Comments on: Book Review: The Mormon Jesus

By: James C. Olsen

James C. Olsen — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 20:04:54 +0000

Christopher J: I suspect my post has mislead you. Turner does a fantastic job as a historian, showing various developments and shifts through the years. I think that despite himself, he still sees things through a bit of a Protestant lens (e.g., he sees a lull in our focus/emphasis on Christ in the latter part of the 19th century; whereas I see an emphasis on aspects of our notion of Christological salvation that don’t mean anything to Protestants — priesthood, temple, sealed families, etc.). But in the book he does a great job showing historical development. Have you read it and still find him at fault here? Maybe you could be more specific.

By: Wally

Wally — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 16:08:39 +0000

Thanks, James. Your review, along with others, has convinced me this is a book I need to read.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 17:32:59 +0000

Matt, I’m not sure I’d say Mormonism’s Christology isn’t defined so much as I’d say what Mormons care about with respect to theology and particularly Christology is simply quite different from the heyday of traditional Christian theology (say from Augustine up through the Renaissance). Mormons just don’t care about metaphysics (and for good reason) so metaphysics is amazingly ill defined in Mormonism. The strain that comes closes is that Pratt-like theology that survives and gets given process or existentialist like thrusts. Yet it never really is significant in any way.

What Mormons care about with regards to Christ seems to be practical things he does. He makes is so we can be forgiven and changed. He has a place in our theodicy of development via the council in heaven. He’s the practical ideal we are supposed to be striving for in terms of our own personal development. None of the metaphysical concerns of traditional Christianity really matter much.

About the closest to a real debate about Christology is the debate about whether the atonement was primarily on the cross or in the garden of Gethsemane. One could argue that in Mormon thought that is kind of a weird arguing via history rather than metaphysics over whether the atonement is primarily about substitution or about experiential knowledge.

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 01:44:38 +0000

Reading the Mormon Jesus now. About a quarter way through. It staggers my mind how informed Turner is on every nuance of Mormonism. When many members can’t even be bothered to read the Book of Mormon (they read the Ensign instead), what would compel a non-believer to gain such a thorough understanding of it?

Anyway, just to be clear, The Mormon Jesus is a fantastic read so far.

By: Christopher J.

Christopher J. — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 06:11:02 +0000

I find it somewhat strange that a review of a book that is premised on the very notion of “the Mormon Jesus [having] a history of change and variety over the course of the church’s nearly two-hundred year history” (p. 5) ignores that historical development altogether, collapsing all of Mormonism into some sort of static theology that exists beyond the historical context in which it was born, subsequently developed, and currently exists.

By: matt b

matt b — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 04:47:33 +0000

James: I’m not completely persuaded that “theological” or “existential” ways of defining religion are more important than historical or cultural ways of defining it – particularly because I’m less than convinced that Mormonism is well defined theologically enough to make the argument work, and more, I’m not quite clear on what the difference you’re seeing between ‘culture’ and ‘theology’ is. Put another way, I’m not sure that 1) Mormonism’s Christology is well defined enough to point out precisely the ways in which it’s distinct from Nicean Christology, and 2) that the difference matters more than the day to day experience of Mormons in the pew.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 03:35:08 +0000

I’ve not read Turners book, but how much of the divide is really just the old metaphysical differences over creation ex nihilo and divine simplicity? It always seems to me most of these “is it the same Jesus” end up hinging upon “is it the same God” only transported to the doctrine of two Natures.

By: John Lundwall

John Lundwall — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 00:36:57 +0000

Hmm. Thanks for this review. I have not read the argument but your post certainly is interesting and has me thinking.