Introduction

As a little bit of background about myself, I have studied and taught about religions of the world for over thirty years. In the UK,  Religious Education is nothing extraordinary, but in different countries around the world aspects of it do not exist in the way that I have experienced it. For twelve years I was a Religious Education teacher in secondary schools (11-18) in the North West of England. This would involve me teaching different aspects of world religions, in addition to exploring aspects of philosophical and ethical issues and how religions responded to them. I have articulated the purpose of Religious Education and quote the aims here to help the reader understand that its purpose is not confessional in any way:

After twelve years I left the secondary classroom and moved into University teacher education. In this role I help train the teachers who will be teaching Religious Education in schools with children from the age of 4 to 18. I spend my days teaching and researching pedagogy of Religious Education, along with the lived reality of religion and worldviews for people from all kinds to traditions. 

Throughout my career I have received questions from people within and without the Church: ‘How could I, as a Latter-day Saint, teach RE?” For the most part these questions did not come from people I knew, they had been around me long enough to recognise that my faith was not diluted by teaching about other religions, and similarly for those outside my faith they recognised that I was good at my job and did not proselytise. The questions usually came from people who did not know me and thought there might be more suitable jobs for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I think this may be a worry that some people within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have. How do we remain true to our faith when we are engaging with beliefs, teachings and practices that are contrary to those that we find in the boundaries of our religion? It is essentially this question that lies at the heart of this article. In ‘theological’ terms the question finds its answers in a theology of religions. I have written much more extensively on this.^[3] The question I will try and answer is:

What is the relationship of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to other religions? Theologically speaking, what is the Latter-day Saint view of other religions?

I have lived a life of engagement with other faiths, where I have been strengthened and my faith enhanced through those experiences. To view engagement with ‘other’ religions as problematic is not borne out by my experiences, nor by an exploration of the teachings of the Church. The question can be broken down further, in doing so I adapt the work of Veli-Matti Karkainnen: 

Is salvation to be found only in [Latter-day Saint] Christianity, and more specifically only in the Church? 

What is the lot of those who have not heard the [Latter-day Saint] Christian message?… 

Is revelation only to be found in Christ, or are other religions revelatory, too?^[4]

The centrality of Christ

With any discussion of salvation within the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it is imperative to begin with the role of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith taught:

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.^[5]

In exploring the place of other religions within the plan of salvation, a “non-negotiable” is the place of Christ as the Saviour. In the traditional paradigms of a theology of religions (which are now generally seen to be redundant)^[6]; this place of Christ can be seen to be exclusivist, inclusivist, or universalist. It would seem to rule out pluralism, where all paths are salvific. There can be no salvation without Christ; but in reality these traditional paradigms are too restrictive for the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It needs to be possible to account for other faiths, and the truth and goodness therein, with Christ at the centre of salvation. 

The centrality of Christ is taught throughout scripture:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me (John 14:6).

Christ’s atonement is the way to salvation, and to exaltation. The message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is reconciliation. Every part of that message, for Latter-day Saints, means that humanity is being drawn back into a relationship with God. In Latter-day Saint belief the atonement of Christ is not just about the forgiveness of sins, but also the removal of pains and sicknesses. The whole of Jesus’ life, not just the cross becomes part of his atonement. It was necessary for Christ to experience all of the trials of humanity to be a perfect example, but also to be able to bear the burdens of humanity. By rejecting the temptations he faced, Latter-day Saints believe that, Christ was not subject to the spiritual death caused by Adam’s transgression. Christ’s perfection enabled the relationship with the Father to be continued even during mortality. The Father’s purposeful removal (see Mark 15: 34), both in Gethsemane and Calvary, was therefore a crucial part of the atonement for Christ as well as for humanity. Gethsemane was where Christ first encountered the effects of spiritual death, sin and the associated pains of mortality to the degree where he was left alone by the Father causing him to be “amazed” at the strength of sin (Mark 14:33). Especially important are Gethsemane and the cross. For Latter-day Saints, in Gethsemane, and then again on the cross, Jesus suffered for all the pains, sicknesses and afflictions of humanity; something which in Latter-day Saint theology is termed an eternal and infinite atonement.

The Church is True

Alongside the place of the Saviour as central to everyone’s salvation, is an associated teaching that the ‘Church’ is a vehicle to help people understand the truth about Christ, to draw close to him, and to ultimately receive exaltation. There are many attendant aspects to this teaching, that provide strengthening to what can, traditionally, be called an ‘exclusivist’ position. The foundational event of the Restoration came to be known as The First Vision. In the 1838 account, Joseph Smith records:

I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me … When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other – This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! (Joseph Smith History  1:16–17 found in The Pearl of Great Price).

It is through the lens of this event that the Church, and many of its members, view the teachings and doctrines of the Church, and also of other religions. Along with the centrality of Christ and his atonement, they could be said to form the spectacles through which truth is weighed. The view of the Godhead as separate, rather than the Trinity of most other Christians is essentially determined by the events of the First Vision.

An Exclusivist lens

Other aspects of the First Vision provide the framework through which other religions are viewed^[7]:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof” (JSH 1:19).

This can be read alongside other scriptures such as:

…the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth (D&C 1: 30).

And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it (1 Nephi 13:6).

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth (1 Nephi 14:10; see also 1 Nephi 22:13, 3 Nephi 27:8)

Using the metaphor of a lens again, in reading these passages it is possible for members of the Church to adopt an exclusivist hermeneutic lens. In this way, other religions, are viewed in a negative light. The resultant attitudes from adopting such a binary lens are problematic and could create a sense of theological superiority that goes against the warning of Gordon B. Hinckley that we should disagree “without being disagreeable”.^[8]

In an interesting juxtaposition, Latter-day Saints have traditionally seen the claim that they are not Christian as an “extreme” example of intolerance (England, 1999: 192), Blomberg argues that it is not necessarily so. Indeed, some statements by Latter-day Saints could be make them equally extreme in their rejection of other forms of Christianity. Latter-day Saints can be seen to place themselves as a supercessionary form of Christianity, seeing all other forms to be in error, and not ‘true’ Christians:

…just as the early Christians believed they had found the only proper way to be Jews, so the early followers of the Mormon Prophet believed they had found the only proper way to be Christians… The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is best understood as a form of corporate Christianity… in much the same way that early Christianity was related to Judaism.^[9]

A logical outworking of such beliefs is given in a personal essay by Jana Reiss;

Recently, my husband, who is Episcopalian, came with me to testimony meeting, where a very sweet guy expressed his profound gratitude for being a member of “the only true and living church on the face of the earth.” Phil and I grinned at each other, and I whispered, “Sweetheart! Look at the time. You’d better hurry up or you’re going to miss the 10 o’clock service at your false and dead church.” I’m sure if we asked that nice LDS brother what he meant by asserting his membership in the world’s only “true and living church,” he would soft-pedal, and so he should. I worry that many Mormons have absolutely no inkling of the logical consequences of their words. How do we imagine that such rhetoric is going to be heard outside the Mormon enclave?^[10]

More recently, Brad Wilcox, then of the Young Men’s General Presidency in a much criticised talk used the following language:

How many of you used to play school? How many of you used to play Church? My kids used to play Church. Got a little nervous when my daughter started blessing the sacrament. And I used to think, oh, that is so cute. But now I’m older, and I’ve realised that it wasn’t just cute, it’s actually what most people in the world are doing. They’re playing church. They’re sincere. They want it to count. But they don’t have the authority. They don’t have God’s permission.^[11]

This paternalistic and theologically superior language used to describe ‘other’ religions is problematic. However, it would be wrong to suggest that there is not a strand of teaching within the Church that can be used to justify it. Living in a pluralist world, a world where Latter-day Saints are in the minority makes the attitude and approach we take to have to be more thoughtful. In actuality, this is even more true in an environment where Latter-day Saints are in the majority. The way that we are and the way that we interact with others is crucial. This was highlighted further by Gordon B. Hinckley:

But this does not put us in a position of superiority. Rather, it should humble us. It places upon us an unforgiving responsibility to reach out with concern for all others in the Spirit of the Master, who taught, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 19:19). We must cast out self-righteousness and rise above petty self-interest.^[12]

This is not diluting our doctrine, rather interpreting our language and theology in a way that is more true to the overall message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Recognising truth in other religions

One of the fundamental aspects of the Restored Gospel is the plan of salvation. Douglas Davies has called it the ‘meta-narrative’ of Mormonism. It is the narrative that helps us makes sense of who we are in relation to the Godhead and also to each other. One aspect of the plan of salvation that can often be overlooked is that it is reflective of a continuum of knowledge. Latter-day Saints see the pursuit of truth and exaltation as a developmental process. In the same way intelligences progress to spirits, to mortality, to Resurrection and godhood; so individual people progress in knowledge and experience in preparation for fulfilment in exaltation. The plan of salvation is about the accumulation of knowledge and truth: “[t]his provides an interesting perspective on eternal progression. There is apparently no end to learning and no end of things to learn.”^[13] Latter-day Saints therefore see other religions as somewhere on the continuum of knowledge.

The truths evident in other religions are to be utilised in the development of knowledge. This, however, is dependent on us recognising that there is inspired truth in other religions. In an exclusivist hermeneutic everything in other religions is to be dismissed. It is possible to outline a number of different sources that have been given as sources of truth in other religions. 

• Diffusion. Based on our common ancestors and the family of Adam and Eve it is to be expected that there are remnants of these truths that have survived.
• Common human predicament. All of humanity face the same questions including: Where di we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? It is to be expected that our minds can construct meaning and answers that are approximations of the truth.
• Primordial Images. In a similar way to Jungian archetypes, there are elements hardwired into our minds that are passed on through the human race.
• Divine Inspiration. The truths that we see are inspired by our Heavenly Father to draw people closer to Him.
• The Devil. The devil is the author of anything in opposition to the Lord. He may make an approximation of truth but it is nothing more than “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.”

Each of these is feasible based on scripture and the writings of Church leaders. Returning to the consideration to avoid theological superiority and express Christlike love it is best to adopt the view that is most Christlike. In this way we recognise that religious people and religions are honest in their search for God, and that they are inspired by a Heavenly Father who loves all of his children. In so doing we recognise the role of the light of Christ: 

[F]or every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him (Moroni 7: 16-17).

Latter-day Saints have faith in a loving Heavenly Father who seeks to bless all of his children. To recognise the ‘value’ of other religions in salvation we must recognise that it is on the basis of their ethical guidelines that a person will be judged. Joseph Smith taught:

But while one portion of the human race are judging and condemning the other without mercy, the great parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care, and paternal regard; he views them as his offspring; and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes “his sun to rise on the evil and the good; and sends his rain on the just and unjust.” He holds the reins of judgment in his hands; he is a wise lawgiver, and will judge all men, -[not according to the narrow contracted notions of men, but]- “according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil;” or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey India: he will judge them “not according to what they have not, but according to what they have;” those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will be judged by that law; we need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the great Jehovah, he will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed; the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information; and his inscrutable designs in relation to the human family: and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess, that the Judge of all the earth has done right.^[17]

One of the Articles of Faith allows all people “the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of [their] own hearts” (1:10). In essence we should treat those of other religions positively, judging them at their very best. In light of this, the very best would be observing a person’s religion as a helpful mechanism on the way to exaltation. The resultant attitudes and actions

…may at times be to encourage Marxists to become better Marxists, Jews and Muslims to become better Jews and Muslims, and Buddhists to become better Buddhists (although admittedly their notion of what a “better Marxist,” etc., is will be influenced by Christian norms). Obviously this cannot be done without the most intensive conversation and cooperation.^[18]

This is almost antithetical to the outworking of an exclusivist lens and might appear to be problematic to some. But, it is a natural outworking of the teachings of Christ to love all people. It does not mean that we do not stand for truth, but that we receive it from whichever source. We might see that a person is truly living the Gospel as they help others live their religion without fear of condemnation. They would have the responsibility “to treat those with differing views with the dignity and respect they deserve.” This could be seen to recognize the writings of Joseph Smith:

The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denominations who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.^[19]

From a Latter-day Saint perspective judging religious beliefs as helpful mechanisms will enable attitudes towards, and engagement with, other religions to be grounded theologically in friendship and cooperation. Recently reiterated by Russell M.  Nelson: “Religious liberty is essential if we are to raise up righteous children. Morally responsible families will not marginalize religious liberty, they will nurture and protect it.”^[20] It is not enough for Latter-day Saints to have freedom of religion and belief; this same right must be afforded to all people. Although in countries such as the UK where Latter-day Saints are in a minority, an observer may understand the need for a ‘minority’ group to seek protection and freedoms under the law; this is just as important and is indeed apparent in places such as Utah where it is the predominant religion. This relates to the call of Jesus Christ to be the salt of the earth, and to seek to bless the whole of humanity. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is radical in nature and seeks to include those who might be considered on the margins of society. A call to discipleship is a call to service. Everyone in society needs to be protected. Just as Joseph Smith was as willing to die for a Catholic as for a Mormon, so, today Latter-day Saints should be willing to fight for the rights of others just as passionately as if those same rights were being denied them.

The time of violent persecution of Latter-day Saints still lives in the memory today. The early history of the Church is replete with opposition to Latter-day Saints and the free expression of their religion. Perhaps, the most heinous was the extermination order of Missouri executed by then Governor Boggs (more information on this order can be found here). It was not, however, solely in response to such opposition that Joseph Smith highlighted the importance of freedom of religion and belief to his followers. His view of the expansiveness of the human experience and the love that God has for all of his creation led to the recognition of the value that the free expression of religion and belief can bring to individuals. 

Language

If we compare the outworkings of an exclusivist lens, and one that is more expansive we begin to recognise that the language used in interaction with those of other faiths, and even in the conversations that we have about them dramatically changes. Latter-day Saints are able to expand their understanding of the command to “strengthen your brethren in all your conversation, in all your prayers, in all your exhortations, and in all your doings” (D&C 108:7). In this scripture ‘your brethren’ can be understood as ‘all people’. Is the language used designed to tear down or to build up? This echoes the teaching of Gordon B. Hinckley to foster this friendship without the compromising of teaching:

But in all of this there is no doctrinal compromise. There need not be and must not be on our part. But there is a degree of fellowship as we labour together. Let us not forget that we believe in being benevolent and in doing good to all men. I am convinced that we can teach our children effectively enough that we need not fear that they will lose their faith while being friendly and considerate with those who do not subscribe to the doctrine of this Church.^[21]

One of the important aspects of the use of language is the imperative to use that language in dialogue. The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas highlights this as the first stage in breaking down prejudice:

To recognize the Other is therefore to come to him across the world of possessed things, but at the same time to establish, by gift, community and universality. Language is universal because it is the very passage from the individual to the general, because it offers things which are mine to the Other. To speak is to make the world common, to create commonplaces. Language does not refer to the generality of concepts, but lays the foundations for a possession in common. It abolishes the inalienable property of enjoyment. The world in discourse is no longer what it is in separation, in the being at home with oneself where everything is given to me; it is what I give: the communicable, the thought, the universal.^[22]

In the same work, Levinas suggests that in meeting with the ‘other’ we are less likely to want to kill someone- in more acceptable terms meeting someone breaks down barriers and enable friendship to develop. Essentially he describes the meeting of people and the resultant dialogue as providing the opportunity to recognise commonality rather than separation. This has been my experience as a Latter-day Saint engaged in inter-faith dialogue. My faith has been enhanced rather than diluted. In contrast to the approach that views those from other faiths as ‘other’, we are able to recognise the importance of such dialogue with fellow children of God. Instead of viewing our dialogue as combative we recognise it’s transformational potential:

…it is the space between us that constitutes holy ground, holiness being discovered through encounter.^[23]

Engaging with others in all their forms is potentially transformative. In genuine encounter with others people can develop understandings not previously considered as they are open to learn from what they experience: “When our hearts and minds are properly focussed, our dialogues with one another, however impassioned they may be, become the means by which we lovingly help each other appreciate aspects of God’s work we might otherwise overlook or fail to understand.”^[24] A person cannot help be changed by engagement with others. The benefits of engagement are not just a greater understanding of others, but also a greater understanding of what it means for them.

In these interactions a Latter-day Saint would be firmly rooted in their own religious faith and a third space can open between them for genuine dialogue. The dialogue becomes “open” when the exchange of ideas is honest, and each party is open to learning rather than acceptance. Greggs argues that: 

By engaging with the religious other, the practitioner of inter-faith engagement is in dialogue with other religious traditions, but, by engaging in the activity of dialogue with the religious other, practitioners of any individual faith are also in dialogue with the particular tradition of their own faith. In this way the transformative nature of inter-faith dialogue can become reformative for the individual communities of those who engage in it.^[25]

For a Latter-day Saint this would mean that by engaging with other religions, and the light that they have, they are open to the reformation of some of their religious practice or beliefs. Engaging with a Muslim about the purpose and practice of fasting and listening to what that person feels and experiences may enable a Latter-day Saint to evaluate their own attitude and motivations towards the law of the fast. Recognizing that other religions have light opens Latter-day Saints to this type of transformative learning.

This third space enables adherents of two religions meet to transform their understanding of one another, but also their understanding of themselves and their own faith. The concept of a dialogical third space borrows heavily from the work of Homi Bhabha but diverges from the hybridity models that he describes. Bhabha argues that the “third space displaces the histories that constitute it, and sets up new structures of authority, new political initiatives, which are inadequately understood through received wisdom. . . The process of cultural hybridity gives rise to something different, something new and unrecognisable, a new area of negotiation of meaning and representation.” ^[26] The hybridity and new structures would not be appropriate or desirable in engagement with other religions. However, engagement with a third space as a place of “radical openness”^[27] perfectly describes the type of space needed for inter-faith dialogue to be successful. This space can be “radical” and transformative at the same time in utilizing areas of convergence and divergence.

Risk

Remaining with what is familiar is ‘safe’, and while recognising that engagement with the ‘other’ is desirable this does not negate the possibility of risk. Rather than viewing it as negative, it is my argument, however, that it is positive as it enables our faith to be transformed. We learn more what it is to be Latter-day Saints and disciples of Christ as we stand in dialogue with others. Patrick Mason has recognised that over the years that there has been a fortress mentality within the Church with regard to ‘the world’. He suggests in using the metaphor of a ‘Fortress Church’ that:

It just seems to me a metaphor for what, in a lot of ways, we had constructed in recent decades, a place of safety, a place of refuge, but a place with pretty high walls dividing us from the world. We use that phrase all the time, the world, and the world is almost always referred to with derision as a negative thing. That it’s something to be protected against. That’s fine. It provides safety…

But there are costs to that as well, and one of the costs is you become quiet. You become irrelevant. The world passes you by.… There are times where it’s absolutely necessary to raise the drawbridge, to circle the wagons. We do have a history of very real persecution as a people, but you can’t leave the drawbridge raised forever. At some point, if you want to, it seems to me that clearly, we’re called as Christians to have an influence in the world, to not only flee Babylon, but then also transform the world, to be light and salt and yeast to transform the world.

That’s what Christ calls us to do. You can’t do that from inside the fortress, so at some point, you’ve got to lower the drawbridge. You’ve got to open yourself up. You’ve got to be secure enough that you can actually interact with the world. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that we’re at a moment in our history where we can lower the drawbridge a little bit more, open the windows and engage, because it seems to me that’s the only way that we can fulfil our mission, not just to gather people to the fortress church, but to actually go out and spread our influence, and do good in the world.^[28]

This is the perfect description of our relationship with other religions. It’s uncomfortable, but it is necessary as we strive to have an influence in the world and become better disciples of Christ. In participating in this work, there needs to be an honesty about who we are and the teachings that we have. In order to do this we need to recognise areas of convergence and areas of divergence.

Recognising convergence

One purpose of utilizing convergence in engaging with other religions is the desire to “work with those of other religions in various undertakings in the everlasting fight against social evils which threaten the treasured values which are so important to all of us.”^[29] Latter-day Saint understanding of exaltation is fundamentally about relationships with God, family and others. One of the purposes of the Church is to prepare people for exaltation by forming relationships and giving opportunities to serve. Engagement with other religions (and the resultant actions) can aid in this process. The social aspects of engagement enable people of different religions to take stands on shared concerns. Examples of Latter-day Saint efforts include the combatting of pornography,^[30] and humanitarian efforts to alleviate suffering.^[31] In so doing Latter-day Saints are fulfilling the admonition to “shew forth the praises of him who hath called [us] out of darkness into his marvellous light” (1 Peter 2:9). To some extent this type of engagement with other religions can be seen to serve the two other purposes of focussing on convergence. It builds understanding on shared values, and can have missiological results (whether intended or not). However, this type of service should be selfless and oriented to those who are served and worked with.

Greggs argues that “dialogue cannot only take place for our own benefit [or our own purposes], but should also take place for the sake of the other, and – ultimately – for the sake of God… Talk must turn into action; and action must lead to further talk.”^[32] It is a Latter-day Saint’s responsibility to “stand as a witness of God” and to engage in Christlike service. Engaging in inter-faith service opportunities, or campaigns, enable them to be in the service of God.^[33] Similarly, seeking the best for those who are less fortunate (physically or spiritually) is a religious obligation:

And also, ye yourselves will succour those that stand in need of your succour; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish. Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just— But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God (Mosiah 4: 16-18).

Utilizing shared beliefs helps Latter-day Saints live their religion in their daily lives, but also enables those of other religions to have opportunities to practise their religion (either in the service activity, or the resultant “better” society). Both respond to the degree of the light of Christ evident in their religion, both are motivated by a love of God and of humanity. Thus, engagement with other religions becomes a strengthening process for Latter-day Saints. The dialogue and activities provide further opportunities for discussion as believers are able to “build bridges of cooperation instead of walls of segregation.”^[34] In focussing on commonality it is important that Latter-day Saints do not become so entangled with commonalities that they lose sight of the differences.^[35]

When recognising elements of convergence it is important that this is done honestly, or the validity of the process will be destroyed. An example is the declaration that Latter-day Saints believe in a different Jesus. Millet outlines that in relationships with other Christians suggesting that the Church is the only true one “does not mean that they (other Christians) are worshipping a ‘different Jesus’…. True Christians worship Jesus of Nazareth, the promised Messiah.”^[36] Although Millet argues for the convergent approach advocated in this section of the thesis, he goes too far in presenting a palatable view of Mormon teaching to non-Latter-day Saints. It may be true that the events of Jesus’ life are viewed similarly between the Church and other Christian and non-Christian religions, but there are significant differences between the teachings of who Jesus was and is. To suggest otherwise goes beyond the boundaries of the doctrines of the Church. One experience of this discussion in my life surrounded a video interview I was part of, that was to be used in UK Church Communications outreach. I was asked the question: “Do you believe in the same Jesus as other Christians?” My answer was: “We believe in the same historical Jesus who was born of the Virgin Mary, who healed the sick, raised the dead, gave the Sermon on the Mount, suffered and died for the sins of the world, and was raised the third day. However, theologically we differ as we believe he is the Son of God as the second member of the Godhead, rather than the second Person of the Trinity homoousios with the Father and Holy Spirit.” The director asked if we could record again, but this time with the answer ‘yes, we believe in the same Jesus.’ We agreed to disagree and moved onto the next question.

Nibley provides an example of the limitations that should be placed upon the seeking of commonalities. In his comparison of Islam and Mormonism he highlights various commonalities such as the Word of Wisdom and elements of Joseph Smith’s life when compared to Muhammad. However, he recognizes that “the resemblances… are quite superficial, while the differences are profound and fundamental.”^[37] Similarities are important in engagement with other religions but only when they are valid. This illustrates that a dialogue that only focuses on similarities is ultimately not an honest approach to any dialogue. This highlights one of the dangers of a dialogue based on only those things that can be agreed upon:

This is that we do not engage in dialogue but in mutual agreement and “head nodding”. Without confronting the painful reality of the exclusive ultimates that we have (however inclusive these may be), we run the risk of entering into the kind of universalizing in which modernity has engaged in its understanding of religion—seeing ourselves as all the same and not, therefore, presenting the at times problematic elements of the coexistence of our faiths in the religiously and socially heterogeneous communities of which we are a part.^[38]

Relationships based on only those things we can agree on are fragile, and subject to fracturing the moment there is disagreement. This is imperative in the pluralist world in which we live; we can disagree without being disagreeable.

One of the dangers of the discussions that we have focussing on language is that we often have a shared vocabulary that is seen to reflect a shared understanding and agreement. We need to be clear about the language that we use, and that although saying the same thing we can mean very different things. As an Englishman if I talk about a love of football I will mean something very different to most Americans. It is reminiscent of Wittgenstein’s alleged maxim: ‘Don’t ask for meaning, ask for use’. When we speak of believing Christ to be the Son of God, there is much we share and much that differs. When we speak of salvation, there is a slightly different understanding between Latter-day Saint Christianity and other forms. We need to ensure that we are neither disingenuous or speaking past one another. In inter-faith discussions we should not leave others with the impression that we agree when we do not. At this point it is important to note that as well as recognising convergence we also recognise divergence.

Any paradigm of engagement with other religions that seeks to be truly Latter-day Saint must do so retaining the validity and importance of the atonement and First Vision as benchmarks.

We must not become disagreeable as we talk of doctrinal differences. There is no place for acrimony. But we can never surrender or compromise that knowledge which has come to us through revelation and the direct bestowal of keys and authority under the hands of those who held them anciently. Let us never forget that this is a restoration of that which was instituted by the Saviour of the world. It is not a reformation of perceived false practice and doctrine that may have developed through the centuries.^[39]

This is where some of the most fruitful discussions can emerge. As well as transforming belief and practice through convergence, when we have to consider why we don’t agree with certain things or share why we believe in things that others don’t; then this can make our faith based on a stronger position. As we, both on an individual and institutional basis, continue in engagement, the points of convergence and divergence will develop and how the relationship can be deepened will become apparent. This engagement will utilize as its backdrop the necessity of observing religions and religious practice at their best. This attitude does not ignore the “worst” of other religions; rather it adopts a paradigm of engagement with other religions that incorporates the Golden Rule. It is here that Latter-day Saints would be able to adopt the three rules of inter-faith dialogue attributed to Krister Stendahl, then Archbishop Stendahl:

1. When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
2. Don’t compare your best to their worst.
3. Leave room for “holy envy.”

Engaging with other religions, from a Latter-day Saint perspective, would always be against a background of fulfilment but should not necessitate an arrogance or dismissive nature. In this way we can be true to their beliefs, but also enable those not of our faith to be true to theirs. There is a reciprocal paradigm that should be in place for both sides of the engagement. Charles Randall Paul, the founder of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy, has explored the benefits of contestational dialogue suggesting that:

The future for all useful religious interaction is mutuality (both listen carefully to gain more truth) and parity (both grant similar value to the intelligence, diligence, and good will of the other) and transparency (both acknowledge “holy envy” for the good they have not, and testify to the truth they have.) In the latter case of testifying, when their truths contradict each other, they engage in honourable contestation.^[40]

The honesty of such dialogue requires a “risk” from the participants, in the sense that they are sharing what is most sacred to them, and being open to a transformation of their own beliefs. In this way, engagement with other religions helps a Latter-day Saint “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thes. 5: 21). A Latter-day Saint would thus “hold fast” to the truth they hold while always being open to investigating more truth. It is possible to posit a way forward in Latter-day Saint engagement with other religions that retains honesty while also engaging with other religions as full partners in this dialogue.            

The myth of religious unity “has made the world more dangerous by blinding us to the clashes of religions that threaten us worldwide… These differences may not matter to mystics or philosophers of religion, but they matter to ordinary religious people.”^[41] The honesty of Latter-day Saints in presenting their beliefs to others lies in the recognition of their distinctive doctrines. Returning to the notion of the creation of a “hybrid” in dishonest dialogue, Gartenstein-Ross argues

The question is whether such doctrinal compromise actually creates interfaith opportunities. Not only is this approach unlikely to bolster interfaith activities, but it may actually undermine them. The available evidence suggests that interfaith dialogue is least effective when those engaging in it do not have their feet firmly planted in their own faith traditions. The point of interfaith dialogue is to learn about religions that are foreign to us—and an integral part of accomplishing this is being upfront about theological differences. When a church involved in interfaith dialogue soft-pedals Christian doctrine in the interest of painting a picture that appeals to its dialogue partners, its credibility can be undermined. A couple of years ago, I spoke with a member of a conservative church that had recently begun interfaith dialogue with a mosque. Before that, the mosque had dialogued with a more liberal church. Mosque leaders were pleased to have more conservative dialogue partners: They expressed satisfaction that “now we’ll get to see what Christians really think.”^[42]

In recognizing the, sometimes brutal, honesty that engagement with other religions entails it will provide Latter-day Saints with a much greater justification to engage in such activities. There will always be the concern about the dilution of a Mormon’s faith, but from the outset there should be an understanding that Latter-day Saints who engage with other religions do so without sacrificing any of their deeply held beliefs, or covenants to “stand as a witness” of Christ (Mos. 18: 9). The differences will, however, promote relationships rather than hinder their development.

The engagement with inter-faith dialogue seeks to retain both elements of Latter-day Saint teaching. It recognizes that all participation should be grounded in the distinctiveness of Mormonism (especially the First Vision) and serve a missiological purpose. However, the framework also recognizes the value that inter-faith dialogue can bring to our own faith as we define ourselves in relation to the “other”, and discover new ways of expressing their belief from the way other religious people practice theirs. As we recognize that all people are on a continuum leading to fulfilment we are able to recognize the importance of helping non-members be true to their own religion. Latter-day Saint engagement with other religions is much more than identifying beliefs as inspired of the devil. It is also much more than recognizing areas of convergence. Latter-day Saint engagement with other religions should utilize both strands of Latter-day Saint belief to be honest and create a fruitful relationship. The fundamentals of a Latter-day Saint engagement with other religions can best be summarized as:

• Strengthen your own faith and practice.
• Be true to the Atonement of Jesus Christ and First Vision and their legacies.
• Appreciate the truth found in other religions
  • When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies 
  • Recognise the messiness of religion
  • Don’t compare your best to their worst
  • Use language that is respectful and as understood within religions
  • Leave room for “holy envy”
• Be open to developing one’s own religious practice and understanding.
• Help others live their religion.

Final thoughts

Much of the above has been theoretical and theological in approach. It is, however, rooted in my own experiences in teaching and learning about the world’s religions; and engaging in fruitful relationships with those of other faiths. Whenever I speak or write about the importance of inter-faith engagement I think about the many friends I have developed over the years that have helped me understand the lived reality of their faith, and also the importance of my own. I think of Yusuf, Amjed, Kirsty, Lesley, Andrew, Joyce, Sukhbir, Mita, Daniel, Suresh, and many more who have taught me what it is to live as a Muslim, an Anglican, a Roman Catholic, someone who is non-religious, a Buddhist, a Sikh, a Hindu, a Jew, and a Jain in the 21^st Century. These friendships have helped me understand and appreciate the ‘other’. Most especially though I am a better person for the friendships we share. I have become better able to listen and to understand; I can recognise my Heavenly Father’s love for all people; I can understand what it is to live as a disciple of Christ in a world of diversity. Christ forbade none that came to him; in seeking to emulate the Master I have this responsibility. Those imperfect and divisive feelings that we might be tempted to express have no place in seeking union and communion. with all people.

---

^[1] Holt, James D. (2022) Religious Education in the Secondary School. An Introduction to teaching, learning and the World ReligionsAbingdon, UK: Routledge 17

^[2] Hull, J. (1991). Mishmash: Religious Education in Multicultural Britain – A Study in Metaphor. (Birmingham Papers). Birmingham: CEM. P. 38.

^[3] Holt, James D. (2020) Towards a Latter-day Saint Theology of Religions. Manchester. KDP

^[4] Adapted from Karkainnen, V-M. (2003), An Introduction to the Theology of Religions. Downers Grove. Inter Varsity Press. P. 22

^[5] “Elders’ Journal, July 1838,” p. 44, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/12

^[6] Once, ardent proponents such as Gavin D’Costa have questioned the continued validity of the traditional paradigms. In a critique of pluralism he noted that “This paper could be an act of public self-humiliation as in what follows I am going to suggest that a typology that I have promoted and defended against critics I now come to recognize as redundant.” D’Costa, G. (1996, June). The impossibility of a pluralist view of religions. Religious Studies, 32, 223. He rejects the paradigmatic framework because he sees all approaches as forms of exclusivism. Others have rejected the framework for different reasons. See Partridge, C. (2000). A Hermeneutic of Hopefulness: A Christian Personalist Response to Clark Pinnock’s Inclusivism. In T. Gray, & C. Sinkinson. (Eds.), Reconstructing Theology: A Critical Assessment of the Theology of Clark Pinnock. (pp. 184-219). Carlisle: Paternoster; Markham, I. (1993). Creating Options: Shattering the Exclusivist, Inclusivist and Pluralist Paradigm. New Blackfriars, 74(867), 33-41.

^[7] In using the phrase ‘other religions’ I am including other denominations of Christianity within this. Whether, from an inter-faith perspective, Latter-day Saints are engaging in inter or intra religious dialogue is an important question but one which space does not allow an exploration of at this point (see Holt, James D. (2020) Towards a Latter-day Saint Theology of Religions. Manchester. KDP).

^[8] Hinckley, G. B. (1995, December). Excerpts from Recent Addresses of President Gordon B. Hinckley. Ensign,  66.

^[9] Shipps, J. (1993). Is Mormonism Christian? Reflections on a complicated question. BYU Studies 33:3, 441.

^[10] Reiss, J. (2007, December). Tributaries of Faith. Sunstone (148), 23

^[11] For a recording of Wilcox’s remarks see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqB8UmnNcqk

^[12] Hinckley Gordon B. (2004), Conference Report, April 2004, 85

^[13] Eyring, H. (1967). The Faith of a Scientist. Salt Lake City : Bookcraft. 157.

^[14] The First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (1978). Statement of the First Presidency, February 15, 1978. In S. Palmer, The Expanding Church. (p. 1). Salt Lake City: Deseret Book.

^[15] “History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844],” p. 1666, The Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/36

^[16] Dew, S. (1996). Go Forward With Faith. A Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 576.

^[17] Smith, Joseph (1842) Times and Seasons (Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL), 15 Apr. 1842, vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 751–766

^[18] Lindbeck, G. (1984). The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age. Westminster Press, 54

^[19] “History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844],” p. 1666, The Joseph Smith Papershttps://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/36

^[20] (2009) Elder Russell M. Nelson: The Family: The Hope for the Future of Nations in Church News https://www.thechurchnews.com/2009/8/12/23229806/elder-russell-m-nelson-the-family-the-hope-for-the-future-of-nations

^[21] Hinckley, G. B. (1998, May). We Bear Witness of Him. Ensign

^[22] Levinas, E. (2012) Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority Springer Science & Business Media 76

^[23] Teece, G. (1993). In Defence of Theme Teaching in RE, Westhill Occasional Paper 2. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. 8

^[24] Boyd, G. (2000). God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God. Grand Rapids: Baker, 20.

^[25] Greggs, T. (2010). Legitimizing and Necessitating Inter-Faith Dialogue: The Dynamics of Inter-Faith for Individual Faith Communities. International Journal of Public Theology, 4 201.

^[26]Bhabha, H. (1990). The Third Space: Interview with Homi Bhabha. In J. Rutherford. (Ed.), Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. (pp. 207-221). London: Lawrence and Wishart. 211.  Although Bhabha’s work does not refer to interreligious dialogue it is possible to adapt some of his conclusions for use in such a sphere.

^[27] McMaster, G. (Ed.). (1999). Reservation X: The Power of Place in Aboriginal Contemporary Art. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 28.

^[28] Mason, P. (2020) Restoration: God’s Call to the 21st-Century World Salt Lake City: Faith Matters

^[29] Hinckley, G. B. (1998, May). We Bear Witness of Him. Ensign,  4.This does not, however, need to be on the basis of religion:

Our pluralistic society makes space for peaceable coexistence and cooperation between diverse people of good will, including the religious and nonreligious… Even so, all societies have some moral basis, whether originating from religion, philosophy, science, or any number of sources. Religious values cannot be dismissed from the public square any more than the vast array of other positive values can be. Efforts to do so ignore the deeply embedded religious antecedents that give shape to the common heritage and identity of peoples across the globe. Newsroom: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (2010, December 15). Religious Values in the Public Square. http://newsroom.lds.org/article/religious-values-in-the-public-square. 

^[30] Hinckley, G. B. (1998, May). We Bear Witness of Him. Ensign,  4-6.

^[31] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (2011). Humanitarian Services. http://lds.org/service/humanitarian?lang=eng Dallin H. Oaks has argued that in seeking principles of religious freedom religions should join together, in so doing, however, such work:

…does not require any examination of the doctrinal differences among Christians, Jews, and Muslims, or even an identification of the many common elements of our beliefs. All that is necessary for unity and a broad coalition along the lines I am suggesting is a common belief that there is a right and wrong in human behaviour that has been established by a Supreme Being. All who believe in that fundamental should unite more effectively to preserve and strengthen the freedom to advocate and practice our religious beliefs, whatever they are. Oaks, D. H. (2011, February 4). Transcript of Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ Speech Given at Chapman University School of Law. http://newsroom.lds.org/article/elder-oaks-religious-freedom-Chapman-University

^[32] Greggs, T. (2011). Theology against Religion: constructive dialogues with Bonhoeffer and Barth. London: T&T Clark. 208.

^[33] “This can be done without losing independent identity and strength.” Nelson, R. M. (1998, November). Combatting Spiritual Drift- Our Global Pandemic. Ensign,  108.

^[34] Nelson, R. M. (1994, May). Teach us Tolerance and Love. Ensign, 71.

^[35] Joseph McConkie argues focussing solely on commonalities dilutes the missiological imperative and motivation for Latter-day Saints and those they hope to convert:

Perhaps we need to rethink the idea of seeking common ground with those we desire to teach. Every similarity we identify leaves them with one less reason to join the Church. When we cease to be different, we cease to be. The commandment to flee Babylon has not been revoked, nor has it been amended to suggest that we seek an intellectual marriage with those not of our faith. The fruit of such a marriage will always be outside the covenant. McConkie, J. F. (2007). The First Vision and Religious Tolerance. In K. P. Jackson, & A. C. Skinner. (Eds.), A Witness for the Restoration: Essays in Honor of Robert J Matthews. (pp. 181-200). Provo: Religious Studies Center, BYU.195. 

^[36] Millet, R. L. (2007). Joseph Smith and ‘The Only True and Living Church’. In K. P. Jackson, & A. C. Skinner. (Eds.), A Witness for the Restoration: Essays in Honor of Robert J Matthews. (pp. 201-232). Provo: Religious Studies Center, BYU. 203).

^[37] Nibley, H. (1972, March). Islam and Mormonism- A Comparison. Ensign, 55.

^[38] Greggs, T. (2007). Bringing Barth’s Critique of Religion to the Inter-faith Table. Journal of Religion, 88(1), 81-82.

^[39] Hinckley, G. B. (1998, May). We Bear Witness of Him. Ensign, 4.

^[40] Charles Randall Paul, email to James D. Holt, April 7, 2011, printout in my possession.

^[41] Prothero, S. (2010). God is not One. New York: HarperOne.3.

^[42] Gartenstein-Ross, D. (2007, July 19). The First Openly Muslim Priest. First Thingshttp://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2007/07/the-first-openly-muslim-priest