And Mark D, this quote by Brigham Young was brought to my attention by Prof. Underwood in the last evangelical/LDS conference in SLC a couple months ago. It does speak of millennial context, but I am zeroed in on celestial heaven context.

I find that the contemporary usage of the popular term, “religious pluralism”, to be given mixed reviews by LDS.

To be sure, Latter-day Saints believe that one must receive ordinances performed by the proper priesthood authority to fully accept the Atonment of Jesus Christ (in the same way that Evangelical creedalists believe that one must accept Jesus Christ in one’s heart to allow the Atonement to work salvation upon them). Therefore, there is no misplaced ecumenicism (which I understand you reject) in the standard LDS worldview. But most Latter-day Saints, even in the days that they preached about the Great Apostasy most loudly, i.e. the mid-19c to the mid-20c, have always greatly admired and appreciated that which they (perhaps only arbitrarily) see as “virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy” in other religions, the arts, science, history — everywhere — and have actively sought after those things (although we can and should do much, much better on this point, perhaps even adopting much more from your own tradition and the tradition of the Catholics than we historically have done) (Article of Faith 13).

Romney’s speech was very Mormon, in my opinion. Todd, you yourself have observed and criticized a universalistic aspect in Mormonism. Although I disagree with your end analysis, your observation of its existence is astute. It’s the way God wants it. He loves all of his children and appreciates the veneration they give him, in whatever faith tradition they happen to do so. This does not minimize the fact that there are real religious truths that all people need to learn (and, in the Mormon view, all will have the chance to learn and accept or reject these truths, regardless of location or station of birth), and that the ordinances performed by the proper priesthood authority are necessary.

Romney’s endorsement of pluralism does not mean that God is indifferent to the different tenets of different religions but that society is healthier when religious pluralism is welcomed and celebrated. One of the achievements of Romney’s speech is that he did not merely settle for the Enlightenment concept of Toleration (which sets a minimum standard, i.e. we all just barely tolerate each other) but extolled Pluralism, which is a step beyond Toleration in that it recognizes the value to society of having people of all faiths work for the common good through their own faiths. His idealistic hope is that Evangelical creedalists will agree and view Mormonism as a faith through which much societal good can be done even if they disagree with its religious doctrines. We will see if this happens.

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

And here is Brigham Young, in a millennial context:

If the Latter-day Saints think, when the kingdom of God is established on the earth, that all the inhabitants of the earth will join the church called Latter-day Saints, they are egregiously mistaken. I presume there will be as many sects and parties then as now. Still, when the kingdom of God triumphs, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ, to the glory of the Father. Even the Jews will do it then; but will the Jews and Gentiles be obliged to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? No; not by any means.
(Brigham Young, Dec 23, 1866; JD 11:275)

You really should read D&C 134. Here’s verse four:

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

I also think of what an informed Calvinist might say to this LDS political commentator. The Calvinist might be chuckling just as LDS friends chuckle when I stupidly explain LDS priesthood authority.

Does Huckabee believe in Calvinism? And what does biblical predestination have to do with politics? And does the commentator see any difference between biblical providence and biblical predestination?

And then John’s post insinuates that Romney’s religion supports religious pluralism. Now you really have me curious. Does Romney believe his church proclaims this? Are all religions on equal footing?

The problem is not so much the audacity of the belief that God supports your candidacy above any other, but the extraordinarily bad form of letting everyone else know about it. If that his position, he should run for prophet rather than president.

A better option would be to pray that God’s will be done, rather than his.

Mitt’s campaign group didn’t respond to me at all when they came to Idaho Falls. Zero. Nada.

But the group drummed it up big time with the richest LDS leaders in Southeastern Idaho. How many evangelicals in the LDS corridor went through the roof?

I am not going to continually parade about the incessant hypocrisy of the Romney campaign. But the opinion page in our local paper scorched Huckabee. So hot, it is still on fire here in Idaho.

But before we talk about hypocrisy, make sure you provide the evangelical links that were already evaluating this about Huckabee’s statement.

And if Romney were to become President someday, am I too say this is man’s work and not God’s work?