who gave him direct authority to “both speak and act in His name.”  As noted earlier, this vexing question of authority has led to doctrinal differences among the Christian faiths, and Paulsen examined how Catholics believe in an unbroken line of authority directly back to the Apostle Peter, and how Protestants claim a Priesthood of all believers whose doctrinal authority is “founded solely in the Bible.”  But it was through revelation, Paulsen said, that Joseph Smith learned the line of authority had actually been broken and that no one in his day possessed the authority to perform the saving ordinances of the gospel. 

To restore that authority, Paulsen said that John the Baptist, as a personal witness of Christ and an angelic ministrant, conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 1829, giving them “the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins.”  Later, the Apostles Peter, James, and John, also angelic ministrants, conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood upon the two men, which “empowered them to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost and to officiate in the higher ordinances of the Gospel.”  Thus Paulsen argued that “Peter himself established a new chain” [of authority] and that these original apostles directly ordained Joseph and Oliver to be apostles through a literal laying on of hands that restored “the office they themselves had held while on the earth.”   

3.       The canon of scripture is open and reveals new insights into the nature of Deity.

Through revelation, which has enlarged the scriptural canon, Joseph Smith developed a new understanding of Deity.  His Christology is a “unique and expansive portrait of Christ,” said Paulsen, that “agrees with, adds to, and sometimes repudiates contemporary Christologies.”  Like the Apostle Paul, Joseph Smith first encountered Christ through a miraculous vision, so Joseph’s knowledge of Christ derives not from “reasoned historical research or sustained exegeses of biblical tests,” as Paulsen described the rationalists’ attempts to understand Christ.  Instead, he said, Joseph Smith developed his knowledge of Christ through “personal encounters” as well as through “revealed extra-biblical records” of similar encounters by other writers, such as those in the Book of Mormon.  

Latter-day Saints consider the Book of Mormon a scriptural second witness of Christ because it not only foretells of Christ’s coming, but it also chronicles the appearance of the risen Lord to descendants of Hebrews who migrated to lands in the Americas.  

Joseph Smith also differentiated the God he came to know from the one Paulsen called “the god of the philosophers and theologians.”   Attributes ascribed to this latter, rationally-derived God, Paulsen said, are that he is “absolutely sovereign, all-controlling and all-determining, wholly other, absolutely simple, immaterial, nonspatial, non-temporal, immutable and impassible, the creator of all things out of nothing.” 

But the God that Joseph Smith understood, Paulsen pointed out, is a Living God who created “the physical universe out of chaotic matter” and who is the literal and spiritual father of every person, each created in His likeness. He is a God that is touched by and responsive to mankind’s problems, who allows for free agency, yet who also offers forgiveness.  This Deity, Paulsen stressed, is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and not the god of human constructions. 

Paulsen also briefly examined the issue of “passibility,” whether or not God can be changed by another.  Joseph Smith’s revelations, he said, show that God is affected by man’s actions, plus these revelations “powerfully and reassuringly disclose the tender passibility of a God who loves each of us, his begotten sons and daughters, profoundly.”   This love for his children is so great, Joseph Smith taught, that “however existentially estranged we become from God, we may again become one with him and partakers of the divine nature through his sanctifying grace.”   

How Do We Know?

But the question remains how man can ever know God.  “Can man, by reason, find out God?” Paulsen asked.   He suggested that the Apostle James promised that people can discern truth for themselves through sincere prayer, faith, and the enlightening power of the Holy Ghost.  They can find answers to the questions that Paulsen posed to every member of the audience:  “What about God?  Where is he? Can he speak?  Will he speak?  Did he speak to Joseph Smith?  Is he speaking now?”

Respondent: Richard J. Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary

A Reply to David Paulsen

Professor Mouw agreed with Paulsen that Joseph Smith challenged every variety of Christian thought.  He commended Paulsen’s explanations of Mormon doctrine, his “careful interaction with thinkers in the mainstream of historic Christianity,” and his focus on “the theological issues proper” — especially the question of authority.  Likewise, he suggested that it behooves evangelicals to examine more fully the message of the Mormon Church and not just Joseph Smith as its messenger.  He believes that by not focusing their attention “on the issue of authority as such, but on Joseph Smith’s claim to authority,” evangelicals limit their perspective and do not fully consider “the very possibility of authoritative new revelations.” 

Mouw also said that to examine and understand the Mormon Church, it is necessary to temporarily set aside questions about Joseph Smith as a man and a prophet, and focus instead on Paulsen’s questions about God and whether He can, or will, speak.  It is a worthy endeavor, Mouw believes, to find out why “many clear-thinking Mormon folks” like Paulsen are influenced by and committed to Mormon theology.

Agreeing with Paulsen, Mouw said the issue of whether God still speaks (and whether such extra-biblical teachings are as binding as the present canon of scripture) has been a divisive issue among Christians through the centuries.  Yet Mouw pointed out that Catholics and Protestants have developed theologies that allow for teachings not explicit in the scriptures.   He referred to the analysis of American Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray, who said that both Catholics and Protestants accept the concept of the Trinity, although the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible, nor is it explicitly expressed in the Bible.  Protestants are able to accept the doctrine of the Trinity as “legitimate doctrinal development,” Mouw added, “because it does capture — it does explicate — the clear sense of what the Bible teaches.”

Murray’s writings also explain that among Catholics there is a “development of dogma” that includes teachings that have become part of Catholic tradition and are sometimes an extension of basic doctrine and principles.  The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is an “authoritative extension” of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ, Mouw pointed out.

Where Catholics and Protestants diverge, according to Murray, is over how to determine “what is legitimate development, what is organic growth in the understanding of the primitive discipline of the Church, and what, on the other hand, is accretion, additive increment, adulteration of the deposit, distortion of true Christian discipline?”

As an evangelical, Mouw believes that many so-called organic Catholic teachings — those teachings that Catholics believe grow naturally out of the written word as if they were bringing forth fruit — are actually adulterations.  He cited the Catholic Church’s teaching on Papal infallibility as an example. 

What sets Joseph Smith apart, Mouw pointed out, is that his teachings “came not, as the result of reflections on the meaning of an original revelation in the Old and New Testaments, but from new information that he claimed to receive directly from the members of the Godhead.”  

Consequently, Mouw said, “the real authority for Mormonism resides not in books but in deliverances from living prophets.” A particular noteworthy aspect of such revelations, Mouw explained, is that “the prophet may even call for major teachings of the past to be repealed and for the overturning of major practices that were once mandated.”

To his earlier comment on Mormonism’s great appeal, Mouw said that Joseph Smith brought doctrinal certainty and clarity, plus he presented a theology that closes the gap between God and human beings.   However, Mouw believes that the Mormon claim that God and man are of “the same species,” is controversial and not part of traditional Jewish or Christian theology.  (He proposed that the high Calvinism of the 19^th Century, which preached a “legitimate metaphysical distance between God and his human creatures,” may have also fostered an unfortunate spiritual distance which reformist movements sought to bridge.) 

But Mouw also believes there is common ground between his beliefs and Mormon theology, and he quoted from the Doctrine and Covenants 20:29-31:

“My continuing question for my LDS friends,” he said, “is whether we mean the same things by those words, and — if we do — whether the metaphysics set forth by Joseph Smith attributes to God those features that do in fact grant him the power to save us.”

Respondent: Randall Balmer, professor of American Religion at Barnard College, Columbia University

Speaking of Faith: The Centrality of Epistemology and the Perils of Circularity

“How do we know what is and is not scripture, God’s special revelation to humanity?” Professor Randall Balmer asked in response to Paulsen’s comments on Biblical and extra-Biblical revelation.  Balmer’s talk focused on questions of epistemology (how we know), the crisis of authority, and problems in circular reasoning.  

He also contrasted the rationalistic apologetic approach to faith, which employs such Enlightenment reasoning as “linear thought and empirical evidence” ― to the postmodern, experiential approach to faith, which employs and builds upon faith-promoting events.  He decidedly prefers the latter for his own life.     

Balmer referred to Paulsen’s comparison of Catholic, Protestant, and Mormon interpretations of the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 to set up his own “admittedly unorthodox” view that the words of this scripture are “the only stab at humor recorded in the New Testament.”  To Balmer, the fact that Jesus entrusted his Church to a man who found himself “sinking like a rock” when he tried to cross the Sea of Galilee, demonstrates that Jesus chose the passionate and devoted Peter despite his shortcomings rather than because of his solidarity.

Regarding Joseph Smith’s claims to authority to act in God’s name, Balmer pointed out that many Christian faiths believe in the importance of apostolic authority.  What is different in the Mormon faith, he said, is the concept of a living prophet as an essential part of the faith, taking “the notion of authority to another level altogether.”

“The assertion of a living prophet as the conduit for divine revelation trumps the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican doctrine of apostolic succession,” Balmer said. “None of these traditions claims prophetic revelation, though they do insist on apostolic authority.”  But an equaling intriguing issue for Balmer was the choice of prophet. “Why Smith?” he asked, questioning why God would choose Joseph Smith and what makes it possible for anyone to verify his claim.       

Balmer then examined what he called the circular reasoning of many Christians — using as proof the very thing one is trying to prove.  In Paulsen’s discussion of Joseph Smith as a prophet who received direct revelations from God, Balmer said that Paulsen used Joseph Smith’s own words and writings as supporting evidence for his claims.  This left Balmer dissatisfied with Paulsen’s answer to the question of how we can know that the scriptural canon is still open or that the Book of Mormon is inspired scripture — “We know, Paulsen insists, because the Book of Mormon tells us so.”

But to the issue of faith itself, Balmer explained how he is also less than satisfied with “enlightenment-style defenses of the faith,” pointing out that “religious beliefs don’t readily submit to empirical scrutiny.”  Because he believed the conference papers seemed to “list” in such a direction, he described his admiration for a Mormon scholar he knows who chose to accept Joseph Smith’s first vision simply on faith, thus demonstrating that doubt is “not the antithesis of faith; it is, in fact, an essential component of faith.”   He also recounted a personal tour of Temple Square in Salt Lake City in which he found the personal testimonies of the missionaries more compelling than a solely reasoned approach to faith.

(Editor's Note: In a subsequent exchange of emails after the Symposium, both Professor Balmer and Professor Paulsen further explored the concepts of Enlightenment reasoning and circular reasoning.  Paulsen wrote that his purpose in examining Joseph’s revelations “was to make clear his challenges to Biblicism, not to prove Bibicism false nor to prove Joseph’s revelations true.”  As for the credibility of the revelations themselves, Paulsen said he did not rely on enlightenment rationalism, and to the contrary, suggested that readers sincerely seek the truth in prayer.)

Respondent: Robert L. Millet, professor of Ancient Scripture, Brigham Young University                   

Positioning Christ within Mormonism

Professor Millet focused his remarks on the way that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints views Christ and his mission.  But in contrast to Professor Paulsen, who discussed aspects of LDS doctrine that differ from traditional Christian thought, Professor Millet also discussed doctrinal similarities that connect the Church to other Christian groups, often to the surprise of people in both groups.  In particular, Millet examined whether or not the LDS Church has undergone a doctrinal change in recent years that aligns it more with mainstream Christianity. He analyzed why the Church seems to be talking more about Christ and why he believes other Christian groups often ask the question, “Are Mormons Christian?”

Focus on Christ

Unequivocally, Millet maintained that Church doctrine has not changed despite organizational and administrative changes.  However, he asked, “May our understanding, our grasp, our focus, or our emphasis upon a given doctrine change?”  He said that the Church has developed a worldwide scripture study program as well as a media campaign that highlight the life and mission of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible and restored scriptures like the Book of Mormon.  In so doing, the Church reinforces Christ’s message of redemption not only to Church members, but also to the world, thus helping to dispel misunderstandings about the Church’s “fundamental and core beliefs.”  The result, he said, has been a more scripturally literate church body, a clearer presentation to the world of what Mormons actually believe, and a better understanding between Mormons and other Christian groups about doctrinal commonalities.

Even Mormons themselves, Millet believes, are becoming more educated about their own faith as they concentrate on fundamental doctrinal principles.   He referred to a Conference talk in which Elder Dallin H. Oaks encouraged members to “teach and testify to … simple, basic truths of paramount importance,” rather than diverting their attention to obscure or controversial issues.  Millet offered examples from his own Mormon childhood in Louisiana to illustrate how he was not taught many of these gospel basics. 

What Millet began to realize, is that doctrines about Christ and the atonement “were there in the scriptures all along.”  As people began to seek more scriptural help and inspiration, Church leaders responded in the 1970s with a correlated scripture study program that focused on doctrine ― in the Old and New Testaments, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and teachings of church leaders.  There was a special emphasis on the Book of Mormon with its focus on Christ’s redemptive theology, and Millet believes increased study of this book in particular has not only resulted in “a more Christ-centered emphasis in the whole Church,” but has also enhanced the “doctrinal depth, familiarity, and personal application of scriptural truths” among Latter-day Saints.  He suggested that those wanting to know orthodox Mormon teachings should refer to the standard works, official proclamations or declarations, general conference talks of modern apostles and prophets, general handbooks, and the approved curriculum.  For all seekers of truth, members of the Church and those of other faiths, he reminded that “supplementation is hardly the same as contradiction.” 

Meaning Behind the Words

Millet explained how this focus on doctrine has provided new insight into such issues as the atonement and the concept of grace.  He suggested that at one time most Mormons would have said the atonement took place solely in the Garden of Gethsemane, whereas today they would say that the atonement took place both in Gethsemane and on the cross, “that what began in the Garden was culminated, climaxed on Golgotha.”   It was on the cross, President Gordon B. Hinckley has said, that the Savior became “a vicarious sacrifice for each of us.”      

Latter-day Saints also believe in grace, Millet said, although this particular concept ― especially as it relates to works ― has long been a source of misunderstandings between Mormons and evangelicals.   He cited numerous references from the standard works and writings of the prophets to show that the idea of grace is inherent in LDS thought. 

As examples, former President of the Church David O. McKay wrote, “I am not unmindful of the scripture that declares ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.’ (Eph.2:8)  That is absolutely true, for man in his taking upon himself mortality was impotent to save himself.”

Another Church President, Joseph Fielding Smith, agreed with the apostle Paul’s argument that we cannot be redeemed through adherence to the law: “For we are all transgressors of the law to some extent, no matter how good we have tried to be ― We are therefore unable in and of ourselves to receive redemption from our sins by any act of our own.  This is the grace that Paul was teaching. Therefore, it is by the grace of Jesus Christ that we are saved. ”

Other words, too, like “salvation” and “justification,” elicit strong and immediate reactions depending on how each group interprets these words within their theology as well as how they think that other groups interpret them. As an example, Millet recalled an episode during an interfaith dialogue he attended in which one attendee was upset to hear a Mormon talk about grace and justification.   “Those aren’t Mormon words; they belong to us!” the man argued, though Millet tried to help the man see that neither he nor his church “owned” any words.   

“One does not travel very far in his or her study of the New Testament or the Book of Mormon,” Millet pointed out, “without recognizing the central and saving need to trust in and rely upon the merits and mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah.”  He also observed that Latter-day Saints would have to “ignore scores of passages in the Book of Mormon in order to justify a position of salvation (or exaltation) by works.”  One such example comes from Second Nephi:   

Like Professor Mouw, Millet believes that a lack of common terminology creates these misunderstandings.  He said that Latter-day Saints often speak with their own “vocabulary” in describing their beliefs, a vocabulary that emerged through years of persecution and isolation that caused the Saints “to erect a doctrinal fortress” to protect themselves from outside influences. 

The problem is that now it can be difficult for Latter-day Saints and evangelicals to communicate, or even to feel comfortable using the same words.   Latter-day Saints are constantly puzzled, for example, when they hear others question whether they are “Christian” despite the words of President Hinckley: “We believe in Christ.  We worship Christ.  We take upon ourselves in solemn covenant his holy name … he is our Lord, our Savior, our Redeemer through whom came the great atonement with salvation and eternal life.”

Christian But Different 

To those who accuse the Latter-day Saints of changing in order to become more acceptable to mainstream Christianity, Millet again cited the words of President Hinckley: “We are not changing.  The world’s perception of us is changing.  We teach the same doctrine.  We have the same organization.” 

Millet stressed that Latter-day Saints “claim to be Christian, but different,” and that they worship the Jesus of the Bible, the Redeemer, who is the same as the one found in other LDS scriptures and modern revelation. Even a movement among some in the LDS community to “return to the fundamentals of the faith,” Millet sees as a desire for a “more thoroughly redemptive base.”  He stressed the importance of nurturing relationships between people of different faiths and of avoiding contention and criticism, noting that even Mormons have to learn to accept change and development.