For perhaps most members of the Mormon faith, the
concept of "Mormon Pluralism" might seem to be a contradiction in terms. After all, the Doctrine & Covenants seems
rather explicit in its first section when God reveals to Joseph Smith that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30). This revelation has been consistently
reinforced to the present time by Mormon authorities and used to justify its ambitious missionary efforts as well as its vicarious
ordinances for the dead. The clear consensus for most members of the Mormon faith is that salvation comes through and only
through Mormonism. Other religions might have pieces but Mormonism contains the full picture, the necessary rites, the Ultimate
Truth. The quandary that confronts the serious student of religion with this view, however, is that this claim reappears in
nearly every religion across the globe. In Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, and the thousands of branches of Christianity, one finds
sincere, committed, believing individuals making similar claims of their own respective faiths. As John Hick puts it: "Each
community believes that its own gospel is true and that other gospels are false in so far as they differ from it. Each believes
that the way of salvation to which it witnesses is the authentic way, the only sure path to eternal blessedness" (335). So
the natural question that arises from such diverse claims is: Which one is true? As Joseph Smith asked in confronting his
own confusion on the matter: "What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If
any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?" (JSH 1:10) The answer Joseph Smith ultimately received to
these inquiries in his remarkable First Vision was that the competing religions in question "were all wrong," that "they draw
near to [God] with their lips, but their hearts are far from [Him]" (JSH 1:19). Ten years later, at the age of 24, Joseph
Smith created a new world religion, a religion which he believed would restore the purity and power of the original church
of Christ.
This religious motif of finding one’s present
situation/condition inadequate, searching for something greater, receiving divine counsel/understanding, and returning to
impart a new way or path transcends the Sacred Grove of Palmyra, New York, where Joseph Smith received his vision. One can
see a very similar pattern in the life of Buddha, in Mohammed, in Moses, and in Jesus Christ. In each of these cases, the
climate that surrounded these individuals had become spiritually misguided and oppressive—the revelations they received
provided a fresh and vibrant re-connection with the Divine or the Real. Joseph Campbell calls this the "vision quest," a universal
motif of struggle, enlightenment, and "return from the mountain." Yet here again, with these diverse, yet, in many ways, strikingly
similar stories one is confronted with the question: Can they all be true? Is it possible that all of these individuals were
divinely inspired, that their stories are simply different manifestations of the same Transcendent Truth? And if so, how does
one then account for the wide range of theologies, doctrines, and practices that resulted?
At this point, it is necessary to define what is meant
by the term "religious pluralism." John Hick describes it like this:
[Religious] Pluralism is the view that the great world
faiths embody different perceptions and conceptions of, and correspondingly different responses to, the Real or the Ultimate
from within the major variant cultural ways of being human; and that within each of them the transformation of human existence
from self-centredness to Reality-centredness is manifestly taking place—and taking place, so far as human observations
can tell, to much the same extent. Thus the great religious traditions are to be regarded as alternative soteriological ‘spaces’
within which, or ‘ways’ along which, men and women can find salvation/liberation/enlightenment/fulfillment. (341)
In other words, religious pluralism claims that all
religions are interpretations of the Divine Reality, therefore they are all valid or "true" paths to the extent that they
help one on the journey to salvation/liberation/enlightenment/fulfillment. As Hindu scripture presents it: "Truth is One;
the sages call it by many names" (Rig Veda 1:164:46).
We should quickly clarify that the term religious
pluralism is sometimes associated with slightly, but significantly different shades of meaning than the one just mentioned.
Pluralism is sometimes simply meant as religious tolerance and inter-faith dialogue and harmony. According to this view, one
can still believe their own faith is the primary source of Ultimate Truth, but acknowledges the importance of mutual understanding
and co-existence. For others, the term is equated with religious relativism, which essentially claims (in much the same way
as Postmodernism) that there is no center; there is no Ultimate Truth, or if there is, it is unknowable. Therefore, all religious
expressions are equally valid (or invalid) regardless of their doctrines or practices. Finally, there is John Hick’s
pluralism, which believes in a center, or Ultimate Truth/Reality, but holds that no major religion should be privileged over
another. All are equally valid responses to the Divine. My definition is closest to Hick’s, but differs slightly in
that I hold that while no religion is a perfect representation of the Divine Reality, and while all major religions
contain wisdom and truth, some might contain more than others depending on both their individual and collective connection
or in-tune-ness with the Divine. In other words, just because there are many paths to the top of the mountain, doesn’t
mean that some paths might not be more effective. A path (or religion) at any given stage might be so ridden with tradition,
distraction, and/or corruption that it ceases to be very helpful (as noted earlier, this is
often when a prophet comes to show a new way). In
addition, one path might work better for a given individual than another. The most important thing, of course, is not the
path itself, but its usefulness as a means of connection, community, and a common purpose.
With this background, then, we move back to the question
of Mormon Pluralism. It is sufficiently clear from Joseph Smith’s recorded writings and revelations that he believed
wholeheartedly that Mormonism was the true gospel. The distinction to make here is what he meant by "Mormonism." And
whether calling Mormonism "true" necessarily meant that all other world religions were "false." Starting with the former,
Joseph Smith wrote, "Truth is Mormonism" (Burton 199). With this broad and encompassing definition, the term "Mormonism" is
turned into an ideal, an eternal reality not yet actualized, but sought after. Mormonism as understood and practiced by its
followers, Joseph Smith recognized, was limited according to each individual’s spiritual development. As he once wrote:
"I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently
see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as something comes
that is contrary to their traditions" (Burton 146). This quote clearly shows Smith’s recognition of tradition and culture
as components, and sometimes hindrances, to "true religion." In fact, Joseph Smith recognized some of these same weaknesses
and limitations in himself as well. He once referred to himself as "a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain;
and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else, striking with accelerated
force" (History 5:401). Yes, he was a prophet, but he was also a human being, and thus the word of God came through him filtered.
When he had revelations, he interpreted them with the mind of an early 19th-century American; when he "translated"
the Book of Mormon, he did so in the language that was familiar to him—that of the King James Bible. So there are two
"Mormonisms" to distinguish here: the ideal, which is more of a goal or a vision of hope; and Mormonism as represented on
earth, with all of its virtues and vices, truths and traditions.
An illustration might be helpful to understand the
point being made here. Imagine God/Truth/Ultimate Reality as the Sun. Mormonism as manifested here on earth can be likened
to a ray from the Sun, as can Taoism, Buddhism, Judaism, Catholicism, etc. Depending on the time and circumstances, a given
ray might be brighter or dimmer. But they are all rays, as Frithjof Schuon writes, "emanating from the Divine Source" (155).
Another example is language. The Divine Reality could be considered the pure language, perfect expression—which of course,
doesn’t exist on earth. Instead we have thousands of sub-languages, large and small. People generally tend to like their
own language the best, but they also typically recognize its limitations—there are things they feel and think that simply
can’t be put into words. In addition, most people, when they take the time to learn other languages, find startling
new dimensions of expression and communication that they were unable to find in their own. So it is with religion, and thus
the great value in seeing outside the boundaries of one’s own faith.
The argument then with Mormonism is that it is a ray
of light among many, and is influenced in many of the same ways as other faiths by tradition, culture, language, etc. As fourteenth-century
Sufi Al-Junayd expressed it: "The color of the water is that of its container" (Hick 43). Joseph Smith himself acknowledged:
"The inquiry is frequently made of me, ‘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" (Burton 199).
Indeed, this is the grand fundamental truth of pluralism—that we can learn from each other, that our end purposes are
essentially the same, that we are all grasping at the same Transcendent Reality, but all doing so according to our own traditions
and cultures, symbols and stories.
Because of this, they might seem to differ drastically
on the surface. It might seem impossible to reconcile Christianity with Judaism, Islam with Buddhism, Catholicism with Mormonism.
Yet as the Dalai Lama writes, "Every major religion of the world has similar ideals of love, the same goal of benefiting humanity
through spiritual practice, and the same effect of making their followers better human beings" (Moses 1). Some consider this
kind of "universalism" softening the sharp edges or sugar-coating the substantial differences between religions. Yet as Perennialists
(a faction of Pluralism started by Rene Guenon and Frithjof Schuon) point out: "knowing requires a knower and a known" (Smith
7). In other words, there is an artist, his paintings, and then the variety of ways people interpret those paintings (and
in turn, the artist). When one understands this concept, the diverse expressions and responses to the Divine make sense.
"Does one faith carry the lead," Huston Smith asks,
"or do the parts share in counterpoint and antiphony where not in full-throated chorus? We cannot know. All we can do is try
to listen carefully and with full attention to each voice in turn as it addresses the divine" (xxi). This is where Smith and
I differ from John Hick’s pluralism; we recognize that it is quite possible that one faith has a better map than another;
but we also believe that even the "best" among us might have something missing, something that might be discovered among the
"least" of us.
Ghandi once said, "Truth is the only religion" (Smith
xv), and Brigham Young likewise remarked: "All truth issues forth from the Fountain of truth. Our religion is simply the truth.
It is all said in this one expression—it embraces all truth, wherever found" (Young 2). It is this kind of inclusivism
that will benefit Mormonism the most as it continues forward. Historically, it is when religions become exclusive, isolated,
infallible institutions that they are in fact furthest from God and from actually reaching and benefitting humanity. There
is nothing wrong then with believing that Mormonism, in its ideal form, is synonymous with Truth—this was the belief
of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. But one must also recognize the difference between this ideal and reality as it is manifest
in the world. A religion may strive for truth, for its ideal, for God, but ultimately and inevitably it falls short. What
we have instead are imperfect organizations and belief systems created by inspired, but imperfect human beings. As John Hick
writes: "The Divine Reality exceeds the reach of our earthly speech and thought. It cannot be encompassed in human concepts.
It is infinite, eternal, limitlessly rich beyond the scope of our finite conceiving or experiencing" (343).
Because of this we would do better to think of religions
as different ships on the sea, and not the actual shore of a world most of us can only imagine. Fortunately, there have been
those inspired individuals—poets, prophets, visionaries, and mystics—who have had glimpses of the beyond—"intimations
of immortality," as Wordsworth wrote—and left behind maps and paintings and stories to help us along the way. Mormon
Pluralism recognizes that we shouldn’t isolate ourselves on this journey, but share and learn and admit mistakes. In
this way, our paths will ultimately converge with the Buddhist’s, the Hindu’s, the Jew’s, our rays of light
will merge and become brighter, and all those who have sought God diligently will find him.
Works Consulted
Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1989.
Burton, Alma. Discourses of the Prophet
Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1977.
Campbell, Joseph. The Power of Myth.
New York: Random House, 1991.
Hawkins, Bradley K. Asian Religions.
New York: Pearson, 2004.
Hick, John. "A Philosophy of Religious
Pluralism." A John Hick Reader. New York: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Hick, John. The Fifth Dimension.
Oxford: Oneworld, 1999.
History of the Church. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1989.
Holy Bible- Authorized King James Version. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 1989.
Dalai Lama. How to Practice. New
York: Atria Books, 2002.
Doctrine and Covenants. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 1989.
Moses, Jeffrey. Oneness: Great Principle
Shared By All Religions. New York: Ballantine Books, 1989.
Peterson, Michael and William Hasker. Reason
and Religious Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Smith, Huston. The World’s Religions.
San Francisco: Harper, 1991.
Smith, Huston. Why Religion Matters.
San Francisco: Harper, 2001.
Schuon, Frithjof. The Transcendent Unity
of Religions. London: Quest Books, 1993.
Widstone, John A. Discourses of Brigham
Young. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998.
