Is this not the end of discussion for LDS members concerning other religions? – And should an LDS member come into contact with other ‘writings’, such as the Apocrypha etc. – then the advice is to use D&C 91, when studying such material.

Also, fwiw, there is a new, first-time bishop in our stake (33-years-old) who conducted on Sunday (his second week as bishop) and in his testimony stated several times, “I know . . .” and several times, “I believe . . .” It was neat to hear.

Yet I like that Buddhist axiom’s directness and confidence in certainty being a hindrance to wisdom. As various Bible translations have tried to render the Greek of Hebrews 11:1 it becomes evident how English translators have grappled with certainty, seeming to struggle to express whether hope and confidence is enough to encompass what faith in Christ is. Why is this? It makes me think of LDS people who would feel uncomfortable to bear a testimony saying they believe, have faith or hope rather than know “with every fiber of their being.” Then, again, I’m one of those people suspicious of certainty. That doesn’t mean it can’t be possible.

Hebrews 11:1

International Standard Version
Now faith is the assurance that what we hope for will come about and the certainty that what we cannot see exists.

New American Standard Bible
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

New International Version
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

GOD’S WORD® Translation
Faith assures us of things we expect and convinces us of the existence of things we cannot see.

King James Bible
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

American King James Version
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

American Standard Version
Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.

Bible in Basic English
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the sign that the things not seen are true.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.

Darby Bible Translation
Now faith is the substantiating of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

English Revised Version
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen.

Weymouth New Testament
Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see.

World English Bible
Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen.

Young’s Literal Translation
And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,

New English Bible
Faith… makes us certain of realities we do not see.

James Moffatt Translation
Now faith means that we are confident of what we hope for, convinced of what we do not see.

Amplified Bible
NOW FAITH is the assurance (the confirmation, [a]the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the sense

New Living Translation
Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.

I should address this too, which I didn’t.

I have non argument with you here at all. (Not that we’re arguing.) That is to say, I agree with you.

However, please don’t miss my point. I have no real life examples of it, just a lot of people that claim and and then immediately contradict it with their actions.

But I live in America which has a very Protestant culture and not a very Buddhist culture, so this makes sense that this would be my experience.

If I were to actually encounter someone that believed “all religions are equal” in the sense that you are suggesting, they’d certainly not act the way anyone I’ve had this discussion with so far for exactly the reasons you have so skillfully outlined.

Update: okay, let me try to say this another way. I believe I could use this as an example. If I don’t believe my religion is based on logical reasoning then the fact that I have something that isn’t logical in my religion doesn’t matter much.

This makes sense.

Buddhism, in your example, has a teaching, as you outlined it, that isn’t logical and is a contradiction. But who cares when having a contradiction doesn’t matter to that religion, right?

My point is does not contradict yours. It is “if you claim logic and reason don’t matter, then you don’t get to pretend to disprove me through logic and reason while ignoring the contradictions in your own religion.”

I see your point. I think your issue is that I “asserted” that there is possibly no such thing as a religion with no truth claims and did so in a way that might imply you believed this and I am debunking it. But what you are really saying is that the value assigned to them is not the same and thus there can be a difference. I admit this is not contradictory.

Furthermore, you are saying that this makes a religion such as Buddhism superior to another type of religion in some circumstances, such as dealing with certain types of truth claims like “all religions are equal.” I believe you are right.

But the fact that you are right is consistent with my position entirely. In fact it compliments my point.

I also believe a contradiction can teach truth without being true. I view the traditional Trinity doctrine that way.

I think you may be missing my point (albeit a slight, but significant point). My claim is that differing religious traditions ascribe differing levels of significance to ‘truth’ or propositional claims about the nature of reality. Your notion of religion puts them at the forefront, and while that may hold true for certain religious traditions, it does not hold universally. The implication is that religious traditions which do not ascribe a central role to propositional truth claims have a higher tolerance for conflicting propositions (such as the possibility that “all religions are the same” or that “all religions are valid”); and this higher tolerance is not a superficial ignorance of the illogicality of their position, but rather a different perception of the role of religion.

Continuing the example of Mahayana Buddhism, there are several ways in which they devalue truth claims as propositional knowledge. The Vimalakirti Sutra is a text built around the story of several monks, lay people, and Bodhisattvas attempting to describe non-duality (the ultimate stage of breaking the cycle of birth and rebirth). The descriptions get more and more elaborate (and propositionally complex) until the culminating chapter where the main character, Vimalakirti, is asked for his description and he remains silent as if he never heard the question. The best answer, this sutra reveals, is no answer at all.

Now, you can respond that this story is built on a contradiction because Vimalakirti’s silence must be related (you reading the words or me telling you the story), and as such has propositional claims. That’s fine, but the Buddhist response would be that if you think you’ve really understood the story by reading it or listening to it, then you’ve missed the point. You can respond to say that the Buddhist is still furthering his contradiction by telling you that you missed the point, at which point the only recourse would be silence on the Buddhist’s part. Zen Koans, FWIW, are meant to function to this end (“Someone asked, ‘The patriarch Lu sat facing the wall. What was he trying to show?’ The master covered his ears with his hands.”). They are meant to deny the value we sometimes give to propositional truth claims.

I suppose you could respond in regards to our conversation here by saying that I am contradicting myself by explaining these things in such a way that I am making propositional claims (you certainly imply that such is the case). But that doesn’t bother me. I am not asserting that I am not making a propositional claim; neither am I claiming that Buddhism doesn’t, just that the value assigned to them is significantly different.

I normally think of a strawman as attacking a position by stating it falsely so that it’s easy to attack. In other words, a strawman, to me, is a non-existent position.

But we have positive proof with Bill’s post in #1 that the position I was criticizing is real and not a strawman because he asserts he can come up with ways to reconcile the mutually exclusive propositional claims.

So I believe you are advocating a similar but different position.

However, I believe I’ve already addressed your position too in my post, though perhaps not as clearly as I should have: those that believe all religions are equally false in propositional claims and that their real purpose is to help us be happy here and now. I believe I already acquiesced on that point.

If all religions have no truth about our current reality (that is to say, they are all equally false in their truth claims), then it really and truely does not matter what religion you believe in as the sole purpose is to make you happy. This what I was trying to get at when I spoke of the possibility of all religions being ‘equally false’ and is exactly the same as my example of the atheist position of reality where religions sole purpose is to comfort because the truth is too horrible to be of any value.

However, your excellent example does help clarify this a lot and hopefully makes my position clearer. If there really is someone out there (of which I have certainly never met) that really does believe that religions purpose is purely to comfort, then clearly, to them, all religions would be the same.

The concern I have with people in my life that have tried to make this argument (“all religions are equally true”) is that they don’t believe it in practice but only as a club against those they disagree with. They seem to want to have it both ways. What they really mean is that all religions, other then their personal views, are equally wrong except in so far as they agree with them. The examples of my boss, for example, show this quite clearly, though I could cite numerous other examples.

SmallAxe, I am not suggesting that you fall into that category or not. But I believe I’m covering both arguments: If a person honestly believes multiple mutually exclusive claims can be true, they are wrong. If they believe that all propositional claims are equally wrong, then it doesn’t matter and there is no basis for debate.

>>> Instead, the point I want to raise by reciting all of this is that a religious tradition, not meant to make a propositional claim about the nature of reality, has better internal resources to tolerate contradictions, seeming paradoxes, and claims such as “all religious traditions are the same”

I do find it interesting that you just made a propositional claim here about the nature of reality, and it wasn’t that the house was on fire.

Incidently, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. I suspect that you are right.

But I guess that does bring up a point. Is there REALLY such a thing as a religion with no propositional claims? I admit to the logical possiblity of it, but I am not sure it could exist in practice.

I think, however, your portrayal of the position that “all religions are equally true” is either a strawman or an over-simplified picture of the actual position. When I’ve met people that make the kind of statement you’re arguing against, they often mean the following (and will usually elaborate as such when pushed on the issue):

All religions have truths. Many of these truths have significant overlaps (areas of ethics or morality you refer to above for instance), and religions can often accommodate many of the truths they do not currently have (such as the inclusivist position you outline above). Where there are areas of disagreement it is primarily in the area of soteriology, an area that is limited in terms of our understanding of what actually goes on (in other words the Transcendent ‘transcends’ our understanding). In other words your claim is that there must be a certain ‘right’ view about reality—I cannot both be resurrected and be reincarnated. However the basis on which ‘reality’ (or the ‘Real’, to use John Hick’s term), or the right view is known, is not on knowledge in the empirical sense of the term. This is to say that all religions agree that the Real transcends our understanding of it, and our religions are inadequate depictions of it. There is no way, at least in this life, to prove who is ultimately right and so we likewise cannot prove who is ultimately wrong.

I mention this because this seems to be the dominant view in the discourse on religious pluralism. Those that hold this view of course express it much more eloquently than I have above (for a more detailed account see Hick’s Interpretation of Religion and Mark Heim’s excellent critique in Salvations ).

The larger issue however, I want to raise is that the discourse of ‘truth seeking’ or religion as a system of propositional claims about the nature of reality, is culturally located and representative of certain kinds of religious traditions, and not ‘religion’ in a world-wide sense. I’m not saying that there are religious traditions that do not make propositional arguments, but rather that the role of propositional claims or ‘truths’ (or ‘Truth’ with a big ‘T’) plays less of a central role in some religious traditions.

Take the case of Mahayana Buddhism for instance. The notion of upaya, usually translated as ‘expedient means’, is a key concept. An example of the way this concept works is in the Lotus Sutra (among many others). In the second chapter a story is told about a father that realizes his house is on fire. He loves his children, but they don’t believe him and insist on staying in the house. After several failed attempts to get them out, the father finally results in telling them that there are three carts outside the house filled with the treasures they love. All of the children run out to find that there are in fact no carts with treasure, but they then turn around and realize that the house is on fire.

The usage of ‘carts’ in this story is purposeful. “Mahayana” of course means “great vehicle” or “great cart”. The three carts represent the three kinds of Buddhisms. The point is that, according to Buddhists, ‘Buddhism’ as a religious tradition is not ‘real’ in the propositional sense. Anyone taking Buddhism as a series of propositional claims about the reality of life is misunderstanding the role of Buddhism. Instead the tradition acts performatively—it’s meant to produce a particular result (the realization that the house is on fire), and not meant to describe ‘truth’ per se.

Now, one can certainly respond by saying that a propositional claim is still being made. Namely that the house is on fire (which is to say that we live in a world of suffering). Buddhism internally has a response to that, which I’m not going to go into here (although I can if you’re interested). Instead, the point I want to raise by reciting all of this is that a religious tradition, not meant to make a propositional claim about the nature of reality, has better internal resources to tolerate contradictions, seeming paradoxes, and claims such as “all religious traditions are the same”. For an interesting historical account of this situation see Gernet’s China and the Christian Impact .

Maybe you can have me over for dinner and let me meet two NOM missionaries.

“Yes, if your view is that ultimate truth is so profound that it’s impossible to actually put it together into a meaningful or more meangingful form, then yes, I see your point.
I could also see that point if all religions are “equally false.””

I wouldn’t dream of making this to simple… I’m just implying that God’s methods for judging us, His actual “rules of engagement” with us, His plan for what we’ll actually be doing in the next life, and the whole real meaning of life thing seem like bigger questions then we could understand from a mortal perspective.

As for all religions being “equally false”, I would rather stay on the positive side of things and look for the good that these religions provide as opposed to the drawbacks of dealing with man-made religious dogma. Your recent long debate over SSM brings this point home. As with similar issues in the past, the church at times has been at odds with the maturing attitudes of their members. The position of the First Presidency today could be totally reversed in twenty years by the next presidency and apologist will go to great lengths to show that the earlier statements were just policy and not doctrine. My father still has little to do with the church because of a decision made in 1978. By the same token, if the church still denied people of color entrance to the temple, many of us wouldn’t be in it today.

Please don’t take my comments as criticism directed strictly at our church. All churches have been guilty of redefining God has people become more informed. We claim these changes come by way of revelation, other churches call it inspiration, but the effect is the same, religion as a whole trying to redefine itself to stay viable to the masses. For me it’s logical evidence of their man-made origin.

“But is that really what you believe, Doug? I think your every post here proves otherwise. You do believe it’s possible to have “more truth” and that this “more truth” has value. You even believe in sharing it and encouraging others to partake”

Bruce, I’ve always said, “knowledge is power”. So you are right on the money with the above statement. Now if I could just get you to see the rest of the story…

“I hope you’ll see this as a bridge between our views for I believe it is or could be.”

I do Bruce, thanks for your respectful tone. Mostly I comment here for many who lurk but don’t write. I think many who read want to know there are others who understand many of the unsettling things about the church but still find a way to stay with it… My particular philosophy allows one to do that…

Yes, this is a question worth pursuing.

>>> Without being offensive, even the most devout of any faith should be cognizant of the evolving “doctrines” of their particular creed. It’s happened in all and exemplifies my point, religion is manmade and tolerated by God for a greater purpose.

I will not attempt to argue with you on this other than to say it’s a non sequitur. (For example, that argument assumes that we’re incapable of even getting a close fit or a closer fit and that being closer provides no value.)

But the fact that it’s not a “logical deduction” doesn’t make it wrong or “illogical.” It just means you have a certain creed and faith and it is rooted in emotion and feelings just like, well, me. (And everyone else, of course.)

>>> With this understanding it becomes possible for most all religion to be true for God’s purposes.

Yes, if your view is that ultimate truth is so profound that it’s impossible to actually put it together into a meaningful or more meangingful form, then yes, I see your point.

I could also see that point if all religions are “equally false.”

But is that really what you believe, Doug? I think your every post here proves otherwise. You do believe it’s possible to have “more truth” and that this “more truth” has value. You even believe in sharing it and encouraging others to partake.

I can also see your implied point that salvation (how ever that is defined) may be equally accessible from multiple religious belief systems — or possibly every religious belief system that beliefs in morality. (This is one way I might read your “for God’s purposes” comment.) But I’m not sure we necessarily disagree on this.

I think the one thing we can definitely agree upon, though, Doug, is that it makes no sense at all that a good God would damn everyone that doesn’t “believe the right thing” as some sort of punishment. It seems to me that we also agree that God allows for and work within every religion and that salvation in one form or another is available to all. It seems to me that these are the main thing you have objected to in the past, really, and that I really strongly agree with you on those objections and have never had an argument with you over them. I hope you’ll see this as a bridge between our views for I believe it is or could be.

I agree completely with that idea, as, in my reading of it, it essentially says that we all see through a glass, darkly. Ironically, that’s one of my favorite aspects of Mormonism – that, while it encourages us to strive to “know” all we can know and makes “one true church” claims, it also allows explicitly for great truth to be contained in other religions, the possibility that we can learn from other religions, the idea that all sincere seekers of truth will be saved and can be exalted, etc.

We natural (wo)men botch that basic ideal of the Restored Gospel regularly, but I love that it’s there.

From your perspective above and things you’ve written on other posts, you obviously believe Mormonism is the ultimate truth in the universe. I’m not saying that in a derogatory way nor do I mean that statement to infer that I think there’s anything wrong with believing your particular brand of religion with accompanying “doctrines” is the most correct. If that’s not you’re going in position then please straighten me out.

You and I have had many discussions on this board dealing with this same subject in one way or another. I’m not going to take issue with the basic premise of your essay, there can only be one truth. An even more important thought may be whether or not we as very narrow minded beings with extremely limited perspective have the ability to comprehend these ultimate truths? Man has tried for centuries to tie them up in a nice package and present their philosophy as having it all figured out. If my particular perspective is correct, then no “religion” can understand these ultimate truths and therefore all religions are foolishness to God.

So how would a loving God deal with this problem? I guess he could just go away and let us live out our existence without his influence. I doubt this possibility, but for the agnostic, this might be reality. I lean toward God doing what he can with such primitive souls in inspiring them to live in a way that brings peace and a sense of being much more than our limited sight allows for now… Of course this is just another philosophical explanation of God and a limited mind trying to figure out the infinite.

Without being offensive, even the most devout of any faith should be cognizant of the evolving “doctrines” of their particular creed. It’s happened in all and exemplifies my point, religion is manmade and tolerated by God for a greater purpose. With this understanding it becomes possible for most all religion to be true for God’s purposes.

Thanks for the further explanation on the Baha’i faith. As I stated, I think very highly of the Baha’i after meeting with them. What a beautiful form of religious expression.

However, I have noted in any discourse I have with them a tendency to, at least initially, stay away from any charged issues where their beliefs would suggest the incorrectness of other religions — even though real — and and instead emphasis the commonalities (as you do) on such issues as believing most religions have a real prophet or revelation at their founding.

There is usually little talk of, say, Baha’u’llah teachings that a true prophet is only sent after 1000 years, which (for example) eliminates the possiblity of Joseph Smith being a true prophet of God. I’d have to say this basically does away with every meaningful teaching of Mormonism. (Yes, I’m aware Baha’u’llah did think Joseph Smith was at least inspired in his religiosity. Somehow I doubt that means much to your average believing Mormon.)

I’m not against emphasizing commonalities and I think that’a good basic principle when starting a sincere religious discussion. But for a believing Mormon that believes Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, your beliefs do not equate to Mormons being “true” in any meaningful sense. (Though does seem to allow for ’savlation’ through the influence of true prophets such as Jesus. I’m grateful for that teaching of the Baha’i, by the way, and should note that Mormonism has a very similar belief. It teaches that all the prophets/founders of the world religions were truly inspired of God and that all religions can obtain salvation from hell.)

But the Baha’i faith really does boil down to the Baha’i having the true faith and everyone else having an paritial version of the truth. Logically there was no other possiblity, so this doesn’t shock me in the slightest.

This is not just the case with Mormonism and Baha’i. As far as I can tell, it’s true of every single world religion and the Baha’i. For example, to accept the Baha’i faith for a Christian is to basically give up every thing in Christianity. Jesus isn’t the only name under heaven whereby a person can be saved. There is no “grace” in the Christian sense of the word due to Jesus’ sacrifice. There is no need to bring the message to the world through missionary efforts. Jesus is not uniquely the Son of God and God the Son. There is no resurrection in the Christian sense of the term because Jesus already returned but as a moral man (Baha’u’llah) rather than a glorious being. There is no literal kingdom of heaven that Jesus will return and rule over where the world is changed forever.

What do the Baha’i really leave Christianity that they care about? I’d suggest basically nothing.

I do not mean to imply that I think there is anything wrong with this in the slightest. The Baha’i, in my opinion, should proclaim what they feel is the truth to the world and should do it according to how they see fit — just as all religions should. That is the real path to religious tolerance, not shutting down discourse (usually everyone else’s discourse, I might add) as many advocate.

(I don’t mean the Baha’i here. I have seen no such tendencies there. This was actually a comment aimed at those who advocate a purely secular discourse publiclly. I think Obama did a good job of putting this myth to rest.)

If I have misunderstood some of the Baha’i’s beliefs, which seems likely, I would appreciate further conversation on the topic so that I can understand better. But you should be warned that I will ask tough questions of the Baha’i faith just like I expect everyone to of all religions.

I note your reference to the Baha’i belief in the oneness of religion as signifying nothing more than “all religions have important truths” or “all religions can bring you closer to God, though not in equal measures.”

As a Baha’i I’d say that is not precisely our position. When Baha’is speak of the oneness of religion by that we mean, in the words of the Qur’an, “that there is no people to whom a prophet has not been sent.” In other words, all religions are one because with a very few exceptions, they are all grounded in a genuine divine revelation. In speaking of the differences between religions Baha’u'llah writes:

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.” Every fair-minded soul will testify that these words are to be viewed as a mirror of the knowledge of God, wherein all that hath been inquired is clearly and conspicuously reflected. Blessed is he who hath been endowed with seeing eyes by God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.”

Baha’is see religion as having too aspects, one spiritual and one social. While there is a basic unity to the spiritual basis of all religions, the social teachings change with needs of the age. It is in this social aspect only that the Baha’is would consider themselves as superior to other religions, not necessarily their ability to bring people closer to God. For instance, it was not possible in the past to fully proclaim the equality of men and women. But that is one of the central principles of the Baha’i Faith. The same would true of many other principles such as the independent investigation of truth, the elimination of the extremes of poverty and wealth, the elimination of prejudice and fanaticism, etc.

warmest, Susan

That is why i am in the LDS Church because, in the end, it makes sense to me. And that one right answer can prevail.

By all means, share.

I admit there might be some partial reconcilations. But the real challenge is not to say something like the above in a theoretical sense but to instead actually take two people, one believeing A and one B, and get them to reconcile without giving up things near and dear to them.

Once we move out of the realm of theoretical possiblities and into real life, most of the arguments I’ve seen to reconcile the two columns basically die upon their first dose of reality. For better or for worse, it is more consistent to just admit that you believe you have some truths others don’t and you believe you are better off because of it. I certainly see this as the higher integrity (or at least more rational) approach to beliefs. And I don’t believe it to be mutually exclusive from belief in universal salvation or universal availability of salvation, which is what I think people are really trying to get at most of the time but just haven’t really thought it through.

For that matter, if there really was a way to fully reconcile A and B, then wouldn’t that just mean that none of those beliefs matter at all?

In the conversations with my manager, I found that his ideas to reconcile beliefs failed the reality test. For exmaple, he didn’t mind accepting my beliefs as true for me so long as he understood them as sub par compared to his own. For example, I might create an imaginary world where I think I’m married to my wife forever in the celestial kingdom and become a God and I really believe it, but it’s just an imagined realm created from thought energy. Meanwhile he goes on to really merge with God and find the truest possible happiness in nirvana. Under such circumstances, I’d rather know that I’m wrong and he’s right and work out (and on) the truth now.