A Review of James White's "Is The Mormon My Brother?"

By Darryl L. Barksdale

Is The Mormon My Brother? Discerning the Differences Between Mormonism and Christianity is a 256-page paperback, sporting slick graphics and gushing endorsements from White's usual band of enthusiastic groupies and supporters, including Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute, a long-time self-proclaimed enemy of Mormonism.

In his endorsement, Hanegraaff intones that "the first act of love in reaching out to Mormons is to demonstrate that we do not worship the same God." Indeed, that is the core issue that White endeavors to address in this work. In short, Is The Mormon My Brother? is the result of James White's discontent over Mormon/Evangelical discourse and stands as his response to How Wide The Divide?: A Mormon and Evangelical in Conversation by Craig L. Blomberg, Ph.D., and Stephen E. Robinson, Ph.D. The purpose of this work is to point out the supposed discrepancies between LDS theology and what White terms "Christian Orthodoxy."

The book is organized in four parts. Part one, which includes chapters 1 through 3, sets the stage for White's analysis by establishing White's definition of Mormon doctrine and "Christian Orthodoxy," as well as a fairly convoluted rationalization of why he should be justified in condemning Mormons as "non-Christians."

Part 2, which includes chapters 4 through 7, examines White's interpretation of LDS theology, using a hierarchy of sources.

Part 3 is his rebuttal and attempt to answer LDS biblical claims in support of their theology, which includes Chapters 9 and 10.

The final part of this book is a critical examination (again) of How Wide The Divide?, as well as an additional chapter in which White, seemingly as an afterthought, cannot resist rehashing the old Walter Martin accusation that Mormons believe that God the Father had sex with Mary to conceive Christ.

White seems to have become sensitive lately to the criticism heaped on him for his less than honest tactics, sloppy scholarship, and constant use of invective and insult in place of serious research. As a result, he has apparently tried to change his image in that regard (see discussion on this topic later in this review) and eschew such tactics. Having said that, one has to wonder why he allowed his Preface to go unedited, as it rather blatantly betrays White's stated intention of doing away with insult, invective and other cheap shots.

The Preface was written by Alan W. Gomes, Ph.D., who takes a desperate, flailing stab at painting a mustache on the validity and plausibility of Mormon theology. He fails miserably. All that Gomes manages to do is to deface the wall next to the painting.

In the Preface, Gomes radically wanders from White's new "look" and parrots White's long-standing belief that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons have no clue what they "really" believe.

Using a blatant rip-off of White's fictional¹ Letters to a Mormon Elder theme in setting up a straw man framework, Gomes creates a Mormon missionary character who agrees with the belief statements of Gomes' students, who have been sent out on an evangelizing assignment. Supposedly bewildered at the fact that the Mormon missionary actually agrees with them concerning doctrines such as the Atonement, scripture, etc., the "students" ask what all the fuss is about and why Mormons should be considered a cult.

Gomes is more than eager to respond to this set-up question, of course, implying that the elder is basically a French fry short of a Happy Meal, dumb as asphalt, and doesn't have a clue what he (or Mormons in general) really believe. In grim tones, Gomes goes on to speak solemnly of this "new positioning" among Mormons as if it were a coup attempt led by a massive evil conspiracy of Satan-worshippers that threatened the very security of the Free World.

Gomes proceeds to painstakingly prop up his elaborate straw man, explaining to his befuddled "students" that this missionary "uses Christian vocabulary but radically redefines it," and that the missionary is clueless as to his own faith. Indeed, Gomes even goes so far as to conclude in mock response to "Elder Bill," that "If you don't believe in Mormonism, why do you think we should?"

In stark contrast with the all-too-familiar unscholarly slurs scrawled by Gomes, White does seem to attempt in this work to present a fair and balanced view of LDS theology. And, with some rather glaring exceptions, I must agree that this work succeeds in being somewhat less hateful than his other work and presents a fairly accurate overview of LDS theology.

In Chapter 1, titled "What Is A Mormon?" White ignores the topic completely and instead covers a variety of topics centering mostly on various rationalizations for attempting to judge Mormons' Christianity.

White begins by speaking as a "concerned parent" whose children have supposedly begun asking about Mormonism. Expressing concern over the fact that Christian children are noticing that Mormon children have many of the same high moral values that they do, White reports that this "issue" is "arising all over the land," described with the same seriousness as one would report, for instance, a raging outbreak of the Hong Kong Flu. The purpose of this, of course, is simply to "dress the set" and place the necessary props on the stage for yet another act in this well-worn anti-Mormon drama. And, as he has in the past, White once again emotionally blindsides the reader by using the innocence of children as an underlying rationalization for his attack on Mormon theology.

The task that White undertook in this effort is truly daunting. In order for the reader to judge Mormonism as harshly as he demands, White has to discredit those who take a softer, more ecumenical approach to Mormonism.

White declares:

White tries to explain away and neutralize the sentiments of a growing segment of traditional Christianity which openly reject White's "agenda" and blanket condemnation of Mormons and other Christian denominations whose theology varies from what he personally agrees with. Roger R. Keller, Ph.D., former Vice President of Scarritt Graduate School (a Presbyterian theological seminary), is one such example of mainstream Christian scholars who are repulsed by the unchristian actions of those such as White. In a work prepared for the Protestant community and published in a major Protestant periodical, Keller voices his concerns over tactics like White's:

In an Oz-like admonition to "ignore that man behind the curtain!" White condemns the very tactics that have made him a household name among the "Counter-Cultist" movement. Consider his own words:

One has to wonder why White has distanced himself from this category, since he has clearly stated in the past that this was his position. Why is he not willing to acknowledge his true feelings towards Mormonism, when he has made it so plainly evident elsewhere?

For those involved in LDS apologetics and who have spoken with or debated White, this statement stands as the epitome of self-definition. White has long insisted that Mormons are a "cult" and LDS members "cultists."⁵ In a work published shortly after this one, What's With The Dudes At The Door? (supposedly written for youth), White uses the words "cult" and "cultist" with abandon. Those who have read both books (Is The Mormon My Brother? and What's With The Dudes At The Door?), will find the following statement most amusing:

"For many"? White himself in Dudes, calls Mormons "Faith-eating bacteria," and "Snakes in the grass," who would "vacuum out your brains."

But the best is yet to come. In the most unbelievable display of self-condemnation and utter hypocrisy that I have witnessed in recent years, White has the audacity to declare the following:

This self-condemnation is in perfect harmony with the same criticism that Evangelical scholars Mosser and Owens leveled at White. They said;

Statements like this seem to reflect White's goal to become the Teflon Critic and stand as an attempt to desperately deflect the peer scrutiny he has justly received and to somehow distance himself from what Evangelical critics like Mosser and Owens have leveled, almost word for word, against him specifically.

White continues his self-condemnatory diatribe:

Fortunately, we know that White's work is not the "norm" for all Christians and does in fact represent a very small, hateful minority. Most Christians, we have found, are honest, sincere individuals who are repulsed by White's brand of religious bigotry. As far as ample examples of the "inconsistencies and half-truths" evident in White's writings, one only has to read any of the FARMS reviews of his work.

White then makes a most curious statement; "But for those who find in Mormonism the very embodiment of evil itself, there is little reason to ask the question, 'Is Mormonism Christian?'" And there is even less reason to spend any time at all fairly evaluating the arguments of LDS scholars on the topic." One must ask, sans any sarcasm whatsoever, why then White proceeds to do just that, considering the fact that he has just perfectly described his own modus operandi?

Finally, we stumble across the one statement that forms the capstone of White's entire premise. This statement forms the foundation upon which White builds his entire case. This statement defines the standard against which White intends to judge Mormon theology. Is it the Bible? Nope. White declares that "Christians [i.e. anyone with whom White agrees] must be able to define what is/isn't foundational to the Christian Faith, then they can define who is Christian and who is not Christian."⁹

This is a circular argument in the extreme. It begs the question and seeks to establish a completely illogical standard. Think about it. What's wrong with this picture? Would anyone define a doctrine they do not believe in as foundational to their own Faith? This sets up an unsupportable and far-too-convenient premise that whatever Evangelicals believe in is "foundational to the Christian Faith," and what they don't believe is not. Curiously, nowhere in this definition does White insist that the Bible or the words of Christ or the Apostles be the standard here. This omission is revealing in and of itself.

One of the more prominent problems with White's premise is, of course, that very few of what White considers to be "Christian" denominations can agree on what is truly "foundational." As can be seen in the "Lordship" vs. "No-Lordship" controversy, or in the foundational differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, even the most basic doctrines of salvation are not immune from vast chasms of doctrinal distance among Evangelical Christians, all without a glimmer of accusing the other of not being a "Christian."

But to Mr. White, the circular, stacked definition he invents is of paramount importance, and he must insist that it be accepted and believed without question; for it certainly becomes obvious throughout his book that he has no other evidentiary support to justify his sweeping condemnations of Mormon theology.

White reverses the standard Anti-Mormon ploy (presumably because it serves his purpose in this instance) of dictating for Mormons what they "really" believe¹⁰ by stating, "We must allow Mormonism to define Mormonism - then focus on what really matters."¹¹ While this could be a refreshing change, there is one glaring problem with this, as Gomes points out in the Preface. White does not understand (nor does he accept) our definitions.

Chapter one has a number of other problems. For instance, White makes a profound logical error in stating that the process for determining who is and isn't a Christian should be to:

1) Find out what the Mormons believe on essential doctrine;

2) Provide a scriptural defense of the Christian position; and

3) Determine whether Mormons are Christian.¹²

This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question." In other words, the truth of the conclusion is determined by the premises (or White's erroneous definition of them).

The basic argument that White presents is that his definition of Christianity is unquestionably true, and, therefore, if Mormons do not agree with his definition, then Mormons are not Christian. The problem is that White presents very little, if anything, to prove that his definition is in fact true and ignores evidence from non-LDS scholars that utterly destroys his assertions.

Another problem is the logical fallacy that White makes in the form of a false dilemma in attempting to force Mormon theology into the "polytheistic" category. White states his definition as follows:

White goes on to claim the following:

This is a most curious statement, considering the findings of scholars as Larry Hurtado¹⁵, A. E. Harvey¹⁶, P. M. Casey¹⁷, J. D. G. Dunn¹⁸, Peter Hayman¹⁹, Paul Rainbow²⁰, Margaret Barker²¹, James C. VanderKam²², Otto Eissfeldt²³ and others too numerous to mention.

Hurtado, as an example of how out of touch White is with this issue, states that:

Even Dr. Richard Mouw, President of the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, doesn't agree with White's statement. When asked whether he agreed with White's conclusions regarding the issue of monotheism vs. polytheism, Mouw replied:

White also ignores the statements of Peter concerning the obvious separateness and subordinationistic relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ:

Other authors have echoed the same truth

Even Eusebius draws the distinction between God the Father and Yahweh as a separate being;

Novatian also disagreed with White's monistic views;

What does White use as a reference for his conflicting opinion? What scholarly support does White show to dispute all of these esteemed scholars? Himself. That's it. As he has in other occasions, White insists that his opinion is sufficient as a final authority on matters religious.³⁰

White proclaims that "The chasm between monotheism and polytheism cannot be bridged." We can only urge Mr. White to spend some time studying Jewish theism and the evolution of christology through the centuries before making such an obviously uninformed statement. The "chasm" Mr. White speaks of certainly won't be bridged by someone whose main goal in life is to destroy the bridge and who refuses to even read current scholarship on the topic.

There are a number of other problems within Chapter 1, but most are fairly minor in nature. I include them here only as an example of similar errors that pepper the content of this book throughout other chapters, which I will not waste the space enumerating for the reader in this review. For instance, in this chapter alone White:

• Lists the King James Bible as the fourth book in our standard works, when in reality it has never been listed that way in any Church publication that I know of, and White certainly doesn't provide any examples.³¹
• Claims that LDS youth don't know anything about who God is or about any of the other core doctrines of the LDS Church. Apparently White is unaware of the LDS Seminary program, wherein LDS spend time each day studying LDS doctrine in detail.³²
• States that there is "much discussion and debate" over the "form of revelation," completely ignorant of the fact that in the LDS Church, it is widely accepted and taught that revelation is received in many forms.³³
• Sets up a straw man in insisting that the early apostles definitively answered every request made of them, without any substantiating support whatsoever and ignores all evidence to the contrary.³⁴
• Starts to establish LDS doctrine from "Teachings of the Living Prophets," a non-canonical work, instead of the official LDS summary of beliefs, the canonized "Articles of Faith."³⁵
• Calls anyone a "minimalist" who doesn't let HIM decide what is and isn't official LDS doctrine (such as the Journal of Discourses, which has NEVER been accepted as an official LDS doctrinal source).³⁶
• Mysteriously declares Christ's conception to be a "doctrine," with no support whatsoever.³⁷
• Insists that "Truth is always truth, no matter when it is given" This statement, of course, is false. "It's 20 degrees below zero" may not be true now, but there may be times and circumstances when it will be true. There are two kinds of truth. Eternal truths never change, but circumstantial truths do.³⁸
• Insists that "We can hold Mormonism accountable for its historical teachings." Is White willing to judge Evangelical Christianity by the same standard?

Chapter 2 defines in White's view what constitutes "Mormon Orthodoxy," or official Mormon doctrine and establishes a tiered system of "evidences" from which White states that he will present his case, from "most authoritative" to "least authoritative."

In the highest group, for example, he includes the LDS Standard Works and the "living prophet." White fails to explain why he has ignored declarations from LDS scholars such as Stephen E. Robinson, Ph.D., which clearly identify what constitutes official LDS doctrinal sources. In Robinson's definition, as in that of other LDS scholars, apologists, and general authorities, the words of the "living prophet" are not an official source of doctrine unless they are canonized or are made an official proclamation that appears over the signature of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. The second level includes presumably anything written by Joseph Smith, First Presidency Statements (which belong in the level one evidences), and the LDS temple ceremony. His third level includes "books published under the authority of the First Presidency," and "statements of General Authorities in conference. Finally, his lowest level includes "Statements of General Authorities elsewhere. (books, other talks, etc.)."

Chapter 3 deals with White's definition of what constitutes "Christian Orthodoxy" and is where the massive straw man that White leans on throughout the rest of the book is erected.

As I mentioned before, White is very candid in this work about how he arrived at the standard by which he judges Mormon theology. It is not, as one would hope, a standard erected by solid exegesis of Holy Writ. Instead, White generously bestows upon himself the right to declare whatever he himself decides this definition should be. He refuses to provide any reason for his decision, disappointing those expecting a scholarly treatise on exactly why this standard must be used as a comparative criteria. White further neglects to specify which particular flavor of "Christian Orthodoxy" should be used as the ultimate theological measuring stick.

Interestingly enough, in the process of demanding that "Christian Orthodoxy" be used as Mormonism's whipping post, White blithely excuses himself, and by extension, other Evangelical Christians, from the very scrutiny that he insists on subjecting Mormon doctrine to. He notes that his views on such a core "fundamental and foundational" doctrine as salvation are "not shared by others," yet White has no hesitancy in accepting them as "Christian." How does he reconcile the rigid pronouncement that "subjectivism about truth is fatal to the Christian faith"³⁹ and still hold to a subjective position regarding such a core doctrine as salvation? White simply explains that beliefs regarding the core doctrine of the atonement of Jesus Christ and how we are saved "do not define what it is to be a Christian."⁴⁰ This squarely places White at odds with other anti-Mormons, who have used that very issue to exclude Mormons from a Christian designation.⁴¹

The crowning achievement of this book consists of spending 227 pages begging the question. The conclusions produced are hopelessly flawed, since White erroneously equates "Christian Orthodoxy" with biblical Christianity and places post-biblical creedal traditions on an equal footing with the writings of the apostles, as the Catholic Church did as a result of the Council of Trent.

White acknowledges the "controversy that existed in the early church on various points," but rationalizes his approach because the "fundamental issues at stake with regard to Mormonism were not the issues debated in those centuries."⁴²

Yet White provides no evidence to support his conclusions. Is White honestly suggesting that there were no christological discussions taking place during this time frame? Does he truly believe that the early Christians, Jewish converts, ex-pagan Greek converts, Gnostics, and other variant groups were perfectly united in their theology? Evidently White is as much a stranger to the Ante-Nicene fathers and the historians as he is to what constitutes official LDS doctrine.

White even criticizes Stephen E. Robinson, Ph.D., for pointing out the well-known Greek Hellenistic origins of Christian orthodox theology with the challenge that those philosophies did not influence Christian theology at all!

White's unequivocal proclamation should come as something of a surprise to many non-LDS scholars. A prominent Catholic theologian made the following observation:

Harper's Bible Dictionary states that:

Even the venerable J. N. D. Kelly, commented with amazing brevity on the fact that "Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is OF COURSE [emphasis mine] no sign..."⁴⁶

One would assume that the Catholic Church, which proudly affirms its role in the development of the Christian orthodox doctrine of the Trinity would be an excellent source to consult in determining whether the doctrine was, in fact, biblical. What do they have to say?

Jesuit Scholar Edmund J. Fortman reiterated this point in his landmark work, Triune God:

He went on to point out that:

Another noted Catholic scholar matter-of-factly states:

Yet another Catholic scholar proclaims:

Even if one discounted Catholic admissions on the basis that their belief that the authority of the Church supercedes biblical authority, one cannot as easily dismiss works such as the conservative multiple volume New Testament Theology, which very simply reports that "The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity."⁵¹

We could go on and on, quoting scholars like Emil Brunner⁵², George A. Lindbeck⁵³, Kurt Aland⁵⁴ and Raymond Brown⁵⁵ and many, many others, but I am loath to belabor the point any further.

The bottom line is very simple. White claims that Christian orthodox theology (homousion-based Trinitarian theology) is biblical in origin and has its foundation in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. And this view is simply not accepted among many (if not most), "Christian Orthodox" scholars.

But what of his assertion that the issues of theology that divide Mormons and "Christians" were not issues that the early church debated? That also is simply not true, as can be seen in Richard Hopkins' latest work, How Greek Philosophy Corrupted The Christian Concept of God, or in Barry Bickmore's soon-to-be-released work, The Restoration of the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity. Perhaps White should consult works such as the Influence of Greek Ideas by Hatch, or Christianity & the Hellenistic World by Nash before making such statements.

White defends the validity of creedal declarations by stating;

Of course, White denies history itself in this declaration, ignoring much of what ancient historians such as Eusebius of Casarea, who attended the Council of Nicaea, wrote concerning the events surrounding the formation of the homousion doctrine of the Trinity and especially the role that Constantine played in its definition and subsequent adoption by the Church.

In Chapter 4 White begins to examine the "first level statements" regarding Mormon theology. Chapters 5 through 7 address statements and evidences from levels two through four.

One would hope that with such an approach, an accurate depiction of true LDS theology would finally make its way onto the pages of an anti-Mormon tome. Even though the introduction of LDS theology is vastly improved from what we see in White's other works, glaring weaknesses still exist. In short, while this treatment is a definite improvement, in the final analysis White only manages to shuffle around the same tired arguments, as if changing the way they are presented will somehow magically make them more credible and viable.

An example of White's commitment to fairness in presenting LDS theology can be seen early in this chapter. White no sooner reiterates that his "level one" sources are composed of the "LDS Scriptures and the current living prophet"⁵⁷ than he quotes from a long string of non-level one sources. He quotes Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine (a level four source), Ezra Taft Benson (not the current living prophet) in Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (a level three source), a conference address by James Talmage (a level three source), and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (a level two source).

The quality of White's scholarship doesn't get any better than this, either. Instead of providing a balanced, scholarly review of the differences between Evangelical and Mormon theology, White reverts back into slinging epithets such as demanding that Mormons are guilty of "idolatry" by not accepting the Hellenized post-Apostolic creedal definitions of God.

White claims at one point that Joseph Smith's theology "evolved" from a traditional creedal view to the current LDS theology. In doing so, White has ignored an embarrassing amount of scholarship that has revealed that this is not the case. For instance, Robert L. Millet from BYU explains as follows:

Even if White's argument that Mormon theology "evolved" over time were accurate, one has to wonder if White is truly aware of the evolution of his own doctrine. Surely he has heard of works which clearly detail the development of Christian orthodox theology by such notable scholars as William Foxwell Albright⁵⁸, Hubert Cunliffe-Jones⁵⁹, William C. Placher⁶⁰, Jaroslav Pelkan^61, and others. If Mr. White truly seeks to condemn or criticize LDS theology for "evolving," he must soundly condemn orthodox Christianity for the same reasons.

In Chapter 5 White states that "Smith goes on to lay the foundation of the LDS denial of creation ex-nihilo, 'creation out of nothing', the historical Christian belief that God did not create the universe out of preexisting matter but solely by His creative power and will."⁶²

White asserts, quite incorrectly, that belief in ex-nihilo creation is yet another "foundational Christian standard" that has been around throughout the Bible, dating back to the creation account itself. Most Jewish scholars, however, agree that the belief in an ex-nihilo creation is not to be found before the Hellenistic period, while Christian scholars see no evidence of this doctrine in the Christian church until the end of the second century A.D. Peter Hayman insists, for instance, that "a doctrine of creation ex-nihilo is not found until well into the middle-ages."⁶³

Scholar David Winston also reiterates this fact. He notes that the doctrine of ex-nihilo creation was "far from being commonly accepted" by the classical rabbis. We have to wait until the second half of the second century to find unambiguous Christian statements of creation ex-nihilo."⁶⁴

White next claims that their not accepting his definition of creation amounts to Mormons not believing that Christ was the Creator. He states, "We will look to the Bible and hear its testimony to the fact that there is one true and eternal God who is unchanging and immutable, unique in all ways and the Creator of all things." White notes that LDS theology points to a God who is "not, in reality, the Creator of anything ('organizer' not being the same as 'creator')."⁶⁵

Besides providing no evidence to support his claim, White seems to be completely unaware that this is not supported in current scholarship, as can be seen by the following:

White also conveniently forgets that the Hebrew for "create" used in the Bible (bara) literally means "to form," with the inference being that what is "formed" existed in an unorganized state.

Gerhard von Rad elaborates on this:

Chapter 8 puts forth White's version of "Christian Orthodoxy." He begins by quoting the Shema and proposes that this declaration prohibits the existence of other deities than the "only true God," period. Again, White displays stunning ignorance of the myriad of evidence that proves that the ancient Jews were not strict monotheists as White defines that term through his unique monistic perspective.

To further his argument that only his monistic definition of theology is taught in the Bible, White quotes Isaiah 43:10, which says,

White denies the abundant references to pagan idols which surround this passage and ignores the clear implication of "forming" gods, which would refer to fashioning idols out of pre-existent material.

White neglects to address the context of this passage, and simply dismisses it without reason. He simply declares "unacceptable" without supporting evidence the idea that there are "gods 'outside' Yahwah's creative work." White continues to assert that God created time, even though the Bible makes no such declaration. White states that "The idea that God is the Creator of all things, including time, simply does not fit with the King Follett Discourse."

The mainstay of White's remaining arguments regarding his "Trial of the False Gods" is speculation, assumption, and innuendo. He denies the plausibility of the existence of other deities simply because idols were condemned and because the Isaiah passages make no mention of it. One has to wonder why White ignores other passages of scripture that do speak of other deific beings, such as Gen. 14:18-20; Gen. 14:22; Num. 24:16, Ex. 15:11; 18:11, Deut. 10:17, Ps. 82:6; 97:9; 135:5; 136:2; Dan. 11:36, John 10:34 (referring to Ps 82:6), 1 Cor. 8:5,6.

White then refers to Isa. 44:6-8, focusing on the statement "there is no God beside me."

LDS apologist Kerry A. Shirts noted:

Chapter 9 contains White's counter-arguments to LDS biblical support of their theology. He begins by accusing LDS scholars and apologists of simply taking biblical passages out of context.

In discussing Deification, White insists that we can not inherit all that God has as joint-heirs with Christ for one reason.. that we are only children of God "by adoption," and are not children of God "by nature." His entire argument on page 162 is circular and riddled with logical fallacy. The primary weakness of this argument lies in the fact that White has to rely on unsupported supposition for his foundation and not on Holy Writ itself. I would be particularly eager to see White's scriptural basis for this declaration, if any exists.

One would also be particularly interested in how White interprets Paul's statement to the Greeks: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God..." (Acts 17:28,29). The word here for "offspring" is "genos," which literally means "race, nation (i.e. nationality or descent from a particular people), the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort or species."

Chapter 10 summarizes White's position and presents the conclusions of his "analysis."

Chapter 11 consists of a scathing critique of How Wide The Divide? and raises several issues that deserve attention under separate cover.

Chapter 12 addresses the issue of whether God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary in the conception of Jesus, still insisting that this is a bona fide LDS doctrine. It is not, nor has it ever been.

There is an appendix to this book, Theosis - Becoming A God. In it, White tries to discredit the notion of deification or "theosis". Most of the chapter is spent in trying to explain why the statements of the Patristic Fathers don't really mean what they appear to mean and typically, White bases his entire argument on a sole non-Biblical commentary. Instead of simply addressing the fact that Deification is a valid, scripturally sound and widely accepted view, White chooses to present a factual error to justify his argument. He complains that:

"Clearly, Prestige is saying that the early Fathers did not teach that men could become gods in the sense that Mormonism would like us to believe."⁷⁰ White provides no justification for this other than to point out that Mormon theology does not agree with the Creedal Hellenistic perspective and hence cannot mean the same thing.

The main failing of this book is the not the fact that White merely manages to repackage the same tired arguments he has posed for years and has been thoroughly refuted on numerous occasions. It is much worse than that. The main failing of this book is the degree to which White exposes his ignorance of the very issues that he raises to condemn Mormon theology. It is much ado about nothing.

White disappoints scholar and lay reader alike with the sheer number of logical fallacies that litter this book. Far from being a fair presentation of biblical exegesis or a current understanding of modern scholarship, much less early Christian (or even Jewish) beliefs, this book is simply empty calories. It leaves feeling unsettled and empty, wondering why they bothered to buy it in the first place.

Evangelical scholars should study this book very carefully and use it as a case study in evaluating their current abysmal level of commitment to genuine scholarship and use it as a catalyst in raising the level of quality and scholarship in their apologetic efforts.

Mr. White has spent an enormous amount of time in writing this and other works, trying to justify his insistence that Mormons be denied the label of "Christian". One must wonder why he would spend so much time fighting this windmill? Could it possibly be that he recognizes the utter absurdity of his position? Particularly in light of the marked lack of concern for, and the mounting resistance to, this non-issue throughout most of the Christian community? Or could his obsession with attacking Mormons be the outward manifestation of an inward zeal for discrimination, segregation, and overt religious bigotry? Whatever the reason, it is clearly not becoming a true Christian.