Here is the best summary I have been able to find so far of the Today Show discussion of “mystery religions” such as ours. (For the irony challenged, there’s some tongue in cheek action going on there regarding classifying the Church as a “mystery religion.”) It includes the following question and answer exchange between Matt Lauer and Manhattan stake President Brent Belnap:
Matt Lauer, Today Show Anchor: “Are you saying it’s (the Church) the only path to God and Salvation or are you presenting it as an alternative?
Brent Belnap/LDS Stake President, Manhattan: I think it’s more as an alternative. We give people the opportunity to choose just as every religion should have the ability to go out an share its message. We do say and believe that everybody will resurrect as a result of Jesus Christ. There are those who will also be exalted in the hereafter if they follow the teachings of Jesus Christ if they repent of their mistakes but that’s a choice that every individual should make.”
I’m not sure I agree with President Belnap’s answer (assuming it was quoted correctly). What say ye, M* readers?
the video can be seen here: http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?f=00&g=dded84d3-974e-4c40-9fad-10519b5c21ce,2af634f3-0878-4b2b-a382-edb9474e9a90,68fa59df-bf70-4045-b4d9-0f1d79695c2c,cbf90b0e-b636-4f30-897b-af72a1f550ff,1aa7208b-a943-4b59-a45a-81e4c2cd77f5,dded84d3-974e-4c40-9fad-10519b5c21ce,b11c971c-4412-450d-b3f7-5e2b04831091,b3297aa8-693c-481c-9f02-1655dc834ebb,f8d8cd12-20a0-4900-b8c9-c65c6bda712f,c865072c-0bab-41c6-9af6-157c7dce3c38,&t=m5
The problem is that the two options give are not mutually exclusive. President Belnap could answer “yes” truthfully to either one.
Joseph Smith stated that Jesus Christ would bring salvation to all except the sons of perdition. Though stating that in a modern context is slightly disingenuous. Moreover, Belnap swapped terms. He went for exaltation.
Nice distinctions between salvation and exaltation are lost on the Matt Lauers of the world, and it’s probably better leaving it at that for the Today show crowd.
I can understand Brent’s not wanting to make a categorical statement of exclusivity in that forum–there wasn’t time for a long explication of the Mormon view of the afterlife, hell, the three degrees of glory, etc.
There was time, however, to say “be resurrected” rather than “resurrect.”
I don’t have any problem with Belnap’s answer. There are many evangelical Christians out there who would say, “If you don’t believe what we believe, you will burn in hell for eternity,” and Belnap clearly didn’t want to give that impression of LDS belief. And, of course, Belnap is aware that when we arrive in the celestial kingdom there will be plenty of people (in my opinion, the vast majority) who weren’t LDS in this life. The church invites people to join, to offer more light as it encourages people to follow the light it has; ideally, it doesn’t browbeat or try to use guilt trips.
The real problem was the wording of the question, at least in a context where one has 15 seconds to answer.
My answer might have been something like this: “I’m not sure I’d use the word ‘alternative,’ because we do believe that God and Jesus restored their church through Joseph Smith. But we also believe that people of other religions also have been given a degree of truth, a degree of light, and we encourage all people to follow that light. We don’t want to take away what people in other religions have; we want to add to it. And whether they’re members of our church or have some other religious identification, God will honor and bless them for the good that they do.”
By the way, I thought I heard in a summary of LDS beliefs that we believe the prophet is divine. Did I hear that right?
Its to complicated a answer for a 25 second blip on national TV. Being in one of the lower kingdoms is a form of salvation as is Ress.
There was no good way for Belnap to answer that question in those circumstances. Well Matt let me explain Exhaltation. Do you have a chalkboard? Can you give me 10 minutes?
We can parse the language in Lauer’s question however we choose, but it seems clear to me that Lauer wanted to know whether we believe it is necessary to belong to and adhere to the teachings of the Church in order to return to live with God. I think the Stake President knew that was the question but decided to answer in a nonconfrontational manner. I think it is disingenuous for us, meaning Latter-day Saints, to proudly state in our conferences and local meetings that ours is the only true church but publically pitch our religion as an “alternative,” meaning one of several paths that lead to salvation and exaltation.
I disagree, SFW. Yes, you have to adhere to LDs teachings, but the judgement doesn’t come at the moment of death, as most others believe. Thus, there are (potentially) many who may come to be in the CK who do not follow LDS teachings in mortality.
If you tell a Protestant that he or she can be resurrected and live forever in the presence of Jesus (i.e. the terrestrial kingdom) that would conform pretty closely to their image of going to heaven. If they decline to join the church because it isn’t necessary to get to their version of heaven, I don’t think they could claim to have been misled by Belnap’s answer.
Incidentally, I think this formulation is going to become much more common among Church spokespeople. We’d better get used to it.
Hmmm. I’m not sure how you reconcile all of this with Joseph Smith’s conversation with the Father and the Son (to paraphrase: all of the other churches are wrong). Wasn’t he restoring the only true Church? But I would agree that given a 20-second window Pres. Belnap gave a good response and I would agree that there was not room for 10-minute missionary explanations. I would also agree that the Church has been doing a good job lately of pointing out that other religions do have some of the truth, and it gets you nowhere in today’s world to go around telling Catholics and Baptists and Muslims that they are “all wrong.” It’s a difficult task, for sure, to reconcile proclamations of being the only true church with a recognition that the process is one that doesn’t end at death and that our journey is all about eternal progression.
This is a perfect example of the problem of trying to use the major media to share the message of the gospel. People have short attention spans and the networks know it, so they don’t go into any detail or length on any subject (which is one reason I enjoy NPR so much, despite its flaws).
I think the major concern here is over Belnap’s choice of the phrase “more as an alternative” to describe our soteriology. It sounds like he’s saying “there are many paths to heaven,” when in fact he’s trying to condense a very complex subject into a sound bite.
To give the guy some credit, I don’t think there’s any way he could have answered that question in the time and format allotted that would have pleased everyone.
I loved his answer. Even though I think he was dodging, I think there was more truth in it than even he realized.
I think we are going to be so surprised.
If the Mormon Church is the only path to salvation, then I guess Jesus won’t be saved.
Did anyone else notice that they said mormons consider the prophet to be “divine?”
There’s a reason that J. Smith and the Church didn’t emphasize the First Vision for years.
Seems like we ought to be parsing Lauer’s lame question, not Belnap’s answer. “Is there one path to God or many?” is hardly the kind of question that’s going to nail down LDS beliefs in 15 seconds. Maybe Belnap should have answered: Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there’s still time to change the road you’re on.
I suppose an ideal exchange (a good question and a straightforward answer) would have been: Q – Do Mormons think a person can achieve the highest form of salvation other than by becoming a Mormon in this life? A – Yes, but only if that person later, in the spirit world, accepts vicarious LDS ordinances performed on their behalf in an LDS temple.
Any degree of glory is a salvation. So the telestial kingdom is a salvation.
this stake president is completely correct.
I think its pretty ballsy of you Geoff B to say you dont agree with a Stake president when he was speaking as a rep for the Church.
thats my 2 farthings.
AJ
Yes, I noticed that they said Mormons consider the prophet to be divine. Should we go burn down the NBC studios?
Andres, you’ll notice I did not say I don’t agree with the stake president, I said I wasn’t sure. It falls under the category of starting a conversation/discussion. Sheesh.
ok, my bad,
I dont mean to bust your chops, I read it wrong.
sorry.
Andres,
Just because President Belnap (my stake president) was acting as a representative for the Church doesn’t mean his statements are infallible. While we hope (and I believe) he would be inspired in his interaction, he’s still a man, and is doing his best in an incredibly pressure-filled situation. Given the pressure, it’s entirely possible for him to misspeak (I’m not saying he did or didn’t, just that it’s possible). As such, his statements shouldn’t be taken as gospel, and I think it’s approrpriate, in a spirit of compassion and genuine interest, to explore his statements.
Kim, why does Jesus need to be saved?
Jesus needed to be saved from death, but not sin. It just so happened that he had the power to save himself, though.
I think he did a good job though the language could have been clearer. In worshiping “God through Christ”, it gave the impression that we may not hold Christ as divine. Even a brief explanation of Christ’s divine nature would have been good.
As for “alternative”, it was a poor choice of words. But I do disagree with Ben S. He stated
“Yes, you have to adhere to LDs teachings, but the judgement doesn’t come at the moment of death, as most others believe. Thus, there are (potentially) many who may come to be in the CK who do not follow LDS teachings in mortality.”
I would not say that we have to follow LDS teachings, but rather we need to accept proper priesthood ordinances currently practice in the LDS church. The teachings are for our time and circumstances, and therefore can change as needed. The ordinances are eternal.
Ed – yes they said we think the prophet is divine.
Ryan,
It depends on how you define salvation.
Even so, if you want, you can replace “Jesus” in my first comment with “Adam” or “Moses” or Noah”, etc.
Kim,
Jesus is Mormon. So are Adam and Moses and Noah. Same church.
Why doesn’t the church just buy some 30 minute informercials?
Good work from the guy in a bad situation. I can’t say that his answer was perfect, but apostles are still writing books. We’re still having conference. We’re still talking about repentance and exaltation. We’re still trying to reason by study and faith. So the issue isn’t whether he had ten minutes or ten millenia. In ten seconds, he gave a fair summary. And props for stressing agency.
As a funny aside, I nearly spelled “faith” as “fiat”. Worth considering…..
I wouldn’t be surprised if they did away with the missionary program soon. Why obligate third world countries to oppressive tithing when every other religion is just as good. They can all get baptized, endowed and sealed posthumously anyway.
Rebecca,
They’re not. The Church as it is today has never existed before.
Kim,
How would you define “restoration” then?
Er, yeah, that’s what I meant.
Kind of nitpicking on this, aren’t we guys?
Mormonism is a restoration of the church of Christ, but I wouldn’t call Moses or Adam a Mormon. I guess that is because we are in part defined by our dispensation.
Adam, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Joseph SMith, all belonged to the house of Israel. Everyone who enters into the “waters of Judah” or in other words, everyone who is bapttized, becomes a part of the House of Israel, God’s choesen people. This is one reason why the LDS church is so important because it is the ONLY church that can do this. So to solve the current debate over Adam, Moses, Abraham, Jesus (etc) Mormon-ness….well….whether or not they were Mromon, they were God’s chosen people and God has outlined his promises to His people, among them are salvation and exaltation. So yes, God’s people throughout all time will receive these blessings.
Jack, I would define it as the act of making something whole. That being said, I never said the Church wasn’t restored. I said the Church has never existed in the form it is today.
I agree with Gilgamesh: I would not say that we have to follow LDS teachings, but rather we need to accept proper priesthood ordinances currently practise in the LDS church.
Kim is right Moses, Noah, Abraham, and all other spiritual giants prior to Christ could not have been ‘Mormons’ anyways because they followed the law of Moses, and so 2 small diffs are they would not have met on Sunday, and they probably did not partake of the Sacrament as there was no memory of the life of Jesus at that time, nor his sacrifice just an anticipation of his coming. Book of Mormon is very clear onthis that they followed the law of Moses but their hope was ina Christ that was to come and that had not yet come. There are many many differences no doubt. Not the same church in short.
As for ordinances, yes we need to accept them, but I would imagine thqt if the former sins return even after our acceptance and we do not repent then ese ordiancens, or priesthood, goes bye-bye and they have no meaning then. Baptiam, what does ti matter if we do not endure? Sure we were immersed, but what good is it to us if we do not continue faithful? Nothing! This is a chcken and egg debate, Ordinances vs. Principles. Can’t have ordinances fulfilled if principles are not followed and lack of ordinances most likely means there are no principles to live by.
General Christian belief in salvation is to live with Jesus Christ for eternity. This concept is exactly what they, who live their beliefs, will get. The Terrestrial kingdom is just that — eternal existence in a ressurected state with Jesus Christ.
But as Latter-day Saints we know that this is not the ultimate goal. The goal is to return to live with God the Father in a state of exaltation in the Celestial kingdom.
To gain exaltation, one must receive all aspects of Christ’s gospel. One must have a testimony of Jesus Christ as their Savior and be valiant to it. One must receive and obey all the laws and ordinances of the gospel. One must receive and live by the ordinances of the temple, etc. Males must receive and live in accordinace to the Melchizedek Pristhood.
These things are only available within the church established by Jesus Christ. Only one church was established by Christ. If he had established more than one (I’m not talking about physical buildings here) there would be confusion, and God is not a God of confusion.
We know that Christ is the only way to salvation. Obedience is essential. Christ set up an established pattern and a “straight and narrow” path to salvation. His church is the only way to exaltation because it is the only place we can receive all the laws and ordinances of the gospel that lead to salvation.
Other churches do not have all these things and will not lead to exaltation. They can, however, lead to the basic Christian understanding of what salvation is, which is the Terrestrial, not the Celestial, kingdom.
Belnap was being deliberately disingenuous, as the Church has become more and more media-savvy, image-conscious and PR-friendly. Edelman does a good job for us, and sometimes it’s more important to lie for the Lord than to be bold and assertive with our truth-claims.
Marnie, I would like to point out that I disagree with your assertion that President Belnap “lied.” I think others on this thread have shown convincingly that there was no attempt to lie, just a different (and perhaps more developed) perspective. President Belnap’s statements are in line with statements made by President Hinckley, for example.
Whether someone joins the Church in this life or through posthumous ordinances, it is ONLY through the Church that this can be done. Other people will not be exalted. Former prophets, apostles, missionaries and members used to be proud of this fact, but now it’s pretty much a “golly gee, your church is good too” attitude.
Unless everyone who has ever lived obtains and continues in ordinances that only the true Church of Jesus Christ (of latter=day Saints) can offer, they will not be saved in the Celestial Kingdom or exalted. Dissembling and waffling on this is tantamount to lying, yes.
We also claim that this life is when we are to know the true God, and that because of what/Who Joseph saw in the Grove, knowing God and Christ through the Church are critical. Yet somehow this is being discounted. Why? I thought we weren’t ashamed of the gospel of Christ.
Of course, you realize that this statement says nothing about whether Belnap was lying or not.
Well, in my opinion, it does. I don’t believe President Hinckley goes about lying. Do you?
Marnie,
He was not lying. He was faced with a question that required a long detailed explanation on national TV and he simply punted cause he did not have the time to fully explain. That is what I thought when I saw the transcript.
I would have to make that determination on a case-by-case basis, as I yield blind trust to no man, Pres. Hinckley included.
SFW has it right. I called Tom Owen at the LDS Church Office two days after the Lauer/Belnap interview. He hedged a bit, said there wasn’t time to thoroughly discuss the whole belief system of the Church, and said the Church was not comfortable in the first place being lumped with “cult” religions. Still, Belnap could have come clean, said the truth, which is that the Church’s very foundation rest upon being “the one and only true church,” and directed the viewers to learn more about the Church by going to the Church’s web site or contacting a local bishop. Belnap’s answer disgusted me!