I like Robert Millet. He seems a very good, intelligent man. He has written things that I have appreciated very much. Within Reach, unfortunately, is not among them.

Before anything else, I wonder why he really wrote this book. Perhaps not so coincidentally, the book’s argument is fundamentally the same as Stephen Robinson’s Believing Christ, which came out three years before. Is Millet trying to capitalize on Robinson’s success? Or is the book merely another entry to what is now known as the “Mormon backlash”, that is, the Mormon backlash against claims of being un-Christian that bloomed in the early nineties. Whatever its intent, the book offers very little that Believing Christ didn’t present.

What Millet is basically arguing is that exaltation is easier than you think. He uses a quote from Bruce R. McConkie, scriptures such as the mulititudes in Nephi’s vision who partook of the tree of life, John’s vision in Revelation where he sees multitudes in heaven, and the basic idea that god is not a failing god, he will succeed.

None of these arguments are very convincing. We don’t know that god measures his own success by the number of people who obtain exaltation, “multitude” is a relative word, and McConkie is, well, McConkie.

Another problem is that Millet constantly sets up a false dichotomy between people who are honestly striving to be like Christ and people we are not. He describes those who are justified with words and phrases like, “righteous” (43), “seek to do their duty and endure to the end” (43), “whenever we repent” (44), “when we come unto Christ by covenant” (45), maintain a “willing submission to his will” (49), “do the best we can” (62), and “living in the light” (81). Those who fulfill these requirements are justified and receive exaltation and those who don’t will not.

But there’s really not such an easy distinction. No one truly does the best they can or fully submits their will to the father’s. So you can’t really say, “just do this to show you believe in Christ, and his atonement will save you.” There are infinite degrees of submission to the will of the father, and who’s to say the bar isn’t a bit higher than what Millet is suggesting? Millet seems to ignore the fact that there are lots of people who are “honestly striving” but who give in heavily to weaknesses, pride, etc. As such, nothing he says really makes much sense at all.

Millet’s rationale for making such an argument at all makes even less sense. He begins the book by explaining that we ought to be optimistic about exaltation because it prevents despair. He admits that some will respond lazily, but that it does more good than harm.

I disagree. How many people are spiritually “paralyzed” because they think they’re going to hell because they’re not good enough when really they’re wonderful people? Not many. On the other hand, how many people slack on hometeaching, have marital problems, spent exuberant amounts of money of themselves, etc. but don’t worry about their eternal state because they have a temple recommend. A lot more. Millet’s implication that a temple recommend is good enough for exaltation (4) does nothing but harm in my opinion.

At one point he says, “When we have made an offering that is acceptable…then we must be willing to step back, let go, and…be willing to cast our burdens on [God] and trust in his eternal wisdom and omnipotence” (62). What does that mean? Seriously, what the heck? The above statement is so meaningless that I can’t even begin to explain what it is that I don’t understand. I don’t know where to start.

Unfortunately, only about half the book is dedicated to defending the defective argument. The other half has no real point that I have been able to discover. Millet spends a lot of time telling stories arguing on behalf of Mormon truisms, such as the idea that we don’t need to be perfect, that we are justified through Christ’s atonement, and that God loves us. A whole chapter on “God loves us” – not necessary.

Other things are downright ridiculous. The book offers frequent text boxes that share a quote that exemplifies the passage, like a newspaper article. I’m willing to bet this is the publisher’s fault and not Millet’s, but at one point, Millet thoughtfully admits that, “when my study of the scriptures becomes wholly an intellectual endeavor, when it becomes more definitional than devotional, I have taken a detour” (23). The accompanying text box says, “When my scripture study becomes an intellectual endeavor, I have taken a detour”.

There was one small point I appreciated. Millet explains that repentance is a function of changing our hearts and that, except as directed by the church, ceremony and whatnot is not necessary for repentance. This is an important point, oft overlooked in Mormon culture. I like that it lends towards the principle that righteousness is not a set of actions but a state of being.

Millet seems to have the best of intentions within the text of Within Reach. I sense a genuine concern for good people who feel overwhelmed and insecure about their divine value. But I strongly believe that the solution to these problems and others is not to “step back [and] let go” but to step forward and hold on.

12/04