A Case for Latter-Day Christianity - (i.e. A Case for the Christianity of Mormons)
I feel like I should make some clever connection between this book and the discussion which raged about the Shroud of Turin, but nothing occurs to me.
By: Robert Starling
Published: 2019
360 Pages
Briefly, what is this book about?
A broad, and intensive defense of the theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). With a special focus on tying that theology to the theology of the early Christian Church. As such it spends a lot of time examining differences between LDS theology and other Christian denominations (things like the Trinity, Grace, The Book of Mormon, etc.) and how those differences look in relation to actual scripture.
What authorial biases should I be aware of?
Starling has obviously been compiling stuff and working the “Mormons are Christians” beat for a long time. Which is to say he definitely has a dog in the fight. This gives the work a somewhat tendentious tinge.
What about my biases?
I met Starling at a conference and he asked me to read his book. Outside of that meeting and a follow-up email he sent me there hasn’t been any further interaction. So I wouldn’t say we were close. I am however pretty close to the topic of “Latter-day Christianity”, so that’s a pretty big bias.
Who should read this book?
Anyone who wants to see the comprehensive case for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being the same Church Jesus Christ established in the 1st Century.
Specific thoughts: Who is this book for?
This book is obviously geared towards people who are not LDS. Which is not to say I didn’t enjoy it, or that it doesn’t have a lot of great stuff, merely that people who are already members of the Church generally don’t need to be convinced that they’re Christian. Also they are probably familiar with much of the evidence laid out by Starling. Even if they’re not, I’m sure they’ve encountered the high level arguments.
Before we get to a discussion of the strictly non-LDS audience, there are a couple of categories in between: those who are thinking of joining the Church, and those who are thinking of leaving the Church. Let’s take them in reverse order.
The Church does have a problem with retention, and anything that helps with that is obviously welcome, but when I consider people I know who have either left the Church or are on the fence, questions about whether we’re really Christian don’t come up that much. The concerns that get raised are generally around modern cultural issues (think stuff like LGBT issues and racism) or problems with the early history of the church (think Joseph Smith polygamy).
I do have a couple of relatives who have left the Church and become Catholics, and perhaps this would be the perfect book for them. Unfortunately it’s been years since I talked to these relatives, but should I find myself in conversation with either of them I’ll try to steer it in this direction.
(I know that many of my readers are LDS, so if you have anything to add to the above, or really anything else, please don’t hesitate to chime in.)
Our next category is people who are thinking of joining the Church. People in this position might have questions or concerns about a large variety of things, from giving up smoking, to polygamy. One of these concerns might be, “Are Mormons really Christians?” At which point the correct response is “We don’t say ‘Mormons’ anymore! It’s The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! And if you use the correct name it’s right there in the title! Duh!” Case closed.
Okay, I assume everyone knows I was joking. The nature of God is an important topic. Violent schisms have erupted over competing conceptions of the divine. See for example the conflict which attended the Arian Heresy, and Arianism is actually closer to Nicene Christianity than LDS theology. As such, christology is a legitimate area of concern regardless of what the official name of the Church is. Still, these days, it would be a rare investigator who was so concerned about the subject that they needed a book the length and depth of Starling’s before being satisfied. That said, it’s good for these people that the book exists, and I could imagine someone picking and choosing a chapter here or there to answer specific concerns. But you end up looking at a pretty narrow slice of the “thinking of joining the Church” audience.
This just leaves us with a non-LDS audience that might be interested in this topic for reasons having nothing to do with their personal religious journey. I’m not sure how big this group is. Despite this it appears that this is Starling’s primary audience. This is fine. Should I ever find the time to finish the books I envision they will have a similarly tiny audience. What is regrettable is the tone of the book. I know Starling claims that his “purpose is not to engage in contention or debate” and I’m sure there’s true, but I did detect quite a bit of defensiveness. This is probably understandable. People have been attacking the LDS Church for not being Christian for a very long time. But for those who are just interested in the topic I think it would color the presentation.
Still whatever its flaws I hope people find this book, and gain some benefit thereby. It covers a lot of fascinating material. As just one example, there’s the issue of baptism for the dead as mentioned most prominently in 1 Corinthians 15:29. Even people outside of the Church (see for example the New Testament guide I recently read) admit that the plain reading seems to support the LDS interpretation. I already mentioned my biases here, but I think there are quite a few things in the New Testament that match up better with LDS Christianity than Nicene Christianity, but I don’t want to spoil everything.
—-----------------------------------------------
People have various standards around spoiling things. My standards are entirely based on my own selfish desires. I want free reign to spoil things for other people, but never to have anything spoiled for me. But I also want to make sure spoilers are available if I happen to go in search of them. But if I come across a spoiler without looking for it, I’m really annoyed. So when I urge you to check out the archives, which I frequently do, and those archives contain a lot of book reviews, you should probably keep this entirely arbitrary standard in mind.
Hi, This is Robert. Thanks for thinking about my book. Anyone who would like to actually READ it can download a FREE pdf of the whole thing here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mddqWAbrtnJ7dtNUJagCJ-yULu61WS29/view?usp=sharing
If you do that, and read the Introduction, you'll see that I describe myself NOT as a "traditional" or "orthodox" (big or little "O") Christian, but as a Biblical follower of Christ who believes the same things as those who were "first called Christians at Antioch" believed. NOT a Greek philosophers's "triune god", NOT a closed canon of 66 books, NOT a "faith alone" salvation, and NOT a "patristic connection" to a 4th-century "church" that would not have been recognized by Peter, Paul, or my brothers and sisters in Antioch.
In my book I DO "contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints" without (I hope) being contentious. That same Gospel of "one Lord, one faith, and one baptism" has been RESTORED in these Latter-days, as part of the "restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21) that the author of Acts says MUST happen before the second coming of Christ.
A restoration was required because of the "falling away" or "great apostacy" that we're told in 2 Thess 2:3 MUST occur before the Lord's return. History shows us that the apostasy DID happen. "Mormonism" is not "traditional" or "historical/orthodox" Christianity, but it IS Biblical Christianity.
And to those "kindergarten Christians" who are content with the "milk" of the Gospel, what we have is "graduate level" Christianity. Like the three degrees of glory that Paul likened unto the sun, the moon, and the stars (1. Cor. 15:40), all believers in Jesus are "Christians", but what kind do you want to be?
The FULLNESS of the "good news" (gospel) that Jesus told his apostles to teach to "all the world" is today found only in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or as I call it - "Latter-day Christianity". Do you want to see how I make my case? Read the book.
(Questions? contact me at: starlingrd -at- msn dot c0m)
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being the same Church Jesus Christ established in the 1st Century"
This strikes me as a very odd claim since the church Jesus established, the Church of the Book of Acts, still exists. It's the Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy certainly isn't the only way to Christ (I'm Protestant and even the Orthodox don't claim that). But they (and maybe the Catholics) are the only groups that can plausibly make such a claim to Patristic connection. It's not just Mormons, many others try as well -- JWs, Baptists, several Reformed denominations ) and it's just farcical.
Delineating the boundaries of the body is way above my pay grade. Should the Lord grant me admission, I fully expect to meet Mormons in Heaven. I also expect to NOT see some fundamentalist evangelicals and liberal mainliners. That's what the parable of the sheep and the goats means. Work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and be prepared because no one knows the day or the hour. Trying to prove your church's Christian bona-fides seems like a distraction from that.
As a side-note, other than Nicene-denying denominations like the Unitarians or JWs, is there any other church that goes out its way to "prove it's really Christian". If your religion is really of God, you don't need to hitch yourself to an existing one.