For example, the term “the great apostasy” (or even “the Great Apostasy”) is rarely encountered in LDS discourse anymore. M. Russell Ballard’s book Our Search For Happiness (included in the current missionary library) touches on the topic as follows: “The light of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ … was gone” (italics in original). And he makes the distinction you hint at between doctrine and authority: “Because of the Apostasy, the priesthood and power and authority to act in the name of God had to be restored to the earth.”

Not all LDS material takes that softer approach: the True to the Faith entry is rather harsh and the Preach My Gospel discussion is somewhere in between. But it is getting better.

Still, I’m not sure what I think of the idea that other churches are basically getting people to the Terrestrial Kingdom. It kind of goes back to my question about whether the truths that others have are just pieces of our more complete truth; my concern, as I said earlier, is that such an approach seems to involve viewing other faiths as essentially less-developed versions of ourselves.

Mark IV, thanks for quoting that statement. I had a vague memory of it, but I was too lazy to hunt it down myself. And I’d never noticed that connection, that it came just before the priesthood revelation.

Doc, I think the article you linked is a good illustration of the second approach I mentioned above, what I might call a sort of “kinder, gentler exclusivism.” It’s a point of view that in many ways I appreciate. But I have to admit that quotes like these:

I believe that we owe respect to all churches and organisations that lead men to act more righteously than they otherwise might, even if they don’t hold the keys of salvation and even if there is much error in their teachings. Latter-day Saints should not look on other churches as totally false.

make me cringe a little.

I’m also curious about how we see ourselves. Do we believe that unlike other faiths, we have pure truth with no taint of error? I don’t mean that as a rhetorical question; I’m really not sure.

HP, I appreciate that. Thanks for coming by.

Matt B, thanks for your comment; I’m in complete agreement. Along similar lines, I’m uneasy with the way that Mormonism sometimes gets projected into the next life–where, I’ve been told, all who acheive the highest level of heaven will become Mormons. (Speaking as someone who grew up in Utah, I had to question whether that was in fact a description of heaven or of hell. ) Your comment reminded me of a question once posed to me by a Catholic friend about whether Mormons would say that Jesus was, in essence, a Mormon. It really got me thinking.

Rob, thanks for mentioning those scriputres. And I like your point about the work of God also involving temporal things, and that being an area where other churches are clearly furthering his work.

Doc, I like your observation that all of us struggle with stumbling blocks, whether we’re in the Church or out of it. My understanding of faith is that it involves a kind of openness to possibility, a willingness to question whatever certainty we might have that we have it all figured out, and I think that goes along with what you’re saying.

aws, thanks for that reference. I hadn’t thought of creeds per se as perhaps being the issue, as opposed to the particular contents of those creeds. And I love that excerpt you quoted describing Mormonism as an “exuberant cosmopolitanism.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/mormon/beliefs/other.shtml

However, we claim that God’s inspiration is not limited to the Latter-day Saints. The First Presidency has stated: “The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. . . . We believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation” (“Statement of the First Presidency regarding God’s Love for All Mankind,” 15 Feb. 1978).

I find it interesting that the Statement quoted was issued in February 1978, just a few months before the statement on the priesthood.

And indeed members of those churches can obtain the Terrestial Kingdom without becoming Mormons

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually,

My understanding is that the revelations in the D&C were dictated to scribes who were largely responsible for the punctuation. now punctuating this verse must have been quite a challenge, and at least one comma–the first one–strikes me as being gramatically incorrect. But what if there is one more superfluous comma–the one between “earth” and “with”? Eliminating that comma would change the meaning completely. It would implicitly acknowledge that there are other “true and living” churches, but none–except the LDS church–with which the Lord is well pleased.

Having made the suggestion, I should probably follow up a bit more. What would “true” and/or “living” church with which the Lord is not well pleased look like? By “true,” I infer that the church can deliver what it promises. The version of heaven that most Christian churches preach bears a remarkable resemblance to the Terrestial Kingdom. And indeed members of those churches can obtain the Terrestial Kingdom with becoming Mormons, so those church could be counted as “true.” As for “living,” lots of churches are “living” in that they adapt to changing circumstances.

So why would the Lord not be well pleased with those churches? Because he wants his children to become like him, and no other church even has that as an objective, much less has the ability to deliver it. So it comes down to whether somebody wants to become like their heavenly father or mother. If they do not–and we know that many people find the whole idea blasphemous–then their current churches may be as true as they need to be.