The World of Religion...

[Note: taken in part from BYU's World Religions class]

Question: What is the fundamental difference between the LDS Church and other churches?

The knee-jerk reaction “We’re right and they’re wrong” shows not a little arrogance mixed in with a lot of ignorance, considering you can find ‘right’ things (by LDS standards) among any church on the planet.

(Strictly speaking, even Satanic churches are ‘right’ in the sense that they contain accurate truths about the existence of the devil, among other things…)

How about “Other churches have some of the truth, but we have all of the truth”?

Not quite…even a casual glance at LDS doctrine reveals that there are many important questions related to the eternities left unanswered.  (I mean, what percentage of the Book of Mormon do we still not have?)

No, it seems obvious that there isn’t as great a difference between “Us” and “Them” as some members make it sound. Numerous scriptures and prophetic statements have made it clear that God has provided direct inspiration and guidance to people who were not involved with any ‘true’ church at the time: Columbus, America’s Founding Fathers, Protestant Reformers, etc…

Ah, but all of those people were Christian, at least... Can we name similar figures from non-Christian churches throughout history that have been guided directly by God in the same way? Let’s perform a thought experiment:

In 1499 AD, 30-year-old Guru Nanak was bathing in the Bain River (India) one day when he promptly disappeared beneath the water and was assumed drowned. When he reappeared three days later, he told a remarkable story—that when he was pulled underwater he was brought into God’s presence and received enlightenment about important truths. And, he was given the mission of leading and enlightening his fellow man about those truths that had long been lost or misunderstood. Thus, was created the religion known as Sikhism today.

Around 600 B.C. (maybe--the time is still in question), Zarathustra lived in ancient Persia, near modern day Iran. Also at the time he was 30, Zarathustra received a ‘vision’ directly from God in which he received enlightenment about important truths. And, he was given the mission of leading and enlightening his fellow man about truths that had long been lost or misunderstood. Thus, Zoroastrianism was born.

In 570 AD, Muhammad was born in Mecca, the central city of the Arabian peninsula. When he was in his thirties, he received a vision from the angel Gabriel, enlightening him with important truths, and tasking him with leading and enlightening his fellow man about those truths which had been long lost or misunderstood. Thus the religion of Islam was formed.

Let’s take these three stories and add a couple more:

Moses, an Israelite, was born in Goshen at a time the Israelites were in bondage to the Egyptians. When he was 80, Moses received a vision from God in the form of a burning bush. Moses was enlightened with important truths, and tasked to be a leader of his fellow man, enlightening them about those truths that had been lost or misunderstood. Thus, Moses became a key figure in both Judaism and Christianity.

Joseph Smith, born in 1805 in New York, was 14 when he went alone into a grove of trees to pray. There, he received a direct revelation from God where he was enlightened about many important truths and tasked to be a leader of his fellow man, enlightening them as to those truths which had long been lost or misunderstood. Thus, he became the founder of Mormonism.

To an outside observer, all five of these stories are very similar. All five claim to have receive direct revelation from God, and been called to be a leader of a new religious order. Thus, the question becomes: how many of these five figures actually saw a vision from God? All of them? None of them? Some yes, and some no?

To the extent that logical analysis can be applied to unseen historical events, let’s look at some ancillary evidence.

In the case of the first three individuals (Guru Nanak, Zarathustra, and Muhammad), all three of them lived in strictly polytheistic societies (i.e. they worshipped many Gods). Yet, all three new religions formed by these men were strictly monotheistic—one and only one God. Thus, as these new religions grew, they converted people who had previously been idol-worshippers, and turned them into monotheists.

This, by itself, is very suspicious… For a Mormon--or any Christian--to say it is categorically false that these visions occurred, one must answer why the people in all three cases ended up much closer to the truth than they were before. If these ‘visions’ were really the work of the devil—how does it serve Satan’s purpose to teach people about monotheism, when they were polytheists already?  (Shouldn't it be the opposite?)  Why would the devil ever lead people closer to the truth, rather than farther away?

A few tidbits about each of these religions:

• Sikhs, among other things, abstain from alcohol and tobacco, avoid stealing, gambling, and any form of idol worship...and wear a sacred undergarment which represents holy covenants made with God.

• Zoroastrianism teaches about Angra Mainyu, an evil spirit who rebelled against God (Ahura Mazda) and was cast down.  Also, a Saoshyant (savior) will be born of a virgin who will raise the dead and pass judgement on mankind.

• Faithful Muslims will pray five times daily, fast regularly during Ramadan, and give 2.5% of their net worth every year as 'alms'.

Again, without knowing anything about the circumstances behind each of these religion's founding, does it seem like they moved people towards the truth, or away from it?

In Taiwan where I served my mission, the population is largely a mix of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Christians make up, at most, 10% of the population. And yet, when you analyze the baptismal numbers of the missions in Taiwan, you’ll find that well over half of the convert baptisms came from that small sliver of the Taiwanese population that was Christian already.

Upon consideration, it’s not too hard to figure out why… The first two principles of the (previous) missionary discussions dealt with God and Jesus Christ. Those can be skimmed over in 2-3 minutes when you’re teaching someone that already has a Christian background, but represent a major paradigm change for a lifelong Buddhist. Consequently, it’s not surprising that a greater percentage of the Christian investigators became LDS than Buddhist investigators--they had much fewer new doctrines to absorb and accept.  In other words, the distance between where they were pre-baptism and where they went post-baptism was a lot shorter.

Thus, to the question: does it serve God’s purpose to lead people to the truth in small increments…the answer should be unequivocally yes. Whatever one thinks of what real authority Muhammad and the other religious founders had, the people they led were much closer to the truth afterwards than they were before. And that fact has to be accounted for.

Therefore, a Church member who considers Muslims to be ‘followers of a false prophet’ may not only be arrogant, and judgmental…but also flat-out wrong. Are you sure Muhammad didn’t receive a vision from God? What direct or secondary evidence do you have that he didn't?  Reflect on this statement from the First Presidency on February 15, 1978:

“The great religious leaders of the world such as Muhammad, Confucius, and the Reformers...received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.... Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come... “

(Side note: many members may question how this or that teaching of Islam today could possibly line up with any ‘true’ gospel (i.e. come directly from God)? The problem in judging Islam today is that there’s no guarantee that today’s Islam is the Islam that Muhammad actually taught. One fundamental principle of Islam is that Muhammad was the very last prophet of this dispensation, and afterwards there would be no others. Questions of Islamic doctrine and policy following Muhammad’s death would be subject to interpretation of the Qur’an by committees of Muslim scholars. And that fact alone should send warning bells through the mind of any Latter-Day Saint.

If you believe in the Apostasy—and that doctrines subject to ‘interpretation’, not direct divine leadership, will always drift away from the truth through time—then this would certainly apply to Islam as well. Since there is already a fundamental schism within Islam between Shiites and Sunnis as far as Qur’an interpretation (comparable to the split between Catholicism and Protestantism), it seems unfair to judge Muhammad by what’s being taught in Muslim mosques today—any more than what was considered to be Christianity in 1400 A.D. is an accurate reflection on what Christ actually taught…)

In the end, the fundamental difference between the LDS Church and other churches comes down to priesthood authority and essential ordinances, not some monopoly on ‘truth’. One form of secular criticism towards Jesus Christ says he’s ‘overrated’ because the principles he taught have been found in numerous other locations around the world long before his birth.

This misses the point—Christ’s uniqueness and value to the world comes through the Atonement, not through His teachings--but the underlying principle is correct: true principles have always existed, and been understood and taught by enlightened people everywhere both before and after Christ’s time. One of the fundamental learning processes of Latter-Day Saints is to understand how God leads His children within His church…and how He has lead His children around the world outside of it as well…