Editor’s note:  This is part 1 of a talk given by Joseph Fielding McConkie on November 5, 2005, at a Joseph Smith Symposium held in Palmyra, New York. Read part two here.

In revelation both ancient and modern, the Lord refers to his own words as being “sharper than a two edged sword.” [1]   In modern vernacular, much that he said is “politically incorrect.”  It is judgmental, divisive, rigid, closed-minded, and all too often just plain embarrassing.  In many of our instructional meetings, the teaching of ethics prevails over the teaching of doctrine simply to avoid giving offense or to avoid disagreement.  Everyone is pleased to speak of God’s love; rare are the mentions of his wrath or displeasure.

I have chosen to consider three touchy or sensitive texts that stand at the very heart of our theology. I do so to honor Joseph and Hyrum Smith, the great martyrs of our faith.  They did not seal their testimony with their blood in the jail at Carthage so that we might teach ethics.  They did not die in the hope that future generations of Latter-day Saints would go out and say to the world, “Look we are just like you.”

In death, John Taylor said, they sought to put a seal on the revelations found in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon. [2]  They sought neither acceptance nor approval on the part of the historical Christian world.  Indeed, in all matters of faith they sought to stand independent of it.  As ironic as it may seem to some, it was in this course and in this course alone that they and those who sustained them expected to find peace.

I invite you to join me in consideration of three passages of scripture, each of which comes from the revelations of the Restoration and each of which is frequently claimed by those not of our faith to be offensive to them.  Even within the Church there are some that are uncomfortable with these texts and feel a need to be apologetic for them.

The first comes from the Lord’s preface to the Book of Commandments, in which he refers to the Church recently organized by Joseph Smith as “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30); the second is a part of the Prophet’s account of what we call the First Vision in which he asked the Lord which church he should join.  “I was answered,” the Prophet said, “that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong: and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof” (JS-H 1:19).

The third text comes from the Book of Mormon, in which Nephi speaking to those of our day said there would be “save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth” (1 Nephi 14:10).

Tolerance

Before addressing each of these texts, I would like to make some brief observations about the principle of tolerance. You may be interested to know that the word “tolerance” traces back to merry old England at a time when they were experimenting with drugs and poison. The idea was to see how much they could administer to a person without killing him. Your level of “tolerance” was measured by the amount of poison you could endure before it killed you. [3]

When I was a young man, tolerance meant that we treated those with whom we disagreed with civility. It did not mean that we were obligated to accept their point of view. To many of the young people in my classes today, it means that we are to be non-judgmental, holding all men and all ideas to be equal and that it is morally wrong to say that something is morally wrong. It is not an unusual thing to have students cover willful disobedience in the blanket of God’s love and to advance the idea of a universal salvation that sounds dangerously like that advocated by Lucifer in the councils of heaven.

Being Christ-Like

People like to equate tolerance with Christ-like behavior, which is in many ways a rather awkward fit. My assumption is that you too have noticed that the appeal for Christ-like behavior generally comes from people who have no meaningful understanding of how Christ behaved and who would be greatly surprised to find out.

When the dialogue between Christ and the woman from Canaan was read recently in a religion class at BYU, a number of the students were uneasy with the account of Christ’s behavior. A number of attempts were made to excuse or justify it. One student suggested that in calling the woman a “dog,” Christ was really using a term of endearment. Such an explanation does not fit well in the context of the story. Finally a young lady gave expression to the thought that troubled many of her classmates. With tears in her eyes she exclaimed, “But Jesus was so unchristian” (Matthew 15:21-28).

It was Isaiah who said that the Christ would come as “a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence” (Isaiah 8:14). The only way we can square the Jesus of the New Testament with the political correctness of our day (our modern version of tolerance) is to suppose that God is no longer offended by vulgarity, profanity, or immorality.

F.F. Bruce in his book, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, reminds us that Christ made many enemies. Bruce states: “The Jesus whom we meet in the Gospels, far from being an inoffensive person, gave offence right and left. Even his loyal followers found him, at times, thoroughly disconcerting. He upset all established notions of religious propriety. He spoke of God in terms of intimacy which sounded like blasphemy. He seemed to enjoy the most questionable company. He set out with open eyes on a road which, in the view of ‘sensible’ people, was bound to lead to disaster.” [4]

As to how we as Latter-day Saints view those not of our faith and as to how we determine who in this world is “Christian” and who is not, may I suggest that though many in the Christian world are anxious to draw a circle and exclude us. We choose to draw a very large and inclusive circle. We will pray with any man who is willing to do so. Our bookstores do not contain anti-anybody literature, we do not attack those of other faiths in our missionary lesson plan, nor do we do so in our church services or in any class sponsored by the Church. We do not give out warnings against those of other faiths nor do we ever forbid our membership from listening to or talking to anyone they desire.

We seek to treat all that we meet on the path of life with dignity and respect and heartily join hands with all whose lives are founded on the principles of love and kindness. We esteem their religious rights as sacred, as our own, and are their allies in the defense of the same. As to enemies, we did not choose them, they have chosen us. We have always had them and we always will. Where we cannot befriend them we choose to live above them. 

If any man or woman professes a belief in Christ we say, “So much to the good” they are at least on the road leading to gospel enlightenment. As my father noted, “It is better to be a partial Christian than a non-Christian. It is better to believe some of the doctrines of Christ rather than none at all. One truth paves the way for another, and we all need to advance in knowledge and understanding.” [5]

We take it as an article of faith that “there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it” (D&C 123:12). So it is that we have, or yet will send missionaries to those of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.

Those missionaries will endure all manner of insult and hardship to present our message, which they will do with remarkable patience and in great love. They are the peacemakers of whom Christ spoke in the Sermon on the Mount, and it is of them that Isaiah said, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation” (Matthew 5:9; Isaiah 52:7).   

The Ecumenical Movement

As a young man I was commissioned as an officer in the Army of the United States and assigned to serve as a chaplain. My first duty was to report to an officer’s training school at Fort Hamilton in New York. There the Chief of Chaplains, a three star general by the name of Charley Brown, told us that our commission was to be the “grassroots of the ecumenical movement.” There were one hundred of us in that class, representing every major faith in our country. We were instructed to work together. We were informed that it was a violation of military law for us to proselyte for our own faith. Were I to attempt to teach Mormonism to someone who was not already a Latter-day Saint would have been grounds for a court marshal. Such is the cost of an ecumenical movement.

I appreciate the observation of Elder Maxwell, who said, “There is today more ecumenicism, but there is also more shared doubt. More and more people believe less and less — but they do believe it together. The fewer the issues, the easier it is to get agreements. The fewer standards there are, the less there is for congregations to rebel against. Since knowing is tied to doing, and doing to knowing, there is an awful cycle in all of this.” [6]           

By revelation, we as a people have been charged to stand independent of the world (see D&C 78:14). In a directive to priesthood leaders President Packer stated, “It is important to maintain a cordial and cooperative relationship with the leaders and members of other denominations. Representatives of the Church should not join interfaith organizations that have as their focus ecumenical activities or joint worship services. Interfaith relationships should center on moral values and on community betterment.” [7]

A Place for Boldness

Our story begins with the First Vision, which in turn begins with Joseph Smith’s desire to know which of all the churches were right and which he should join. Orson Pratt echoed the Prophet’s telling of this story in a missionary tract published in Edinburgh Scotland in 1842. He stated the matter thus:

He [Joseph Smith] saw, that if he understood not the way, it would be impossible to walk in it, except by chance; and the thought of resting his hopes of eternal life upon chance, or uncertainties, was more than he could endure. If he went to the religious denominations to seek information, each one pointed to its particular tenets, saying —’This is the way, walk ye in it;’ while, at the same time, the doctrines of each were in many respects, in direct opposition to one another. It also occurred to his mind that God was the author of but one doctrine, and therefore could acknowledge but one denomination as his church, and that such denomination must be a people who believe and teach the one doctrine, (whatever it may be,) and build upon the same. He then reflected upon the immense number of doctrines, now in the world, which had given rise to many hundreds of different denominations. The great question to be decided in his mind, was — if any one of these denominations be the Church of Christ, which one is it? Until he could become satisfied in relation to this question, he could not rest contented. To trust to the decisions of fallible man, and build his hopes upon the same, without any certainty, and knowledge of his own, would not satisfy the anxious desires that pervaded his breast. To decide, without any positive and definite evidence, on which he could rely, upon a subject involving the future welfare of his soul, was revolting to his feelings. The only alternative, that seemed to be left him was to read the Scriptures, and endeavor to follow their directions. [8]

As you are aware, the Lord responded to Joseph Smith’s question as to which church he should join stating that he should join “none of them” for they were “all wrong.” According to his own testimony, he was “hated and persecuted” for his persistence in telling this story but he refused to desist in doing so for such a course he said “would offend God” and bring him “under condemnation.” (JS-H 1:19, 25.) At issue is whether the principle applies in the same manner to you and me. In a hard lesson Joseph Smith made the mistake of “fearing man more than God,” and setting “at naught” the counsels of God and as the Lord put it, “despising his word” which resulted in his having the gold plates taken from him (D&C 3:7).

Joseph Smith told his story at the peril of his life. We tell it at the peril of social acceptance; surely we can stand that tall. We are not insensitive to the fact that the declaration of the one true church doctrine can generate resistance and that it may be accompanied by observations to the effect that we are unchristian, narrow and bigoted.

Should we not then make one accommodation and set this doctrine aside? Elder Packer asked rhetorically in a General Conference address. Would it not be better to have more accept what would be left of the gospel than the relatively few who are converted now? Our missionaries sift through thousands to find one convert. Our harvest may seem impressive, but we are but gleaners. As the scriptures have foretold, we gather “one of a city, and two of a family” (Jeremiah. 3:14).  Some have recommended that we confine ourselves strictly to evidences of the gospel: happy family life, and temperate living, and so on.

Could we not use the words better or best? The word only really isn’t the most appealing way to begin a discussion of the gospel. If we thought only in terms of diplomacy or popularity, surely we should change our course. But we must hold tightly to it even though some turn away…

We know there are decent, respectable, humble people in many churches, Christian and otherwise. In turn, sadly enough, there are so-called Latter-day Saints who by comparison are not as worthy, for they do not keep their covenants.

But it is not a matter of comparing individuals. We are not baptized collectively, nor will we be judged collectively. Good conduct without the ordinances of the gospel will neither redeem nor exalt mankind; covenants and the ordinances are essential. We are required to teach the doctrines, even the unpopular ones.

Yield on this doctrine, and you cannot justify the Restoration. The doctrine is true; it is logical. The opposite is not… I find it so interesting that those who condemn us, reject the parallel path philosophy themselves when it comes to non-Christian religions. For if they do not, they have no reason to accept the Lord as our Redeemer or regard the Atonement as essential... (Mark 16:16.) While the converging path idea is very appealing, it really is not reasonable.

Suppose schools were operated on that philosophy, with each discipline a separate path leading to the same diploma. No matter whether you study or not, pass the tests or not, all would be given the same diploma — the one of their choice. Without qualifying, one could choose the diploma of an attorney, an engineer, a medical doctor. Surely you would not submit yourself to surgery under the hands of a graduate of that kind of school! But it does not work that way. It cannot work that way — not in education, not in spiritual matters. There are essential ordinances just as there are required courses. There are prescribed standards of worthiness. If we resist them, avoid them, or fail them, we will not enter in with those who complete the course.

Do you realize that the notion that all churches are equal presupposes that the true church of Jesus Christ actually does not exist anywhere?” [9]

Given that salvation cannot be found in both truth and error, let us ask a few simple questions. Is there a law in the universe that governs all things? Do we have to obey the law to obtain the desired results in all fields of activity? In the field of mathematics is it possible for ten people to add the same column of figures and come up with ten different answers and all of them be correct? Can a group of chemists set out to make a given substance all using different materials or using materials in different portions, and still arrive at the same results? Can we drop a weight from a high tower expecting a different result each time we drop it?

Knowing that laws govern all that we do in this temporal world, can we not suppose that laws in like manner govern all that happens in the eternal world? Can there be existence of any kind if there are no laws? And if such laws exist, can we suppose that we may lay claim to the blessings of heaven while we disregard the laws of heaven? If such laws declare that no unclean thing can enter the presence of God, can we justifiably suppose that we can enjoy his presence in a state of filthiness or rebellion? 

It may be argued that we do not have the truth, that we do not possess the plan of salvation or the authority of the priesthood, but to argue that such a plan and the necessary priesthood does not exist anywhere is to argue against the existence of God. It is an argument of despair given birth in a dark corner of hell. It is to say that there are no laws by which we might obtain the blessings of heaven. It is to concede that there is no sure path that we can follow in an attempt to obtain the treasures of heaven. It is to liken the plan of salvation to a lottery. 

Can you imagine telling Joseph Smith that he is not a Christian when he is the first man in 1600 years to whom Christ personally appeared? Don’t you think you might feel just a little silly telling Joseph Smith that the canon of scripture is complete when you learn that Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John, among others, all personally appeared to him and gave him instruction in addition to that which had been recorded in holy writ?

All are Not Equal

Would the people who claim all churches (save ours) to be true be willing when sick to take any randomly selected combination of drugs to cure what ails them or administer the same to their children? Would they substitute sand for flour when baking bread arguing that as long as they were sincere, it could not possibly make any difference? Would they fill their gas tank with water, arguing that it too was a true liquid and was also a creation of God and that God loved all liquids the same?  

Let us consider why the “one true church” doctrine is so offensive to some. If we start with the premise, as the traditional Christian world does, that God is incomprehensible — that no one can know anything about him with certainty — then you can be tolerant with all manner of views about God irrespective of how ridiculous they may be. The only view that you could not tolerate would be one of certainty. That is someone coming along and saying the plan of salvation isn’t a matter of uncertainty or speculation, God can be known, he does speak, and there is a sure path that he has marked out for us to follow.

To declare such a doctrine makes you the skunk at the picnic. If you are right, everyone must repent, everyone must conform their thinking, their faith, and their lives to accord with the will of God. Be assured that anyone not interested in so conforming, must of necessity act offended to the very idea of the existence of such a path.

When we say that we are the only “true and living church upon the face of the earth” we are simply saying that we have been entrusted with the knowledge of those laws or truths by which salvation comes. We make no pretense to being better than any one else except as those laws make us better and that again is what we seek to share.

No missionary has ever told anyone that in order to join the Church, there were particular truths they would have to surrender in order to be baptized. To the contrary, missionaries tell those they are teaching that anything they have that is “virtuous, praiseworthy, or of good report” to hold to as tenaciously as they can, to bring it with them and we will add to it but never take from it.

By contrast, I have talked to a good number of missionaries from other faiths who sought to put a torch to the house of my understanding as a Latter-day Saint. Having burned it to the ground they have precious little to offer in its stead. To join this Church is to gain truth. To leave it is to lose truth. There are no exceptions. Indeed, there is not a truth in all the eternities that we can not enjoy in its fullness as Latter-day Saints. One of those truths is that every soul born into this world comes with the light of Christ and the promise that if they follow that light it will lead them to God and the covenant of salvation (D&C 88:45-48).

God, with whom no good thing goes unnoticed; God, whose right it is to judge both men and organizations, found it necessary to call upon Joseph Smith, Jr. to organize his Church anew on the earth. He did not do so because there was no redeeming value to be found in the Christian world. Quite to the contrary; he did it because there was sufficient goodness to justify reestablishing his Church.

We do not need to trip over the matter of God’s love or the goodness of people throughout the world. It was because of that love and because of the goodness of many that he restored his Church and invited the historical Christian world to be the first to join it.

Thus nothing in our message exceeds in importance the announcement that there is a sure path — a one true and living church. There is no more positive message that we can take to the world. Let us not cause a spiritual eclipse by getting in the way of that message.