What?! What, you say?
Actually, it is what Brigham Young and Joseph Smith had to say, and they also laid claim to all truth, where it could be found. They felt that their grasp of truth was under construction.
An analysis starts with this (from LDS.org) where it states:
“Mormonism,” so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation, for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to “Mormonism.” The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this Church. As for their morality, many of them are, morally, just as good as we are. All that is good, lovely, and praiseworthy belongs to this Church and Kingdom. “Mormonism” includes all truth. There is no truth but what belongs to the Gospel. It is life, eternal life; it is bliss; it is the fulness of all things in the gods and in the eternities of the gods (DBY, 3).
Brigham Young not only stated that many in the sectarian world were “,just as good as we are” but they had truth. As a result, he said:
“It is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their Elder Brother, being at their head) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, … to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and bring it to Zion (DBY, 248).”
So in his time he felt that he did not have all religious (or all other) truth and that we needed to study the truths others had, gather them up, and bring them to Zion to be understood, digested and shared.
Going on to other quotes from Brigham Young:
“Be willing to receive the truth, let it come from whom it may; no difference, not a particle. Just as soon receive the Gospel from Joseph Smith as from Peter, who lived in the days of Jesus. Receive it from one man as soon as another. If God has called an individual and sent him to preach the Gospel that is enough for me to know; it is no matter who it is, all I want is to know the truth.” (DBY, 11)
And as for conflicts with science (and reprising about the gospel and evolution):
““…our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts-they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, pg. 116, 14 May 1871)”
Of course Brigham Young got his position from Joseph Smith:
“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” (Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 199)
Now Joseph Smith did embrace an approach to inspiration similar to many twelve step programs (and, I know, he said it first).
“A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon; [that is,] those things that were presented unto your minds by the Spirit of God, will come to pass; and thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus.” (B.H. Roberts, History of the Church 3:381)
And Joseph Smith also said (from Joseph Smith and “The Only True and Living Church”):
“‘Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?’ In reality and essence, we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” “Have the Presbyterians any truth?” he asked on another occasion. “Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. . . . We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true ‘Mormons.’“
They both also talked about the prophets of other lands and peoples and that God spoke to them as well as to us.
But the bottom line was that we need to gather all the good and true principles and treasure them, share them and grow from them or we do not come out true members of the Church.
Wheat & Tares 
Article of Faith#9 establishes as mormons we do not believe we have all truth, or there would be nothing yet to reveal.
I also don’t really understand Brigham Young’s comments. He sounds like a toddler that says “What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine. Everything is mine, even if I don’t have it yet.”
We claim to have all truth if we claim all truth? Not sure that makes sense.
What I think the church should say is:
“We don’t have all truth, but we have a process to get it.”
That focuses on the benefit of mormonism by having prophets and not limited by a closed canon.
Though an LDS member would recognize the Church in BY’s day, it still has ‘evolved’ quite a bit in some 138 years since BY’s passing. Hence the “line upon line, etc. etc.”
There are likely still yet significant truths to be revealed, but WHY we don’t have them yet probably comes down to two things:
1) It’s simply not the time YET for us to receive these things.
2) We as a Church could ‘hasten’ further revelation if we did better at upholding that which we already have. This isn’t Heavenly Father holding out on us, it’s that with greater gifts comes greater responsibility. “Ready…what know YOU of ready?”
Among the things we haven’t gotten yet, for example, is the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. One can speculate that some of it is already to be had in the Temple, but that’s certainly conjecture. Along with that are the “other” sheep that the Savior spoke that He had when visiting the Nephites (implying that He was ministering to more than they and the Judeans) and what works ‘they’ have, and my speculation as to whether ‘they’ still exist, (like the ‘lost’ ten tribes, could that be the same?), but likely have lost memory of their heritage if indeed ‘they’ do exist at all.
But what’s really of interest is not so much knowledge as it is authority. I can ‘know’ everything there is to be had thus far (I’m not remotely close) and still have zilch authority to promulgate it. The Lord’s House IS one of order.
Agent K (talking to NYPD Detective James Edwards): “1,500 years ago, everybody KNEW that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody KNEW that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you KNEW that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”
Those are some good quotes. But isn’t the message from Brigham and Joseph that the church does have all truth because Mormonism is, definitionally, all truth? We’re just in the process of discovering and receiving it?
Joel – a few people have slapped Mormonism as an encompassing label on “all truth”. The Hindus did the same, naming it the Sanatana Dharma (Way of Truth), but not in the traditionally exclusive (and, in my opinion, arrogant) way that is culturally LDS nowadays. Islam does the same, with Allah being Truth itself.
Guess it doesn’t matter the name or label. Any person or organization can equally be recipients of all truth (see D&C 88), to the extent they are willing and prepared to receive it.
And, in my opinion, the Church has about closed the door on that in the years since Brigham Young…
The Church may not claim to have all truth, but it does claim to have all true opinions.
In other words, truth in the context of what is quoted above are just facts. Facts are strewn all over the place. It’s what those facts *mean* to our lives that we monopolize. For example, if science tells us gay people don’t choose to be gay, then we can accept that fact. but we just adjust the meaning of homosexuality. Instead of a temptation, it’s now a trial of faith. And no one can refute it.
I agree with Ci. The church may welcome all truth on a theoretical level, but there are a lot of individual opinions within the leadership and membership. Climate change can be a fact (truth) to one member, and a conspiratorial lie by liberal heathens to another. God doesn’t tend to step in and say, “This study had the correct results and you should take this as truth, but that other study was completely ridiculous, so don’t pay it any mind.” He expects us to use our brains on intellectual stuff and inspiration on religious stuff.
Brigham and Joseph may be correct that Mormonism encompasses all truth (I entertain the belief that by the millennial reign we should be able to harmonize scientific and religious truth in one great whole). But we are still having to wade our way through the sea of claimed facts and trying to pick out those that are most beneficial. Because of our humanity, we are pretty much guaranteed a few missteps when deciding which facts are Truth.
Can someone give me some examples of truths gathered up from the various denominations, acknowledged as such and added to the LDS body of truth?
Parker, since all truth comes from God, and, in the life of a Christian, is recognized by the gift of the Spirit of Christ or by the gift of the Holy Ghost, then it’s rather difficult to pin down the source of a truth as coming from a particular denomination. Truths are brought to light through discussion and interaction with other denominations but generally, in a religious setting, God is going to be seen as the source and get the credit, since it originates with Him.
However, Parker, if you want one, here’s one. Russell Nelson’s thought provoking talk on repentance in General Conference in April 2007 includes ideas on that topic that can be traced back to an 1881 study “The Great Meaning of the Word Metanoia”, written by Treadwell Walden, a minister of St. Paul’s church in Boston. St. Paul’s Church, Boston, and the words of Richard Chenevix Trench, a 19th century Anglican archbishop. So there’s one from the writings in the Anglican/Episcopal theology.
However, if you want one, here’s one. Russell Nelson’s thought provoking talk on repentance in General Conference in April 2007 includes ideas on that topic that can be traced back to an 1881 study The Great Meaning of the Word Metanoia, written by Treadwell Walden, a minister of St. Paul’s church in Boston. St. Paul’s Church, Boston, and the words of Richard Chenevix Trench, a 19th century Anglican archbishop. So there’s one from the writings in the Anglican/Episcopal theology.
Apologies for the double post.
We could add Dieter Uchtdorf to the mix of people who have spoken about the “grasp of truth being under construction”:
“Sometimes we think of the Restoration of the gospel as something that is complete, already behind us—Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he received priesthood keys, the Church was organized. In reality, the Restoration is an ongoing process; we are living in it right now. It includes ‘all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal,’ and the ‘many great and important things’ that “He will yet reveal.”
~~ D. Uctdorf, General Conference, April 2014
Did Elder Nelson say that our concept of repentance has been limited, but thanks to Rev. Walden, we now have a more complete and fuller understanding of the repentance process? The message of the OP is that other denominations have truth that we don’t have and our goal is to apprehend those truths so that we will have a fullness of the gospel. What are some truths from the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterians, etc. that we have gratefully received and acknowledged their source?
Nicely said.
Parker, that is a good question. The difficulty for me is seeing the church give direct credit for something, so it is a bit hard to tell.
For example, society and other religions recognized banning some men from leadership or priesthood was racist and abandoned segregation ideas. Eventually, the church prophet received a revelation extending priesthood to all worthy males. Can we say that was directly taken from outside the church. No, the prophet claimed it was revelation from God, and the church doesn’t know why, but God didn’t allow it before.
Polygamy would be another example of something that changed because of forces outside the church.
Now…those are practices, not teachings. So it could be argued that isn’t “truth”. But it also could be. It could very well be argued our understanding became more clear.
I have never heard the church acknowledge it came from outside the church, but if I reason and look at it objectively, I just can’t see it any other way…true teachings influenced church leaders to go to the Lord and receive more light and knowledge.
Perhaps more directly on our doctrine and teachings, would be to study Orson Hyde and Parley P Pratt and other early church leaders that were compiling our church history and doctrine and teachings. They were not blank slates, starting the doctrine from scratch. They brought their methodist and presbyterian backgrounds with truth, and then added unto them with new revelation.
One more angle on this…if you go to LDS.org and search conference talks for CS Lewis, you fill find nuggets of truth taught by someone outside the church, and being adopted and quoted in Conference (which some people take as modern scripture). I realize those are teachings and not a main paractice or doctrinal point….but the idea is that sources outside of our religion have truth and we adopt them regularly.
Personally…I would love to see more buddhism quoted in conference. There is a lot of truth there, but I feel our western religion is unfamiliar with it. Sister Okazaki was had many tones of these teachings, in my opinion.
Would you agree with my examples?
One more thought, Parker…I have interpreted Jacob 5 to have teachings on this subject. If the tame tree is to represent the church, and the wild tree the world (outside the church), then the allegory teaches us that the tame tree survives and grows stronger at times because of the strength from the wild trees, while the wild trees benefit from fruit becoming more “tame” and tasteful.
I take this to mean the Lord of the vineyard does not work only with tame trees. He works with them all, in His way, with His purposes and wisdom.
There are many other lessons to learn from that allegory, but I think it can apply to our discussion.
We graft in things from the world as needed. And sometimes we burn with them.
C.S. Lewis is an example of truth often brought back. 😄
Stephen, Elder Maxwell often quoted C. S. Lewis. Are you suggesting that Mormons didn’t understand what discipleship meant until C. S. Lewis taught us, through Elder Maxwell?
“Are you suggesting that Mormons didn’t understand…”
Parker, it sounds to me like you are looking for something that absolutely every LDS leader and most members did not understand until an individual outside of their faith said it and then the leaders suddenly recognized it as truth and adopted it as such and all the members were suddenly supposed to as well.
Since the LDS faith is based on a principle of receiving truth “precept upon precept” (Isaiah 28, 2 Nephi 28) which is more like a slow unfolding of understanding and less like chunks of information dumps, I would not expect the church to operate the way you may be looking for an example of. Most of the revelation in the past 100 years has been the unfolding type, with just an occasional big dump (perhaps Lorenzo Snow–tithing, David O. McKay–church welfare plan, Spencer W. Kimball–priesthood could be used as examples) to push that unfolding along. Even then, none of those three were out of the blue. They were simply a big push in the already ongoing unfolding process.
So, if that “suddenly everyone understood what no one understood before” is what you are looking for I don’t think that Elder Maxwell’s reading of C.S. Lewis’s ideas on discipleship was an information dump type of new revelation on a topic totally misunderstood. But it would very much fit into the process that is the “precept upon precept” unfolding of revelatory understanding, a furthering of comprehension, that is described in Isaiah and repeated again in 2nd Nephi.
As to your earlier question, Parker, I don’t know if Elder Nelson actually knew that the idea he included in that Conference talk originated from Rev. Walden or Archbishop Trent. It originated with them, but the idea has been discussed in broadly interdenominational resources, theological essays and commentaries so long (135+ years) that most of the authors thereof (including LDS ones) are generally not aware of the original source and do not cite it. As a result it is an insight that is written about by authors of a variety of other religious faiths as well as ours.
Does it matter whether or not Elder Nelson knows the denomination of the individual who first shared that insight?
Personally, though I find occasionally tracing the outside theological sources of church leaders’ insights an interesting and enlightening activity, I don’t think an insight needs to be carefully and thoroughly traced back to the first person we know about who said it and then for his religious organization to be publicly thanked or acknowledged in order for it to be qualified as “gathered up”.
MB– exactly. Or ETB on pride.
MB — you hit the point on the head. An expansion of understanding. That is similar to the ETB talk on pride he borrowed from a non LDS author.
My experience certainly matches both Stephen and MB that the Brethren often quote others, whether it is C. S. Lewis or Robert Burns, to provide different language to elaborate on a point of gospel doctrine or practice. You have both made that point clearly. What I am not hearing is evidence that the Elders of Israel have engaged in the business,to paraphrase Brigham, to go out into the world and gather up truths that we do not currently have.
Or, as you stated it Stephen: “So in his time he felt that he did not have all religious (or all other) truth and that we needed to study the truths others had, gather them up, and bring them to Zion to be understood, digested and shared.”
I don’t see quoting a non-Mormon to elaborate some point as fulfilling Brigham’s call to the Elders of the church. Stephen, you raised the question, and if quoting others as “an expansion of understanding” satisfies you that that is what Brother Brigham had in mind then we just chalk it up to different interpretations, and let it go at that.
Parker, I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were requiring examples of church leaders gathering the truths others had and doing so in an organized, purpose-driven way, and then disseminating them through official church channels. However, if we are talking about “the Elders of this church”, ie; the regular members in their capacity as disciples, going out and gathering in general, then I think we’ve got this going. Over the years I’ve sat through fascinating, discussions and lessons with various elders (and sisters), both students and teachers,listening to what they have learned from Navaho spirit journeys, Buddhist meditation, Baptist ministers, Jesuit priests, cloistered nuns, Conservative Jewish rabbis, Community of Christ social activism, Amish families, a Moslem cleric, a Congregational minister etc., etc. that applies to and enlarges their understanding of gospel truth. And in every instance I can remember,the insights have been edifying and generally welcomed. Maybe it’s not happening where you live. I understand that some geographic areas of the church have a reputation for being less interested in such exploration of ideas, but in the places where I’ve lived I’ve seen it happen quite a bit. So if that’s what you are hoping for, I would definitely not give up hope. That “understanding, digesting and sharing” that Stephen mentioned is happening in lives of latter-day saints, likely more often than your experience has led you to believe it is. It sounds to me like you would enjoy it. I hope you have the pleasure of encountering and listening to such discussions many, many times in your life and enjoy the process yourself.
Or from another conference talk:
George Macdonald has said that God is easily pleased, but hard to satisfy. As a Father, God is delighted with our first and further steps, but He knows how straight, how narrow, and how long the ensuing path is. Again, how vital endurance!
MB — that is what I understood Brigham Young to mean as he was using “elders” in the use of “all the adult males in the Church” and in a way he often did when he meant the term to be inclusive of the sisters as well (as in sending them back east to medical school and art schools).
Someone Should Have Told Me — The Church doesn’t have all the truth.
What a rotten excuse. You didn’t even try.