Let me begin this review with the biographical information given on the back cover:

Douglas T. Bentley was born and raised in St. George, Utah, and he served an LDS mission in Washington and Oregon. He received a bachelor's degree from Southern Utah University and a master's degree from Idaho State University. He is currently in his third decade teaching in the Church Educational System. He and his wife Deonn have four children.

Also on the back cover is an endorsement from Kenneth Preston, owner of R&K books:

This book is a must for every missionary to read before they enter the mission field! It is also a valuable resource for the Gospel Doctrine teacher, or for any person who wants to understand the gospel better."

And finally, there is a Foreword by Herbert C. Davis that begins with the following statement:

As a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the age of 50 years, I can say without hesitation that I would have been light years ahead in my understanding of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Book of Mormon, if I first had the opportunity to read Abraham's Seed and Covenant before I had met with the LDS missionaries. (p. xv)

I shall return to these thoughts a bit later.

The logical flow of this book emerges very quickly:

1. God set apart a race, beginning with father Abraham, through which salvation would come to the world.

2. Israel was chosen to be the nation commissioned by God to bring blessing to all humanity.

3. Israel failed in its mission. And while the writings of Judah survived and have been readily available for centuries, the writings, or "stick," of Joseph, remained hidden until the early 19th century.

4. The early Christian church likewise failed, and authority to perform saving audiences was taken from the earth. A "restoration" was needed, but the recovery of the "stick of Joseph" must first occur. This happened with the translating of the Book of Mormon.

5. No other church claims to have the "stick of Joseph." No other church claims to have sole authority for the administering of saving ordinances. Therefore, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must be the one True Church upon the earth.

Does any of this sound familiar? In fact, does all of this sound familiar? It should. If you've attended Seminary, Institute, Sunday School, Relief Society, Sacrament meeting, etc., you've heard it before. Even if you've only taken the missionary discussions, you've heard it.

In other words, I couldn't find anything new in this book. So why write the book? Why publish it? Does this book add to the store of knowledge provided by manuals and missionary discussions?

As best as I can see, Abraham's Seed and Covenant was written to carry the reader through sacred history, focusing on the concept of "birthright" and how a correct understanding of birthright inevitably leads the reader to an acceptance of the claims of the Church. This is a high goal, and one, I believe, almost impossible to achieve. Along the way, the reader must be convinced that all the links that connect the sacred events are a) present and b) unambiguous. A lofty goal, indeed.

One danger that such writers must avoid is the trap of presuppositional apologetics -- assuming the outcome of your argument and using the outcome as part of the argument. Inasmuch as Bentley's audience is likely the already-convinced, this may not be so serious a flaw. But recalling the words of the Foreword, of what value would such a work be prior to receiving the missionary discussions and coming to belief?

If I may coin a phrase, what we're seeing here is the "Baldwin effect." James Baldwin, the brilliant and controversial author who passed away recently, offers an interesting insight in his autobiographical The Fire Next Time. As a young boy, he attended a largely white, Jewish school. As a black son of a Baptist minister, he was clearly in the minority. His father had him bring fire-and-hell tracts to school, to try to "save" the Jewish kids. Most of the children tossed the tracts into the trash. Later in life, reflecting on this, Baldwin realized that the only ones who would have been convinced by anything in those tracts were the ones who already believed what was in the tracts.

The "Baldwin effect" is in strong evidence in Abraham's Seed and Covenant. Let's take a few examples:

Jeremiah 1:4-5 is a powerful evidence of the pre-mortal existence of man. The Lord told him that he knew him before he was formed in his mother's womb. (p. 33)

Now, sit in the seat of a person who is not LDS, who is not convinced of LDS doctrine, including the concept of the pre-existence of man. Is Jeremiah 1 "powerful evidence"? I think not. If you are not LDS, but perhaps an evangelical, you believe that God sees past, present and future synoptically. Thus God can "know" you long before you come into existence. Who will consider this "powerful evidence"? The one who already believes in the pre-existence.

Another example, discussing baptism for the dead:

This is done by those still living, by proxy. This might sound like a strange practice, but it was a part of the Lord's gospel, anciently: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:29) As we can see, this was a practice in the original church. (p. 81)

"As we can see"? Who is the "we"? The "we" is clearly those who already believe in the concept of proxy baptism. A quick look at the entry for baptism for the dead in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism would have shown the author that there is considerable scholarly disagreement over the meaning of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians.

I'm focusing on this "Baldwin effect" idea largely because of the way the book itself is framed, both on the back cover and in the Foreword. I could have cited many other examples of where the author presupposes the outcome, convincing me that this book really has no proselyting value beyond what the missionaries teach.

And there's the rub. This isn't a bad book. It's is written on a popular level. The story is easy to follow. However, it is, in my view, an unnecessary book. It breaks no new ground, formulates no new methods or approaches to the Gospel. It could have been produced by cutting and pasting existing manuals.

This does not at all address the rightness (or wrongness) of his conclusions, only that which he believes is compelling evidence. If your evidentiary base will only convince the already-convinced, then its value in proselyting is questionable.

Inasmuch as the author is in his third decade of teaching within the Church educational system, are we to assume that this teaching has produced no new insights that he might have incorporated into his book? This would be a surprise. Teaching should encourage curiosity and scholarly pursuit. But consider the following "List of Sources," as presented near the close of the book, on page 123:

Would it be unkind for me to say that, as respected and dependable as these sources may be, none of them jumps out as being particularly innovative or noted for its pursuit of creative ways of presenting the Gospel? If this represents the extent to which the author was willing to research and study, then the outcome, I suppose, was inevitable.

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier: this is not a bad book. The author takes some liberties, but they are not fatal. It suffers from poor editing, but this is nothing new. If you want a brief summation of the flow of sacred history as it pertains to the birthright promises, and the fulfillment of those promises in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then it's pretty good. But it seems to me to be redundant.

I suppose that, in the battle of the apologists, there is room for a cheering section. Apologetics with pom poms, perhaps. And there is value, given the proper audience, for such books. Some folks want affirmation for their belief. Some don't want to explore beyond what they've already been taught, and that's okay. This book would be a good one for them.

But given the grandeur of the theme, and the possibilities inherent in exploring it, it's a shame that the author chose to break no new ground. Rather than being a feast for the curious, it is rather comfort food for the satisfied. Not much to my taste, but perhaps satisfying for others.

If you're looking for standard fare in an inexpensive format, give this one a look.

-----------------------------------

Jeff Needle
September 14, 2003