The bane of students of restoration history is that while there is an abundance of primary source material in specialized libraries, there is little straight forward history or biography available. This very readable straight forward bio on Dr. Bennett is an excellent starting place for students of the time and place and events of early Mormonism. I recommend it to those who are interested in taking the measure of Bennett. It remained refreshingly focused on Dr. Bennett and leaves to others the challenge of writing about the other players in these colorful and dramatic events.

Andrew F. Smith's fascinating peek into the wild and crazy life of the 1840's Western Frontier is a valuable piece of historical work. This work is neither pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon and the authors unbiased stance adds credibility to his work.

The author set the story in the greater context of the era which helped this reader conclude that "The Saintly Scoundrel"- John C. Bennett fitted right in with all the other "scoundrels" of the time, including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, James Jesse Strang, Sidney Rigdon, et. al.

Dr. Bennett was indeed a person of questionable morals and ideas, perfect for Mormonism in its Nauvoo, Ill. period. Not well-known in the present Mormon church, he presented quite a thorn in its side after leaving it. First book I've come across that gives a detailed account of his life. His book "History of the Saints" has been torn apart as a book full of lies, but history has proven at least some of it's contents as being factual. Clint Lauricella

Edited by William O. Einwechter and containing chapters by some of the Christian Right's most unstable extremists, Explicitly Christian Politics is nauseating. Attempting to deny what Christ said about his kingdom not being of this world, these devils would substitute Christ's heavenly kingdom for their own dictatorship.

The book's premise is straightforward: Jesus Christ is both Creator and King, and therefore all of life, both private and public, is subject to the author's interpretation. That is, the authors are pretending to be god. The implications of this should be obvious, but alas are not: today 1/2 of the U.S. Senate would sleep soundly at if the reigns of goverment were turned over to Pat Robertson- or, e.g., if John Ashcroft were to become attorney general.

Every ideology is inherently hubris, since it inevitably makes assumptions concerning creation and the nature of reality and the source and meaning of right and wrong.

Hopefully Americans will learn of the diabolical nature of these Reconstructionist theocrats before it's too late.

Edited by William O. Einwechter and containing chapters by some of the Christian Right's most distinguished thinkers, Explicitly Christian Politics is an impressive read. Attempting what is today unheard of -- an approach not only to political issues but also political theory that is rooted entirely in Christian thought -- it succeeds in making its case in a consistently scholarly fashion that is still light enough to entertain and to reach virtually any lay reader.

The book's premise is straightforward: Jesus Christ is both Creator and King, and therefore all of life, both private and public, is subject to His rule. The implications of this should be obvious, but alas are not: modern society becomes hysterical at the very thought of anything which might, in modern terms, "mix politics with religion." Of course this hysteria is nonsense. Every ideology is inherently religious, since it inevitably makes assumptions concerning creation and the nature of reality and the source and meaning of right and wrong. But the Christian religion and its trappings are out of vogue in this century, while the cults of the all-powerful state and the relativistic individual reign supreme, and it should surprise no one that the acolytes of the modern polytheism should seek to silence the ancient monotheism at every opportunity.

So just what are the implications of a consistently Christian political theory? Perhaps it is best first to understand what the implications are not. While the authors call for a Constitutional amendment recognizing Jesus Christ as Lord and as the Source of its life, liberty and law -- much the same as almost every other Western nation has -- they emphatically do not call for what moderns refer to as a "theocracy". "Theocracy," which is to say, rule by God, already exists: Christ's kingdom is "not of this world", and He rules the affairs of men no matter what they do or say. Rather, the authors believe a consistently Biblical social theory requires a separation of church and state, that the two institutions, along with the family, are ordained by God and meant to operate in very different spheres. They do not call for the submission of government to the church, or any earthly clergy: what they want is conformity of civil life, and indeed of civilization, to the teachings of Christ.

In practice, this means that the authors do not favor a change in the form of American government; they favor a change in its character and beliefs. It is an ideological and spiritual revolution they seek, not a revolution of the modern sort, and it is entirely based on principles familiar. The authors stake the claim of Jesus Christ's rights as King, but do not call for an Earthly king to rule in His stead; instead, they call for repentance and conversion on the part of those who do rule on Earth -- the electorate -- and for the election of leaders who will faithfully discharge their Constitutional duties not as faithful humanists or faithful Marxists but as faithful Christians.

And what does leadership as a faithful Christian mean, aside from not committing adultery, not breaking campaign promises, and not selling secrets to the Chinese? Well, actually, it means a change in worldviews, just as did the shift from the old order to New Deal statism in the 1930s. The authors take time to explore the Christian foundations of liberty in the modern world, noting correctly that of all the ideologies in history, only Christianity produced modern political and economic freedom. They detail the depravity which results (and which has resulted) from an abandonment of absolute right and wrong, and show why no adequate legal standard -- and certainly no truly free one -- can be built apart from the standard of Scripture. They trace the free market's roots in Biblical law and show why government must be both very small and very unintrusive. They offer a completely new paradigm for education, and call for reason over "sentimentalism." In short, they address, and address well, most of the vital issues of the day.

One cannot come away from Explicitly Christian Politics without a deepened realization of the religious nature of the "isms" of our time and the abysmally bad politics that flows from them; likewise, one cannot read this volume without an appreciation for the fact that these Christians have devised a better model. Quibble with the details all you like: Explicitly Christian Politics is nothing short of the rebirth of a vital Christian social theory, far beyond the "me-too" pluralism of the Christian Right to date. There's something special here. it is very clearly not going away.

Copyright: Rod D. Martin, 8 May 1998.

This book is an embarrassment. Poorly organized, full of debased lies so incredible that one wonders rather the author himself actually believed them, and of such a personally vindictive nature that the reader feels as though he/she have just sat through a 330 page temper-tantrum. I can't believe anyone takes this book seriously.
The first obvious clue to the unreliability of this book is Bennett's 60-page tribute to himself. It's been said, and I agree wholeheartedly, that anyone who needs that much space to prove the good nature of his character is a scoundrel of the worst sort. And scoundrel he was. He sold college diplomas under auspicies of a bogus university. At one time he abandoned a wife and children in Ohio. He was famous for seducing young women with the promise that, should they get pregnant, he would perform an abortion on them (he was a doctor by trade). Yet these facts (and many others) are oddly left out of his first-chapter shrine to himself. And, wisely so, for if anyone knew the true character of the man, no one would have read the rest of his book.
So, what is contained in the rest of his book? Actually, there is very little of Bennett's own material. The bulk of the work is simply a series of very long excerpts from previous anti-Mormon books. So, what does one have to profit from reading this work? Absolutely nothing.

Overpriced for the cliche approach. I'm sure I should have purchased a more innovative work.

First of all this book is not cliche or a rehash of earlier material as other reviewers have stated. This book is also not very good. The book is written by John Bennett the first mayor of Nauvoo and one of the first major opponents of the Mormon movement. It is one of the first works of anti-mormon literature. I give it a five not because of any inherent academic achievement by Bennett (it has none the book was little more than a money making scheme and a political tool) but because of what we can learn about early mormon dissenters and their views of Mormonism. It also has great significance as a first hand account, albeit a biased one but all views of Mormonism are obviously biased one way or the other.