Apostasy

Volume Three—Chapter Thirteen APOSTASY

In this chapter, I will discuss briefly the phenomenon of dispensational apostasy, especially the “great apostasy”—the falling away of Christ’s New Testament Church. I will then consider the tragic phenomenon of personal apostasy. Finally, I will consider the important question as to whether or not we ought to consider the world’s many religions as “apostate.”

The English word apostasy derives from the Greek apostasía or apóstasis which means “defection, revolt” or “to stand apart or away from.” Thus, an apostasy can be an active rebellion or a more passive “falling away.” Both interpretations have application in our world and in the following discussion.

#Dispensational Apostasy—the “Great Apostasy”

Whenever a major community rejects the revelations and ordinances of God, changes the gospel of Jesus Christ, or rebels against the commandments of God, they lose the blessings of the Holy Ghost and those of divine authority. This is dispensational apostasy. It has happened cyclically throughout history. For example, it occurred in the dispensations of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and even Jesus Christ. The falling away of the Church of Jesus Christ from the earth does not result in a vacuum. Instead, the void is filled by churches of men. Any church, “Christian” or otherwise, based on incomplete, false ideas about the doctrine, lacking proper divine authority, and lacking prophets or apostles to receive divine revelation may be said to be a false or “apostate” church. It is a church of men.

The historical “great apostasy” began in the New Testament era and spread in the centuries following. Obviously, the need for a restoration in our dispensation implies that important things were lost during the departure from the primitive Christian church. In Joseph Smith’s first vision in 1820, he was told by the Lord that all existing churches had gone astray in their teachings and practices. 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” (JS-H 1:18-19). In 1840 Orson Pratt spoke of “a general and awful apostasy from the religion of the New Testament” (An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions). He particularly emphasized a lack of binding ordinances because of the absence of priesthood authority. Baptism was a key example. In Orson’s view, all churches before the Restoration were wrong in some ways, doctrinally and ritually, even though they might have been right in other ways. Thus, it was necessary for a “restoration” of the Church and gospel to take place. The Church today is the result of a revelatory restoration.

In 1909 James E. Talmage wrote The Great Apostasy, in which he gathered New Testament passages that Latter-day Saints have cited to show that a great apostasy was predicted by Jesus Christ, Paul, and other apostles and prophets, Consider particularly Matthew 24:4-13, 23-26; Acts 20:29-30; Galatians 1; 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:1-6; 4:1-4; Jude 1:3-4; Revelation 13:4-9; 14:6-7; and, in the Old Testament, Amos 8:11-12. Elder Talmage also documented the persecution of early Christians that hastened the great apostasy. He argued that the simple principles of the gospel were admixed with the pagan philosophical systems of the day. Among

other false doctrines he described Trinitarianism, a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. Also he described a false concept of the physical body, resulting in excessive asceticism. He pointed out that rituals were changed and augmented in unauthorized ways. Simple early Christian rites were replaced by complex, pagan-influenced ceremonies. Baptism by immersion was lost. Baptism of infants was introduced. Communion was changed. He documented changes in church organization. Apostles and prophets, the necessary foundation of the church of Christ, were martyred. This left a void that could not be filled by bishops. Thus, the medieval church showed little similarity to the organization or practices of the Lord’s Church described in the New Testament.

Todd Compton, writing in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, wrote of the complex mechanisms that resulted in the great apostasy and their latter-day implications:

LDS teachings on the early Christian apostasy have received additional support in the twentieth century as some scholars have argued that the primitive Church began as a centralized Judaic organization, was faced with the challenge of a Hellenized [Greek] /Oriental [eastern or Asiatic], ascetic Gnostic Christianity [the Gnostics considered themselves intellectually above other Christians. They believed the secret to releasing man’s divine spirit from his evil body and this corrupt world is through acquiring esoteric spiritual knowledge], and became [more] like its enemy in order to compete. The very idea of a centralized Christianity has given way to a picture of diverse and fragmented early Christianity, where it is hard to determine what is orthodox and what is heretical, what is Gnostic and what is “mainstream.” For instance, Peter Brown and William Phipps argue that Augustine’s influential doctrine of original sin, with its concomitant ritual, infant baptism, was derived from his Gnostic background and was, in reality, heretical, while Pelagius’ opposition to these ideas was orthodox. But Augustine’s doctrines prevailed, and continue to influence Western theology and culture. Another early Christian doctrine that did not survive in Western Christianity was deification [man’s potential to become like God], though it remained central to Eastern Christianity.

A complex religious and cultural milieu both nurtured and transformed early Christianity. Many factors must be taken into consideration in analyzing this transformation of Christianity. For example, some have put the blame exclusively on Greek philosophy and the influence of philosophy on Gnosticism for the rise of the great apostasy. But asceticism (i.e., hatred of the body, of sexuality, and of the physical world) played a major role in the apostasy of the early church, and extreme asceticism is characteristically Oriental. Moreover, much of Greek philosophy has been found to be consistent with the gospel. Elder Orson F. Whitney referred to Plato and Socrates as “servants of the Lord,” although in a “lesser sense” than the prophets (CR, April 1921, 33).

The concept of a historical apostasy from early Christianity can present a barrier between Latter-day Saints and others concerned with interfaith relationships. But Latter-day Saints do not view these events judgmentally; much of spiritual value happened during the Middle Ages and in other Christian churches. Brigham Young emphasized that good men before the restoration had “the spirit of revelation” and stated that John Wesley was as good a man “as ever walked on this earth” (JD, 7:5; 6:170; 11:126). President Young held that all churches and religions have “more or less truth” (JD, 7:283), and he admonished the saints to seek and accept truths wherever they might be found. In conference talks, General Authorities, including President Spencer W. Kimball and President Thomas S. Monson, have quoted or praised such luminaries as Billy Graham and Mother Teresa (“Apostasy,” 57-58).

Brother Compton’s statement seems to blunt, in a healthy way, the pejorative meaning of the terms “apostate” and “apostasy.” While these terms imply significant change from the original, purer church, they do not necessarily imply that the changes were made with evil intent and wicked motive. Nor do they necessarily imply a complete departure from the Lord’s righteous cause. A church, then, might be apostate, but still condoned in a limited sense by the Lord.

#The Role of the “Great and Abominable Church” in Apostasy

The Book of Mormon describes an institution that has had, and continues to have, a causative role in apostasy. This is the “great and abominable church.” Brother Stephen E. Robinson explained:

The word great is an adjective of size rather than of quality. It thus informs us of the large size of the abominable entity. The term abominable is used in the Old Testament to describe what God hates, what cannot fail to arouse his wrath. In the book of Daniel, for example, the abomination of desolation is that thing so hateful to God that its presence in the temple causes the divine presence to depart, leaving the sanctuary desolate. The term is usually associated with idolatrous worship or gross sexual immorality.

The word church had a slightly broader meaning anciently than it does now. It referred anciently to an assembly, congregation, or association of people who bonded together and shared the same loyalties. Thus, the term was not necessarily restricted to religious associations. In fact, in Athens the Greeks used the term to denote the legislative assembly of government. The Greek word for church, ekklesia, is formed from the root -klesia, meaning “to call” and the prefix ek-, meaning “out.” Thus it originally referred to those citizens who were called out or summoned to public meetings. It was thus an ideal word to represent the body of individuals whom God “calls out” of the world through the Holy Ghost.

When we put all this together, we find that the term great and abominable church means an immense assembly or association, likely a religious association, of people bound together by their loyalty to that which God hates. Most likely, this “church” is involved specifically in sexual immorality, false worship, or both. While the book of Revelation does not use the exact phrase great and abominable church, both John the Revelator and Nephi use a number of similar phrases to describe it. They both call it the “Mother of Harlots and Abominations,” “mother of abominations,” and “the whore that sitteth upon many waters” (Revelation 17:1; 1 Nephi 14:10-11) (“Early Christianity and 1 Nephi 13-14” in The Book of Mormon, First Nephi, the Doctrinal Foundation, 177-91).

Brother Robinson has pointed out that chapters 13 and 14 of 1 Nephi each provides a unique definition of this entity:

In 1 Nephi 13, the “great and abominable church” is one specific church among many. Nephi’s description of it as “most abominable above all other churches” (verses 5, 26) does not make sense otherwise. Also, in chapter 13, it has a specific historical description: It was formed among the Gentiles after the Jews transmitted the Bible in its purity to the Gentiles (verse 26). It is also the specific historical agent responsible for removing plain and precious truths from the scriptural record. To this may be added the information provided by the Doctrine and Covenants 86:1-3, which teaches that the “great and abominable church” did its work after the apostles had “fallen asleep”—that is, after the end of the first century AD. Clearly, “great and abominable” here refers to one specific church among many others that are not “great and abominable.”

In contrast, 1 Nephi 14:10 describes the devil’s church as consisting of all those organizations not associated with the Church of Jesus Christ: “Behold there are save two churches only [that is, Zion and Babylon]; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil.”

How can this be? Is the “great and abominable” one church or many? The answer is that the term is used in two different ways in chapters 13 and 14. In chapter 13, the “great and abominable church” refers to a specific historical entity, whereas in chapter 14 the term is used simply in a generic or universal or typological sense (Ibid.).

Even nominal adherents to Christ’s church, if sufficiently seduced by pride, wealth, prestige, and all their appurtenances, may travel down that path of personal apostasy and eventually find themselves members of that “great church” as described in 1 Nephi 14.

What then is the specific historical great and abominable church that existed in the second century AD? This “church” would have had its origins in the second half of the first century and would have done much of its work by the middle of the second century. Brother Stephen E. Robinson wrote of this time:

This period might be called the blind spot in Christian history, for it is here that the fewest primary historical sources have been preserved. We have good sources for New Testament Christianity; but then the lights go out, so to speak, and we hear the muffled sounds of a great struggle. When the lights come on again a hundred or so years later, we find that someone has rearranged all the furniture and Christianity has become something very different from what it was in the beginning. That different entity can accurately be described as hellenized Christianity (“Nephi’s Great and Abominable Church,” in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, volume 7, number 1, 1998, 32-39).

Brother Robinson, after thoughtfully analyzing the possibilities, concludes that the historical great and abominable church was the earliest apostate Christian church, the Greek Christian church. In about 330 BC Alexander the Great and his Greek culture conquered the known world, and the world became “hellenized,” or imbued with Greek culture. The Greek influence pervaded the biblical world, and it persisted until after the time of Christ’s mortal ministry. It persisted in spite of Roman political domination that existed at the time of Jesus. Following the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, his apostles carried the gospel message into the world. Thus, the doctrine of Christ’s church and Greek culture met head-on. Greek culture prevailed, and Christian doctrine had to be revised to make it more attractive and appealing to a Greek audience. Primary prejudices of the Greek world were the absolute nature of God (i.e., he cannot be bound or limited by anything) and the impossibility of anything material or physical being eternal. In order to satisfy the Gentiles steeped in Greek philosophy, Christianity had to throw out the doctrine of an anthropomorphic (“in the shape of man”) God and the resurrection of the dead, or at least reinterpret them drastically. Paul responded to these early changes among Greek Christians living in Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 15:12 Paul wrote: “Now, if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is not resurrection of the dead?” Thus began to evolve the earliest apostate church. This church (let us call it “hellenized Christianity”) had in its possession all the Jewish scriptures and were in a perfect position to alter them. It taught the philosophies of men (Greek philosophy) mingled with scripture. The leadership of the church ceased to be prophets guided by revelation and began to be man guided by his intellect. These new doctrines were an abomination to the Lord. They were idolatry—men worshiping their own creations, not so much of their own hands, but of their own minds.

There were other bit players in the great apostasy. Some Jewish Christians couldn’t let go of the law of Moses and eventually gave up Christ and his teachings instead. The Gnostics wallowed in the mysteries and in neurotic asceticism. The cumulative effect of these influences was to force the true church of Jesus Christ into the wilderness.

The great and abominable church among churches, then, is the early Greek Christian church. What about the entity described in 1 Nephi 14? Does it exist today? Today, the great and abominable church of the devil is, as Bruce R. McConkie describes it, “the world; it is all the carnality and evil to which fallen man is heir, it is every unholy and wicked practice; it is every false religion, every supposed system of salvation which does not actually save and exalt man in the highest heaven of the celestial world. It is every church except the true church, whether parading under a Christian or a pagan banner.” It is especially anyone who makes war against the saints.

#Personal Apostasy

Definition of apostasy. What is an “apostate”? We all are aware of people near us who don’t seem to care much about religion or spiritual things. While we know that they have all resisted the promptings of the light of Christ, most of these would hardly be referred to as apostates. They are caught up early in influences of the world and were never associated with the Lord, his gospel, or any spiritual truths at all. Many seem unlikely to ever seek religion in any form. They were never members of any church. They are simply indifferent to matters of the spirit. They are interested, instead, only in things of the world.

Similarly, those who are members of myriad other churches in the world, Christian and non-Christian, should not be considered to be apostates. Most have never experienced the Lord’s true Church and gospel. They know no better. We in the Church are often guilty of accusing other orthodox Christian churches as “apostate.”

We charge them with somehow willfully removing “plain and precious” truths from the Christian gospel. Genuine apostasy requires informed rejection of the gospel. The fulness of the gospel was not on earth after the second or third century. Protestants have never had access to the fulness of the gospel. Hence, technically it is inconsistent with our own theology to refer to modern orthodox Christians or their churches as “apostate.” They hold to an incomplete version of Christ’s gospel, and they are wrong about many things, but we should probably avoid labeling them as “apostates.” We also should not argue that historic Christianity lost all truth or became completely corrupt. The orthodox churches may lack the “fulness” of the gospel, but they do hold to many biblical truths. In Joseph Smith’s first vision account, the orthodox Christian churches of his day were referred to by the Lord as an “abomination.” This epithet certainly did not refer to their individual members or the biblical beliefs of the members. Rather, it referred to the false doctrines that largely originated in the post-biblical councils and creeds.

The apostate is the individual who once associated with the Lord’s Church but has chosen to separate from it. The nature of this apostasy varies from passive disinterest to aggressive vindictiveness. Many of the Church’s most vociferous enemies are found among these apostates, particularly those in the latter group. We will consider the apostate more closely after first laying a bit of groundwork.

The significance of repentance. Each of us regularly violates the commandments of the Lord. When we do, the Lord hopes we will acknowledge our sins, confess them (at least to ourselves—D&C 58:42-43), deliberately turn from them, and begin to obey his commandments. Each of us is in nearly constant need of repentance. When we repent, we automatically acknowledge the divine origin and validity of the commandments we are striving to obey. That acknowledgment is implicit in our sincere commitment to repent.

Constant repentance does not appeal to all. Repentance is invariably difficult, even painful. It requires us to deny the “natural self” within us. The struggle is constant. There may come a time in the lives of some individuals when they decide that the process of repentance is just too difficult. They don’t want to do it any more. They have grown tired of resisting their natural self. They wish to separate themselves from the obligation of obeying the Lord’s commands. Such an individual will often have little difficulty with some commandments but chafe over others.

Undoubtedly, there are individuals on the earth who will never be comfortable living forever in an environment where the celestial law is the standard. They will be happier in a setting where less is expected of them. We could refer to these as “terrestrial-bound” or “telestial-bound” individuals (D&C 88:22-24). We should not attempt to determine who these individuals are. If one is determined to judge someone, one might be well advised to judge oneself.

Is it possible to separate amicably from the Church? We may postulate, hypothetically, a “healthy” way for such individuals to separate themselves from the Lord’s Church and his commandments. It is to continue to acknowledge that the Lord does live and that he has an earthly kingdom wherein are found his gospel and his commandments. Then they must acknowledge that they simply do not want to continue to struggle to obey all of the commandments.

Hypothetically these may separate themselves in an amicable way from the Lord’s earthly kingdom. They may “part friends” with the Church. In order to do this, they confess to themselves that the Lord’s earthly kingdom does exist, but they are not up to it. They will then strive to find social acceptance among individuals who are like minded. They and their hypothetical new group of friends bear no malice for the Lord, his Church, or its members. The individuals who elect this course are apostates. But, we would prefer to say that they have chosen “to stand apart” from the Church. They have neither “defected nor revolted” against the Church.

Separation from the Church usually produces deep anxiety. Unfortunately, this hypothetical, friendly parting seldom actually occurs. There is ample reason why. The Spirit of Christ or the light of Christ is given as an entitlement to every individual born on the earth. The teachings and commandments of the Lord tend to ring true to each member of the Church. These individuals become variably committed to those truths. They develop a testimony of them.

Each individual who elects not to repent of significant sins and to part company with the Lord and his Church is thus “saddled” with an unmistakably clear intuitive feeling for what is right and true in an eternal sense. Thus, when any individual rejects a commandment, commits a significant sin, and decides not to repent, they become inwardly conflicted. Though they may not realize it or even acknowledge it outwardly, they sense that they have created a serious threat to their eternal future. They are imbued with a subtle feeling of insecurity and even fear over their eternal lives. This insecurity and fear is the root cause of aggressive and vindictive apostasy. It is the seed of revolt against the Lord and his Church. Such an individual feels compelled to seek for security and comfort in some way other than obedience to the commandments. Usually this is done by seeking to justify oneself and one’s sinful behaviors or to blame the Church for their disaffection.

The predictable steps to apostasy. From long experience and observation, we may describe the typical sequential steps to apostasy:

1. First comes the sin. Again, the individual has no inclination to repent. They must self justify or blame the Church.

2. This often begins by recalling some slight or offense at the hand of a member or leader of the Church. It may occur to the individual that he was passed over for a leadership position. Perhaps he was treated in an unjust way by a church authority. He may recollect that some in his ward were not fully accepting of him or were careless of his feelings. He was not appropriately appreciated for his abilities. He may come to believe that some of his sins made him the object of conversation in the ward. Perhaps he was the object of gossip. These perceived offenses produce in him anger and resentment. He may claim, “Who wouldn’t leave a church that treats him as I have been treated. They rejected me, so I reject them.”

3. The next step in apostasy often occurs when the individual seeks acceptance and solace from others who have also revolted against the Church. Each member of this fellowship of apostates is also angry at the Church for some perceived wrong. Each regards him or herself as a victim of some unjust word or deed. These may be informal small groups of friends or they may be more formal organizations that have names, avowed missions, and goals. As experiences are shared among members of these groups, negative feelings about the Church foment and boil up regularly. There may even arise talk of wanting to injure the Church somehow.

4. The next step is to begin to doubt the teachings of the Church. “A church,” after all, “that has treated me as badly as that church must not be a true church.” Certain teachings and practices of the Church are commonly targeted for doubting including the church’s former practice of polygamy, the miraculous coming about of the Book of Mormon, modern-day scriptures, Joseph Smith’s vision and other spiritual experiences, the concept of our progressing to become like God, and several others. It is comforting for the apostate to hear from his fellows that “The Church isn’t true, after all, and its teachings and practices corroborate that.”

5. The final step is for the apostate to mount an active campaign against the Church. They try to “bring it down.” They use books, articles, speeches, or seminars. Involvement in this type of activity leads to the perpetrator’s solid commitment to his cause. He comes to believe that he is doing the saints a favor by trying to rescue them from their false church. Such individuals may even gain some notoriety in the Church as “well-known” anti-Mormons.

The ironic tragedy. The process of personal apostasy is tragic indeed. The more deeply an individual is immersed in the process, the more difficult it is to ever turn back to the Church. There is a great irony in the process of apostasy. Apostates harbor negative feelings of resentment and even hatred for the Church and its members. However, when all these added trappings are stripped from them, we discover something quite unexpected. Instead of someone who is hateful and vindictive, we discover a vulnerable, frightened, insecure individual who is hardly at peace. Rather than our returning their feelings to them in kind, we ought to strive to see inside and underneath their complex defenses. Our feelings then will certainly be pity and sorrow rather than anger or a desire for reprisal.

#Are All Churches Other than the Lord’s True Church Really Apostate?

Today on the earth there exist, and have existed, many religious philosophies and many churches. We may list a few of the more important: Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, the Baha’i Faith, Confucianism, ancient Egyptian religion, Orthodox Christianity including Catholicism (Eastern and Western), and many Protestant faiths.

There is an inclination among the LDS faithful to claim that there is one true Church upon the earth and that all other churches are “false” and “apostate” faiths. This tendency likely has its origins, at least in part, from the prophet Joseph’s report of his experience during his First Vision (JS-H 1:18-19). Joseph’s questions centered on the Protestant and Catholic churches in his environment. Which one, if any, was correct? He was told by the Lord that he “must join none of them “for they were all wrong.” Further the Lord referred to their creeds (their doctrines) as “an abomination in his sight.” The Lord further accused their ministers as being “corrupt.” The Lord said, “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.”

I have commented previously that the Lord’s condemnation was directed against some of their incomplete and fatally altered doctrines and not against the lay members or ministers. Yet, based on Joseph’s report, we in the Church have tended to see the so-called orthodox Christian churches as our enemies. Our negative impressions of these churches have been further sharpened by the antagonism that has existed between them and us, both in the early Church and now.

We have tended to lump the several non-Christian churches in the world with the orthodox Christians. We reason: they are not teaching the fulness of the gospel as we know it, so they must have unseemly, evil motives. But do they? Let’s consider this question further.

How did the earth’s many churches come to be? A useful perspective is to consider the origins of these many world churches. I believe we may postulate two possible explanations or mechanisms for their existence:

1. We know God first revealed the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fulness to the man/prophet Adam who established the Lord’s Church in his day. Subsequently, due to apostasy, it had to be re-revealed to the heads of each dispensation including Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Christ.

One possible explanation for all of the world’s churches, then, might be that each is simply the result of apostate alteration and adulteration of the Lord’s Church and gospel, having their origins in one or another of the pure dispensational churches at the onset of the several dispensations. Man, then, altered the fulness of the gospel to suit his own individual and cultural biases. Thus, these “apostate” churches have assumed many different forms.

Another variation of this same idea is that perhaps God even revealed his gospel, in its fulness, to peoples and cultures that are not described in the Bible, and over time these also became apostate.

2. Another explanation seems also worth considering. Might it be that in addition to God’s revealing his gospel in its fulness to Adam and the other biblical prophets, he also revealed variations of his gospel through inspired men or “prophets” in several different cultures in several different places. Each variation was adapted by God specifically to the particular setting and culture in which it was placed. God loves all his children in all nations, and it is not surprising that God would call wise men or “prophets” from among several of them and communicate spiritual truths to them.

These several variations of the Lord’s gospel need not have included a fulness. To some of his people, the Lord may have wished to reveal a simpler version analogous to the “law of Moses” he gave to the ancient Israelites. We may refer to the gospel in its “fulness” as the “celestial” version of the Church and gospel, and a simpler, less complete version as a “terrestrial” form. For those ancient Israelites under the leadership of Moses, the Lord seems to have decided that they were not ready for the complete, “celestial” version of the gospel. Perhaps he determined that they were not suited to celestial living—that they would not be happy in an eternal celestial setting. Hence, he gave them a more “terrestrial” or simpler version of the church and gospel. Might it be that among the several world churches we are simply seeing somewhat simplified versions of the Lord’s gospel—each adapted to the setting and culture of its people? Are the people who live with these simpler versions of the gospel spiritually disadvantaged? Not necessarily.

The Lord will judge all men according to what particular portion of spiritual truth they have. I have no doubt that many individuals in all religions of the world will be judged, at their deaths, worthy of celestial glory. These will have lived out their lives guided only by their own particular religions (D&C 137:5-9).

The prophet Joseph taught:

While one portion of the human race is 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 the contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes “His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the 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, or 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” (TPJS, 218).

Not every mortal will be comfortable forever in God’s presence. While God yearns for each of his children to live forever in his direct presence, it is apparent that some would not be comfortable in that celestial setting. He also yearns for each of his children to be comfortable, fulfilled, and happy for all eternity. He knows each intimately and knows where they belong and what will make them happy. It will not be surprising to learn that there have been and are populations on the earth with predominant terrestrial inclinations. These seem best served by a simpler, “terrestrial” version of the gospel. The gospel in this simpler form will function to lift its adherents out of wickedness and save them from a telestial resurrection. Unbeknownst to many of these adherents, this redemption will occur compliments of the atoning sacrifice and death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again, it is important to be reminded that each individual will be judged on his own merit. Regardless of the religious preference of any individual, if he pursues his religion and manifests celestial yearnings, he will be so judged.

Evidences for the divine origin of world religions. Thoughtful church leaders and scholars have addressed this concept. Elder Orson F. Whitney observed that God “is using not only his covenant people, but other peoples as well, to consummate a work, stupendous, magnificent, and altogether too arduous for this little handful of Saints to accomplish by and of themselves” (CR, April 1921, 32-33).

Elder B. H. Roberts observed: “While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men; and it is one of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth[,] yet he is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend. . . . All the great teachers are servants of God; among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them” (Defense of the Faith and the Saints, 2 volumes, 1907, 1:512-13).

Several years ago, James A. Toronto, an associate professor of Islamic studies and comparative religion at Brigham Young University, wrote an excellent and thoughtful article on Muhammad and Islam (“A Latter-day Saint Perspective on

Muhammad,” Ensign, Aug 2000, 51). Brother Toronto pointed out that our church leaders over the years have repeatedly accorded Muhammad the status of “prophet.”

In 1855, at a time when Christian literature generally ridiculed Muhammad as the Antichrist and the archenemy of Western civilization, Elders George A. Smith and Parley P. Pratt delivered lengthy sermons demonstrating an accurate and balanced understanding of Islamic history and speaking highly of Muhammad’s leadership. Elder Smith observed that Muhammad was “descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by God on purpose” to preach against idolatry. Elder Pratt expressed his admiration for Muhammad’s teachings, asserting that “upon the whole, [Muslims] have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations” (Deseret News, 10 October 1855, 242, 245). Latter-day Saint appreciation of Muhammad’s role in history can also be found in the 1978 statement of the First Presidency regarding God’s love for all mankind. This declaration specifically mentions Muhammad as one of “the great religious leaders of the world” who received “a portion of God’s light” and affirms that “moral truths were given to [these leaders] by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals” (Messages of the First Presidency, 15 February 1078).

Are we the only “true Church”? The LDS Church today does indeed contain more spiritual truth than any earthly church past or present, and it is the only one that bears the priesthood of God. We are blessed with what the Lord calls the “fulness of the gospel” (1 Nephi 10:14; 15:13; D&C 20:9; 42:12; 76:14; 90:11). We are not given to know all spiritual truth, but we are surely the “truest” Church on earth.

Are all other churches “apostate”? Judging from our observations of the historical fate of the fulness of the gospel whenever it has been revealed to an earthly prophet, we must allow for some apostate alteration of each religion since its initial revelation to an earthly prophet. Doubtless, each was initially revealed in a purer form and has suffered somewhat from the apostate frailties and natural biases of its adherents. While all of the several world churches might be considered to be “apostate” in the sense they lack the fulness of the gospel, they should not be considered “apostate” (with all the negative trappings we usually attach to the word) in the sense that they are purely corrupt churches of men. They mostly can claim divine influence and intent in their origins.

What about so-called orthodox Christianity? We all understand the role of apostasy in the establishment of Catholic and Protestant churches. We must also readily acknowledge the influences of the Lord in the past and presence of all of these churches. There are many good and inspired men who adhere to and lead these religions. It is worth repeating that many good Catholics and Protestants are fully of celestial ilk and will be so judged by the Lord. They will be exalted. Though I realize the inflammatory nature of this suggestion, I will not be surprised to one day learn that orthodox Christian churches also fall into the “terrestrial” category. Somewhat ironically, we may note that a devout and righteous Evangelical (conservative Protestant) will receive the very eternal reward he expects. He will be resurrected to a heavenly (eternal terrestrial) environment and enjoy forever the ministrations of the Savior.

Need for mutual respect in interfaith relations. We in the Church have been repeatedly counseled that kindness and mutual respect ought to characterize all our relationships with people in other churches. There is obviously much spiritual truth in all faiths. President Gordon B. Hinckley has consistently advocated dialogue and mutual respect in interfaith relations. He admonished members of the Church to cultivate “a spirit of affirmative gratitude” for those of differing religious, political, and philosophical persuasions, adding that “we do not in any way have to compromise our theology” in the process. He gave this counsel: “Be respectful of the opinions and feelings of other people. Recognize their virtues; don’t look for their faults. Look for their strengths and their virtues, and you will find strength and virtues that will be helpful in your own life” (in Sheri Dew’s Go Forward with Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley, 536, 576). The prophet Joseph exhorted Church members to “gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them” (TPJS, 316).

We may conclude that we LDS do possess the most complete version of the gospel of Jesus Christ available on the earth today. Most all other religions teach many spiritual truths beneficial to their adherents. They are not evil and can rightly claim divine influences in their origins. Doubtless, all of these religions are capable of lifting some their adherents to the celestial heaven.

This conclusion comes with a vital caveat. We must never smugly claim we have the “only true Church” without being reminded that this great blessing comes with a solemn obligation. “For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation” (D&C 82:3). The “fulness” of the gospel to which we have access can spiritually lift us farther and faster than others. But the Lord will surely expect more of us than he does of others.

1 See volume 4, chapter 3, Trinity Doctrine.