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)
We are taught that Jesus is the one true way to salvation and to return to Our Father in Heaven. And that all truth is embodied in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. With the return of the Gospel to the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith, all truth has been or will be restored.
Nevertheless, The Prophet Joseph Smith has said, “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Joseph Fielding Smith, Joseph Smith, page 313).
The question in my mind, is how much time and effort should we make in finding these other “truths?”
Joseph went on to say, in the same sermon:
“Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons.” (Page 316)
We can certainly learn many things from the practices of other faiths in how they approach true fundamental teachings that seem to be universally held. These fundamental teachings are contained in the two great commandments to “…love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and “… love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Matthew 22:37 – 39)
In spite of the claim of atheists that one can live a moral life without religion and God, it is pretty clear that most moral laws have been promoted and derived from the great religions of the world and were not just created out of thin air. As an atheist, one could certainly adopt a code of moral conduct without acknowledging from whence it came.
But, again, how much of our time should be spent searching for these “truths” instead of studying the Gospel of Jesus Christ and trying to apply it to our lives? Especially, it all truth is embodied in it?
I see some members of the Church focusing away from the Gospel in order to obtain further enlightenment elsewhere. I do not think this is necessary. I find there is plenty to learn of The Atonement, charity, true repentance, humility, and discipleship to fill a lifetime of seeking. Seeking to know the Will of the Father, how we are to live this mortal existence and how we are to serve others.
“We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” (Articles of Faith 1:9)
Is it likely that He would reveal these great and important things in any other way than through His servants, the Prophets?
Not likely, I suspect.
Wheat & Tares 
“Is it likely that He would reveal these great and important things in any other way than through His servants, the Prophets?”
I guess it would depend on what you’re talking about. The scriptures, commentaries on the scriptures, books by or about general authorities? I’ve heard some people proudly announce that they don’t and would never read anything not written by a GA. For me I’d hate to think that Harold Kushner or Thomas a Kempis or St Benedict and his Rule (an excellent handbook for mission presidents IMHO) don’t have anything to offer or shouldn’t be read. I don’t know if JS was serious about studying other churches or if he was just making the point that they have some but “we” have it all but it seems like a waste to let all that knowledge and insight go unexamined and appreciated. The final test should be the life we’re prompted to lead by what we’ve learned, not just where the learning comes from.
It seems we would have a narrow view of the world if we only looked for truth from the LDS church. I believe that there can be multiple prophets and that God talks to others besides Monson. I don’t know why God would limit himself so much especially since, for some reason, he doesn’t have the LDS church take stances on what I think is important like war and all the wars we’ve been having, or at least point out that 3 Ne 16:10 is coming true.
Also, what about that gentlemen that had a hard time coming to Christ but then got into Yogic teachings and then became a better person and was able to come to God better by embracing parts of the Yogic tradition?
I think there is much truth out there that is not found in the church and should be brought into the church.
Guess it comes down to whether reading C S Lewis and the like is justified.
This leads into a more important question, which points us toward seeking a broader perspective, perhaps outside of the beliefs we grew up with and feel comfortable with. Who are God’s prophets? Is the Dalai Lama not a prophet? What was Buddha? And Lao Tsu? Mohammad? The list goes on.
Joseph Smith taught us to seek truth, not wait for it to fall into our laps. Joseph Smith was jailed, tarred and feathered, and killed because of his search for truth. He studied the Kabbalah, learned Hebrew, and played with seer stones, always questioning accepted truth. If he wasn’t open to new ideas, I doubt God would have chosen him as a prophet. Is reading a correlated lesson manual really following this martyr?
Thanks for the responses.
However, I wanted to make it clear I was not referring to the Church but the Gospel. And I was not excluding learning about other religions and fact I said the opposite of that.
And if we embrace the Gospel as the truth and the Savior as the “way, the truth, and the life,” to the extent that men and women testify of Him, they are prophets. If not, then I am not sure we consider them so.
And finally, what does a lesson manual have to do with embracing the Savior?
“And finally, what does a lesson manual have to do with embracing the Savior?”
Everything, really. Too bad correlation has gotten such a bad name since it’s all truth. Just has to be read, studied, and believed.
“Too bad correlation has gotten such a bad name since it’s all truth. Just has to be read, studied, and believed.’
It is merely a tool. Just as a wrench can be used as a hammer. While the manuals contain truths, it is not true per se anymore than the wrench is a true hammer.
I think it’s pretty clear that Joseph studied all kinds of things. I think it is also pretty evident that we are commanded to seek learning (D&C 88:118).
I think that by unneccesarily limiting one’s spiritual provenance, one is limiting one’s own opportunities for growth. More importantly, I think that criticizing other people’s choices of provenance is detrimental to all concerned. This is the main problem I see with correlation. I get that we want to have some semblance of doctrinal consistency, but by banning everything uncorrelated we alienate people who don’t connect with the accepted expressions and literature, and alienation is the antithesis of Zion.
“Is it likely that He would reveal these great and important things in any other way than through His servants, the Prophets?
Not likely, I suspect.”
I would also disagree to some extent with this. Historically, the Prophets have almost exclusively been from outside the establishment. Isaiah, Amos, Samuel the Lamanite, Abinadi, John, Joseph Smith and so on. It is evident that prophecy is *not* synonymous nor is it exclusive to the administrative structure of the church.
One other thing I would mention is that I define the Gospel as it is defined in 3 Nephi 27. Basically – Christ came, suffered and died for our sins, and resurrected. This is the good news. Everything else is subordinate to it.
So, when you claim that “all truth is embodied in it [the Gospel]”, I would suggest that we are speaking of two different things. If I am reading you correctly, Jeff, you are associating the gospel with the body of doctrine we espouse. If that is the case, then I would have to say that our gospel is woefully incomplete. 2
bad button press, sorry. :S
2/3 of the Book of Mormon is still held back, we have fragments of Zenos and Zenock, and never mind the other sheep mentioned in 3 Nephi.
I loved the quotes you used, although I disagree with where they lead your reasoning. Thought provoking post, anyway.
“I see some members of the Church focusing away from the Gospel in order to obtain further enlightenment elsewhere. I do not think this is necessary. I find there is plenty to learn of The Atonement, charity, true repentance, humility, and discipleship to fill a lifetime of seeking. ”
Perhaps it is just me and the way my mind works, but church seems to be so repetitive with the foundational teachings, I know I don’t know everything…but I kind of got bored, to be honest.
Searching in other religions has opened my mind and made things “fresher”. Then I can return to my LDS teachings with new insights.
What’s the danger of looking outside mormonism for beauty and truth? Seems foolish not to.
Prometheus,
“If I am reading you correctly, Jeff, you are associating the gospel with the body of doctrine we espouse.”
Actually, no. I associate the Gospel (Big G) with the Savior (I am the Truth). Most of us have little understanding of the Big G gospel. I sure don’t. That is part of why we are here on this earth.
The basic doctrine taught by the Church just scratches the surface of the Big G Gospel. And hopefully inspires us to learn more. For the most part, we learn by putting that into practice by serving others.
Getting bored with the basic gospel principles is a sign to me that one is not trying very hard. I seek after talks and materials that provoke my thoughts. And I just set aside the other stuff.
Getting bored with the basic gospel principles is a sign to me that one is not trying very hard. I seek after talks and materials that provoke my thoughts. And I just set aside the other stuff.
I see his point. It’s easy to get bored hearing the same old thing.
1. I know the church is true.
2. I love the bishopric
3. I love you even if I don’t know you.
After awhile, you crave some variety.
I reread your post, I think I can see what you are getting at now. You’re saying that it isn’t worth it to seek for moral truth outside of the Gospel?
Assuming that is what you are saying, I would have to say that I still disagree with the premise, God reveals his truth to many people in different ways because people are different and learn in different ways. Also, the scriptures seem to be all over the place along with what prophets (presidents and apostles of the church) have said. So the only way to truly find truth is through the Holy Ghost and to learn from the HG we have to do our own legwork first and then He will tell us the truth.
God lives by the same laws we live by and therefore, the “natural laws” can be discovered through deduction and logic (God reasoned with JS as one man reasons with another). But discovering truth through logic and deduction one still needs to receive guidance/inspiration from the spirit weather one is spiritually inclined or not.
It is interesting to note that even Joseph Smith misinterpreted his own feelings for the Spirit by his own admission, so it makes it even more necessary to think logically about these truths and hope that you understand the Spirit when He tells you it is true.
I find that this makes it so looking to the principles of the Gospel and axioms of the deductions important for discerning what is truth and what isn’t, by two witnesses we shall know the truth, science is one way and religion the other.
Hmm. I guess what I was trying to get at, Jeff, is that your dismissal of all things non-LDS (or non-Christian, not quite sure which you were advocating) seems to be somewhat dismissive of other people’s experiences.
If LDS materials meet your spiritual needs, that’s awesome, but they may not meet everyone’s spiritual needs. I think that our Parents speak to us in many different ways, according to our needs, and what you wrote came across to me as prescriptive of how we ought to commune with the Divine.
Sorry, maybe I am way off there, but that was my reading of it.
I think that there is a tremendous amount of wisdom in the world, and to brush it aside because of where it came from just doesn’t work for me.
Prometheus,
“is that your dismissal of all things non-LDS (or non-Christian, not quite sure which you were advocating) seems to be somewhat dismissive of other people’s experiences.”
Not hardly. I have not dismissed anything.
It is a really a simple concept. If Jesus is the Way, The Truth and the Life, then what is the need to look elsewhere?
I am not dismissing any wisdom in the world, I am only pointing out that if the Gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses all truth, what is the need to look elsewhere for truth? In fact, looking elsewhere might distract us from why we are here.
“if LDS materials meet your spiritual needs, that’s awesome,…”
LDS Materials have nothing to do with what I am talking about. As I repeated, I am writing about the Gospel, not the Church.
Prometheus,
Let me tell you Jeff is saying, “It is a really a simple concept. If Jesus is the Way, The Truth and the Life, then what is the need to look elsewhere?”
AKA, since everything is God’s in this world including our intellect there is no reason for man to look anywhere where Satan reigns but everywhere else is OK because it is God’s. So really there is not much you cannot pursue. That’s what I’m reading. I think the OP needs to be made a little more clear with better defined terms.
Jeff, would you mind providing some examples of what you consider to be elsewhere, as I feel like we aren’t really connecting our ideas here, you and I.
Since we don’t really have all the words of Jesus and his ideas were written down 40 years after his death by other people with their own motives and interpretations, I have enjoyed the NT apocrypha as a good starting point. But ultimately, I think most Mormons who really understand our faith would say nothing supercedes a personal relationship with Christ. There is something very powerful in that idea of experiencing a firsthand relationship rather than just reading what others said He taught and trying to live it.
Beyond that, I am somewhat convinced that Jesus’ teachings are close to Buddhism for a reason. Viewing his words through a Buddhist lens is very useful IMO.
Hawk,
“But ultimately, I think most Mormons who really understand our faith would say nothing supercedes a personal relationship with Christ.”
Yes, indeed. That kind of relationship would do more to open our eyes to the true Gospel than the written or spoken word ever could.
“Beyond that, I am somewhat convinced that Jesus’ teachings are close to Buddhism for a reason.”
I mentioned that all the great religions of the world seem to share the same basic moral principles. That is not a coincidence.
However, I still would make the case that other influences are interesting but not necessary in the long run.
Prometheus,
“Jeff, would you mind providing some examples of what you consider to be elsewhere,”
No, I think its not a good idea and anything specific is beside the point and would just open me up to further criticism.
Any specifics do not speak to the fundamental point I was trying to make.
Jeff,
“No, I think its not a good idea and anything specific is beside the point and would just open me up to further criticism.”
Fair enough – although if my comments came off as overly critical, I apologize, and would add that I value our difference of opinions as it pushes me to examine and articulate my own thoughts.
“I still would make the case that other influences are interesting but not necessary in the long run.”
I can certainly agree that Christ is the only *necessary* influence. I also think that He has spoken to many prophets in many parts of the world and revealed Truth. Thus the similarity between many religions’ moral compasses.
Perhaps we can agree on this, Jeff: Anything that brings us to a higher degree of love, service, and unity also brings us nearer to Christ, known or unknown, and is worthy of study.
Thanks for an interesting post.
I’ve taken only a cursory glance over some of the comments, so I’ll go back and read the post now with some of the insights I believe I’ve picked up from comment responses:
The reason we should look “elsewhere” is because “elsewhere” is just a reassignment of the Gospel/the Savior.
Let’s look at this mathematically.
1) Let the Savior = the Truth (, the way, and the life.)
2) Let Mormonism be a search for the Truth, “come from whence it may”.
3) Let churches (like the Mormon church, or like other churches) NOT be synonymous with the Gospel. (As per Jeff’s comment 11: “The basic doctrine taught by the Church just scratches the surface of the Big G Gospel.”) They, and manuals used within them, are, as per Jeff’s comment 7, “tools” “that are not true per se.”
4) And finally, let the Gospel = all Truth (as per Jeff’s 15)
5) “One could certainly adopt a code of moral conduct without acknowledging from whence it came.”
So, with these five premises, “looking elsewhere” for truth is a flaw in how we use language. Because if it is True, then it is part of the Gospel (premise 5), already part of the Savior. If we are looking “elsewhere” (e.g., not overtly for the Gospel/Savior), but we find Truth, then we haven’t really been looking elsewhere, because if we found Truth, then we’ve found the Gospel/Savior. The concept of “elsewhere” as separate from the Gospel/Savior exists because of premise 5 — it’s possible to accept things without understanding or acknowledging from whence it came.
So…from these 5 premises, Jeff seems to be asking: “Why not just look at the Gospel/Savior part?”
My answer is simple: because of the mathematical equation, looking at the other side will result in identical results. In other words, “Why not look only for truth?” is the same thing as asking, “Why not only look at the Savior” (premise one), or “Why not look only for truth?” is the same thing as asking, “Why not only look at the Gospel?” (4)
Now, does it matter which side we approach things on? Well, maybe it does.
It’s difficult to understand what the Gospel or the Savior is. As per premise 3, different churches coopt the terms and confuse the issue, so that they only “scratch the surface of the big G Gospel.” Using terms like “Gospel” and “Savior as the starting point increase the chances that you will be seeking after a tool instead, or that you will fall trap to the co-opting.
However, people generally can understand what Truth is, and they seem generally more able to recognize and seek it — even if they do not understand from whence it came (premise 5.) So it seems that it would be preferable to tell people to seek truth, come from whence it may.
And that’s why we should seek elsewhere. In a way, it’s like telling people to think outside the box. When you think outside the box, it may appear as if you come up with a solution that is completely irrelevant, but any good out-of-the-box solution will actually solve the problem that seemed completely boxed in.
I don’t see any “elsewhere”. I live on this earth, so, for me, there is no elsewhere.
To me, the Gospel (“Good News”) is that we really can become like our Father in Heaven. Anything, anywhere that leads me closer to that objective is included in that “Gospel” – and I have had amazing experiences reading those kinds of things from wildly different perspectives. If my mind is free to scan the entirety of history and search for the Gospel everywhere . . . that is the only way I believe I can keep from closing myself off from those moments when God will reveal to me “things I never had imagined”.
Andrew S.
I am not sure I totally get your mathematical extrapolation, but I will comment on a couple of things:
“It’s difficult to understand what the Gospel or the Savior is.”
Do you really think so?
I think the overall concept is quite simple but the details are difficult to comprehend. you can be a very happy individual and fulfill your mission in life without having a cursory understanding of the true principles of the Gospel. As someone stated before, the identity of the Savior and the overall message of the Gospel is quite clear.
“However, people generally can understand what Truth is, and they seem generally more able to recognize and seek it…”
I think this is not accurate. Many people have no clue what the Truth is and whereto find it.
“Anything that brings us to a higher degree of love, service, and unity also brings us nearer to Christ, known or unknown, and is worthy of study.”
Absolutely! 🙂
“I can certainly agree that Christ is the only *necessary* influence. I also think that He has spoken to many prophets in many parts of the world and revealed Truth. Thus the similarity between many religions’ moral compasses.”
I find no explicit evidence of this, but the fact that most religions have the same fundamental moral code would imply this. So, I do agree with this.
However, there practices might also indicate that they have strayed from the lessons their prophets might have been taught.
re 24:
Jeff,
So, if you’re trying to practice and apply the Gospel, then it’s not just the overall concept that matters, but also the details. If you yourself recognize that the details are difficult to comprehend, then isn’t this saying that it’s difficult to comprehend the Gospel?
This seems like you are, in a way, agreeing with me here:
“However, people generally can understand what Truth is, and they seem generally more able to recognize and seek it…”
You say that people have no clue what the truth is and where to find it, but as you admit, people can be very happy and fulfill their missions in life without having a cursory understanding of the true principles of the gospel.
In other words, you can seek and reach truth without seeking and reaching the Gospel.
Re Jeff-
I actually liked this post quite a bit. Perhaps I just read it differently than others, I dunno. I have a few comments:
This is very unconvincing for me. In my view, it is the religions of the world that sprung up because of what was within humanity, in our culture, in our social sphere, not morality springing forth from religion. Religion just happened to capture that humanity and morality in a tidy little package (as has politics to some degree). Religion is not the source of morality, humans are the source of morality, and, I would conjecture the source of religion (even if God exists and is the anthropomorphic being we envision Him to be in Mormonism).
I like this. There is certainly no reason one cannot find what one needs in the Gospel, Atonement, charity, etc. I absolutely agree, and it seems that it works for Jeff quite well. It has worked for me quite well also. My question would be about perspective. What if the way WE teach and view the world is merely a shadow on the wall of the underlying truths the Gospel represents? If that’s the case, perhaps there are other shadows that can be cast of those same truths that will be understood better by others.
For me, I look at the world and see many good people. Many good people who aren’t Mormon. Somehow they got the message, and it wasn’t through Mormonism. Can one get it through Mormonism? Sure, but could they also get it elsewhere? Absolutely. In my own life, I’ve had truths made manifest by reading many different books. Sometimes they come from reading scripture, sometimes from reading self-help books. I’m not going to complain about either one since they are contributing to my overall well-being.
jmb,
Thanks for your response. I appreciate you looking at it in the spirit in which it is intended.
” I absolutely agree, and it seems that it works for Jeff quite well”
It works pretty well for me, however, I did ask the questions in my post, I did not say that we should not study anything but the gospel. I asked how much time should we spend outside of the Gospel and whether it is worth our time?
All in the context of all truth being given through the Gospel.
I study historic Christianity, LDS Church History, Judaism as well as my study of the gospel, so I am not advocating not doing that.
Just asking some questions…..
Andrew,
I think you are twisting my words a bit. I wrote two posts on Simple Faith (http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/06/24/simple-faith/) and http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/07/01/simple-faith-part-2/) Where I discussed the concept of simple faith and how we can go through life with a basic understanding of the Gospel and be just fine. I think the deep doctrines are difficult to comprehend without study. So I do not jump to the conclusion that that makes the Gospel difficult to understand as you did.
“You say that people have no clue what the truth is and where to find it, but as you admit, people can be very happy and fulfill their missions in life without having a cursory understanding of the true principles of the gospel.”
Again, slightly out of context. Two different groups of people. those with a simple view of the gospel and then there are those with no view of the gospel and lack moral grounding and struggle in life bacause of it.
Jeff:
Thanks for the links.
My point, however, is the the Gospel as a totality of Truth, includes both the basics and the deep doctrines. If you sill concede that the deep doctrines are difficult to comprehend, the the Gospel is difficult to comprehend. I think you want to separate the two, but Truth is Truth is Truth.
I don’t think I’m taking your statement out of context: I’m just going off of what you said in comment 24. “People can be very happy and fulfill their missions in life without having a cursory understanding of the true principles of the gospel.”
That’s a direct quote from comment 24. In other words, there is a third group of people: those with no view of the gospel (not even a cursory/simple one!) yet who are happy and fulfill their missions in life. This is consistent with your statement from the post: “one could certainly adopt a code of moral conduct without acknowledging from whence it came.”
I don’t see this as twisting your words or taking them out of context. It seems to be a direct quotation.
Andrew,
““People can be very happy and fulfill their missions in life without having a cursory understanding of the true principles of the gospel.”
Should have been “WITH a cursory view….” That is the context in which I was writing. So, I apologize for that typo.
well, that’s quite a different meaning, lol. I’ll just stop commenting now.
I never claimed to be a good typist. got a “D” in High School. 🙂
Re Jeff-
I think there’s an interesting question here. For me there are some problems that I am unable to deal with without an expansion of my worldview. What happens when the “truths” I gather from elsewhere aren’t supported by my Mormon worldview? Or worse, what if they conflict? Personally, I like Ray’s ideas as viewing the “restoration” of the Gospel as something that is continually happening. Sometimes I think we get closer, and other times we move further away.
In other words, what I hear you saying, is that there is a simple core of truth within the Gospel. It appears to revolve around Christ, his message, and atonement. One can glean the necessary truths from studying merely these things even if there are similar truths found elsewhere in humanity, and we will likely gain the most if we spend most of our time studying those things. Furthermore, some things are yet to be revealed, but the avenue for the revelation of truth exists within the LDS church. I can certainly agree with that message.
Yeah, I certainly didn’t gather that’s what you were advocating.
jmb,
“in other words, what I hear you saying, is that there is a simple core of truth within the Gospel.”
Actually I am saying a bit more that. Notwithstanding the fact that truth can be found in many places, it is my understanding that ALL truth is contained in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, “…knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come”(D&C 93:24).
So my question remains, if that is so, do we need to look elsewhere for truth?
Re Jeff-
I think that we believe that all truth is contained in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but then there are a few layers missing. If the Gospel already includes all the truth, then revelation is dead. But the reality is, despite the fact that the Gospel (i.e. defined as ALL the truth) has all the truth, we then only have a subset of the Gospel (much like we claim Presbyterians have), hence the need to continue learning, continuing revelation etc. The difference, at least to me, would be the capacity to receive the proper revelations.
I would say that since God is the source of all truth, we need not look elsewhere. Need we look beyond the Bible? Yes, the BoM? Yes. Why? Because those do NOT contain all the truth, just a portion. So to me, I would say that I need to seek everywhere for truth that may inspire me to receive revelation from God who is the author of the Gospel (i.e. all truth).
JMB,
then we seem to agree. 🙂 All truth has yet to be revealed….. AoF 9
Your post seems less like a helpful guide to find the most meaningful things to study, and more like an excuse for not empathizing with people whose spiritual needs aren’t served by the same things that serve yours.
You’re pointing to statements of doctrine to explain why you don’t need to empathize with someone whose needs aren’t being fulfilled. I guess they must simply be doing it wrong if your scriptures say everyone’s needs are fulfilled by what you like. Yay for eternal truths that validate the person you are and invalidate other people. 😛
Tachyon Feathertail,
Sorry, you’re way off base