essay about respecting other religions

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Respecting Others Religions

Save to my list

Remove from my list

• What Is Cultural Appropriation?
• The Golden Rule in Family
• Respecting Others Religion

Respecting Others Religions. (2016, Sep 15). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/respecting-others-religions-essay

"Respecting Others Religions." StudyMoose , 15 Sep 2016, https://studymoose.com/respecting-others-religions-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). Respecting Others Religions . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/respecting-others-religions-essay [Accessed: 11 Sep. 2024]

"Respecting Others Religions." StudyMoose, Sep 15, 2016. Accessed September 11, 2024. https://studymoose.com/respecting-others-religions-essay

"Respecting Others Religions," StudyMoose , 15-Sep-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/respecting-others-religions-essay. [Accessed: 11-Sep-2024]

StudyMoose. (2016). Respecting Others Religions . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/respecting-others-religions-essay [Accessed: 11-Sep-2024]

• Kant's Humanity Formula: Respecting the Intrinsic Worth Pages: 2 (512 words)
• The Importance of Respecting Teachers by Not Lying Pages: 2 (476 words)
• The School Culture: Respecting Cultural Diversity Begins at School Pages: 2 (543 words)
• A personal take on what respecting the seven principles of patient safety means for nurses Pages: 3 (851 words)
• On Judaism and Christianity: A Comparison and Contrast World Religions Report Pages: 6 (1559 words)
• Minority Religions in South Carolina Pages: 5 (1357 words)
• Similarities and Differences of Western and Eastern Religions Pages: 5 (1500 words)
• Attitudes of Religions Towards LGBT Society Pages: 6 (1531 words)
• Justification of Violence in the Quran against Women and Other Religions Pages: 5 (1359 words)
• Women's Role in Religious Life: A Study on its Significance in Various Religions Pages: 5 (1393 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

Respecting others’ spiritual beliefs

Australia is a multicultural, multi-faith society, so Australians as a whole follow a wide range of religious and spiritual beliefs. Learning about them will help you to become more understanding and more respectful of people who hold beliefs that differ from your own. Ultimately, we need to accept that we’re all entitled to our own spiritual beliefs.

This can help if:

you’re not sure what makes someone ‘spiritual’

you’re not sure how ‘being spiritual’ differs from ‘being religious’

you’re clashing with someone over religious or spiritual beliefs

you want to know more about spirituality.

It's okay to be different

Both religion and spiritual differences have been used over time to discriminate against people because of their beliefs. Although spirituality and religion are two different things, they both can inspire some pretty heated debates.

How is spirituality different from religion?

Religion is a specific set of organised beliefs and practices, usually shared by a community or group. There are many different religions, with different rituals and teachings, but they all teach that life has a spiritual dimension, and that connecting with that dimension through meditation or prayer or other practices is good for us.

Spirituality is more of an individual practice, and has to do with having a sense of peace and purpose. It also relates to the process of developing beliefs around the meaning of life and connection with others.

Respect others’ beliefs

Not everyone has religious or spiritual beliefs, and that’s fine. The important thing is to accept that some people place a lot of importance on this aspect of their lives, and to respect their right to believe whatever they want, even if you don’t agree with them.

Become informed

The first way you can begin to respect different forms of spirituality is to learn about them. Even if you don’t agree with someone’s beliefs or practices, learning more about what they believe, and why, could help you respect their decision to make these beliefs an important part of their life.

Go to the source

There’s a lot of misinformation about spirituality in the community, so learning more about it can help you to gain a better understanding.

Ways you can do this are to:

read a book about spirituality

go to talks and presentations on different forms of spirituality

talk to people who identify as ‘spiritual’ and ask them about their experiences.

Try a different point of view

Though spirituality might not be your thing, it’s worth thinking about why it might work for others. People come to spirituality for different reasons . They may:

not want to adopt an organised religion but still feel they have a spiritual faith

have grown up in a family that followed certain spiritual practices

want to explore the meaning of life

have experienced loss or grief

want help with handling stress or releasing emotions.

The bottom line

Understanding more about spirituality might help you to rid yourself of some pre-existing assumptions and inherited prejudices. However, learning more about spirituality doesn’t mean you have to get into it yourself. Spirituality is an entirely personal thing. You should never feel pressured or forced to take it up.

What can I do now?

Check out if there are any talks or presentations about spirituality in your area.

Read more about understanding cultural diversity .

Practise self-awareness .

• Navigate to any page of this site.

• In the menu, scroll to Add to Home Screen and tap it.

• In the menu, scroll past any icons and tap Add to Home Screen .

Religious Educator Vol. 16 No. 1 · 2015

Learning about other religions: false obstacles and rich opportunities, mauro properzi.

Mauro Properzi, "Learning about Other Religions: False Obstacles and Rich Opportunities,"  Religious Educator  16, no.1 (2015): 129–149.

Mauro Properzi ( [email protected] ) was an assistant professor of Church history and doctrine at BYU when this article was written.

Christianity has been my central meal from the start, but I’m a strong believer in vitamin supplements, and what I have gained from these other traditions is tremendously enriching. —Huston Smith, comparative religions scholar [1]

Although I have not been studying and experiencing the world’s religions for over seventy years as Huston Smith has, I fully concur with his conclusion. In my case, the central meal has always been and continues to be Mormon Christianity. At the same time, I believe that it is important for Latter-day Saints to learn about, appreciate, and be nourished by the good of other religions. Why? Both pragmatic and spiritual reasons are central to what I am proposing, yet in what follows I am able to offer only a few markers in a discussion that certainly ought to extend beyond a single article.

I begin my remarks by briefly highlighting one motivation, of particular contemporary relevance that has strong pragmatic connotations, before turning to address three perceived obstacles that prevent a gospel-driven doctrinal appreciation of the light and truth of different religions. My hope is to demonstrate that these obstacles, which emerge every so often in the Mormon cultural milieu, skew what I deem to be a proper LDS perspective on other religions. I conclude my analysis by listing three principles, articulated by the late Lutheran theologian Krister Stendahl, which can assist Latter-Day Saints in relating to other faiths. Ultimately, I base my remarks on a firm conviction that the gospel of Jesus Christ generally requires balance between true principles such as balance between a sympathetic approach to other faiths and loyalty to one’s own, and balance between openness to learning from the “religious other” and the ability to share Mormonism’s truths in love.

Religious Freedom and Interfaith Collaboration

In recent years, General Authorities have repeatedly addressed the topic of “religious freedom” in a variety of settings. [2] The Church has also produced online print and video resources that deal with this very topic. These resources are now available on the website mormonnewsroom.com, for members and nonmembers alike. [3] A clear message of these speeches and videos is that religion as a whole is good and beneficial to civilization, that it provides a solid foundation to ethical behaviors, and that it should be given a voice in contributing to important public discussions about morality. Furthermore, these messages underscore the importance of freedom for the many consciences shaped by religious teachings while also recognizing that our society’s multiplicity of perspectives requires patience, understanding, and respect for opinions that often conflict with each other. In short, our leaders have stressed the fact that religious freedom is not a “denominational” issue; instead, it is a value commonly shared by people of all faiths that must be defended by the united efforts of people from all faiths.

If Mormon history has taught us anything, it is that religious freedom is not to be taken for granted and that its preservation requires forces which are larger than a single religious denomination. [4] Whether the attacks originate from rival religious groups or from nonreligious secularists, like the “new atheists” who want to remove all religious influences from the public sphere, preserving the religious freedom of all is the best way to preserve one’s own religious freedom. Latter-day Saints obviously have a vested interest in this process, particularly when responding to the claims that distinctive Mormon teachings on the family and society are incompatible with the rights of individuals in a secular world. Yet religious freedom is a universal principle with much deeper roots in the restored gospel than what may be suggested by a single focus on the need to preserve the Church’s rights in the present circumstances. [5] Joseph Smith and other prophets have repeatedly taught about the significance of religious freedom, not only by recognizing it as a founding principle of the US Constitution, but also more broadly by highlighting the sacred role played by agency in leading people to God or to any principle of truth. [6] In other words, within the plan of salvation, religious freedom is a necessary means that leads not only to the ultimate truth of Mormonism but also to any other “religious” truth that is contained and expressed by other religions. Religious freedom is good, because various manifestations of religion will function, to different degrees, as tools of spiritual progression for individuals throughout the world.

Therefore, learning about other religions is a pragmatic necessity rooted in a spiritual foundation for Latter-day Saints who want to build effective and mutually fulfilling relationships of collaboration with members of different faiths. Whether the issue that brings us together is the defense of religious freedom, humanitarian work, some other commonly shared value, or simply friendship, working teams are most successful when individual members trust each other. Mere tolerance will not do; people will experience and extend trust only in an atmosphere of emotional and intellectual respect, including respect for deeply held beliefs with which the other may ultimately disagree. It is one thing to disagree with a particular belief while recognizing that it has some value and credibility (thus retaining respect for the believer); it is another thing to reject that same belief as utterly absurd or as the product of lazy motivations. In other words, even while disagreeing on specific doctrines or theology, deep respect among cooperating people of faith will emerge when interlocutors detect the good motivations, upright values, and at least enough credibility in the doctrines of the “other” to make his or her religion respectable. Thus Latter-day Saints cannot really build strong collaborations and deep friendships with committed members of other faiths without stretching beyond generalizations, stereotypes, or caricatures of other religions, which only hamper mutual understanding. Indeed, the fruits of mutual respect will only grow on foundations of reciprocal sympathetic attitudes with engaged education about the beliefs and practices of the religious other as a key element of the process of interaction.

Here one may justifiably ask whether I am suggesting that other religions should only be approached sympathetically, and not be approached critically. Furthermore, could such an approach potentially weaken the unique claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well as its missionary commission? There is obviously a need for balance between the recognition of the light and truth that can be found in other religions and a personal commitment to the unique and all-embracing truths of Mormonism. To be sure, finding this balance may be challenging, and in this context we do not need to look too hard to find examples of two very different kinds of excesses. On the one hand, overzealousness and skewed conceptions of loyalty close the door to dialogue with the “religious other,” thus allowing prejudice to reign supreme. On the other hand, radical liberality of thought reduces all differences among faiths to naught and gives rise to conversations built more on fears of offending than on desire to learn and to be challenged. Latter-day Saints are not immune from the difficulty of finding an appropriate balance. Yet Mormonism advocates equilibrium, and the gospel may be rightly viewed as a harmony of correct principles that ought to be kept in fruitful tension with each other. [7] It is then balance between the faith’s exclusive claims and its liberal recognition of the general goodness of religion that allows Mormonism to be both particularist and inclusive. [8] When we fail to live in this tension and do not experience this balance, we risk losing the full perspective of the restored gospel.

False Obstacles to Learning and Appreciation

There are sound doctrinal reasons for learning about other religions and for appreciating the truth they contain. I am going to address these core reasons somewhat indirectly by responding to some perceived obstacles to a sympathetic and engaged approach to other religions, obstacles that sometimes emerge among Latter-day Saints. In so doing, I should highlight that I am not referring to official prophetic pronouncements or to authoritative exegesis of scripture. Instead, I am focusing on a cultural level of theological interpretation which I have encountered primarily through personal experience, particularly in conversation with members and students. It is not my intention to argue that these lines of reasoning are the most prevalent within the Church—in fact, I do not have the tools to measure their frequency—but my experience suggests that they are prevalent enough. Therefore, I think that they need to be addressed, since they function as false obstacles to the appreciative learning of other religions in the direction of excessive exclusivism.

Of course, uncritically positive approaches to other faiths would also miss the balance, but in the present context I am not going to address that side of the equation, since in some ways it is more explicitly dealt with in official LDS teachings. My main concern is to address those claims, occasionally heard among some Latter-day Saints, which affirm an inherent incompatibility between a positive approach to other religions and the foundational principles of the restored gospel. Specifically, I have encountered at least three kinds of arguments, loosely interrelated and usually based on particular scriptural passages, which purportedly highlight the dangers of approaching other religions favorably. I will label these arguments the “fullness,” the “only true church,” and the “creedal abomination” arguments respectively, an ordering which also reflects the increasing rejection of the study of other religions that they advocate.

The “fullness” argument is perhaps the most common and the least negative of the three. It centers on the idea that Mormonism possesses the fullness of saving truth, namely of the truth that leads to the greatest happiness in this life and to exaltation in the life to come. According to this line of reasoning, fullness of truth or fullness of the gospel is mostly synonymous with completeness or perfection, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the unique possessor of this repository of perfect knowledge, doctrine, ordinances, and authority, which enable individuals to obtain salvation in its highest possible form. Therefore, the argument goes, whatever is good or admirable in other religions is already possessed by the Mormon fullness or is included in it. To study other religions, in the best-case scenario, is like reviewing the multiplication tables once you have started working on calculus; it is not bad, but it is mostly a waste of time because it focuses on a lower level of knowledge now redundant. Thus the study of other religions is mostly an irrelevant enterprise, and time and effort would be better spent in studying the gospel as taught in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which would ensure greater salvific returns. The most memorable illustration of this particular approach in my personal experience emerged in a conversation I had with a Latter-day Saint with whom I have been acquainted since childhood. At that time I was studying interfaith dialogue at a Vatican university in Rome, and when I shared with him the subject of my studies he responded, “When you have the fullness of truth, there cannot be any dialogue.”

I find the conclusions of this argument to be unsatisfactory, both in a broad philosophical sense as well as in the more specific LDS doctrinal context, even though I concur with some of its premises. On the one hand, it is quite appropriate, even anticipated, that a person should hold one’s own religion to be preferable to other religious alternatives, contrary to the politically correct dogma which requires value equality of all concepts, statements, and organizations. As a Latter-day Saint, I also believe that my religion has something unique and additional in relation to what other faiths have to offer; it is one of the reasons I am a Mormon and one of the reasons I served an LDS mission. Thus identifying hierarchies of truth is inherent to the human experience and is not in itself an indication of arrogance; some of the humblest people I have ever met have also been among the most devoted to the fixed standards of truth found in their respective religions. On the other hand, one’s strong commitment to a particular ideology becomes suspect if it hides an unwillingness to listen to or to encounter any potentially problematic evidence and if it is rooted in a sense of personal superiority that admits no challenge. Therefore, when the fullness argument is used to masquerade this kind of rigidity and is motivated primarily by a fear-driven refusal to step outside one’s comfort zone, it becomes a serious problem. True, all humans, whether religious or not, experience some of the laziness, pride, and accompanying anxiety which are inherent in this refusal to look beyond the familiar, but this approach belongs to “the natural man” rather than to the person enlightened by the fullness of the gospel.

Furthermore, the argument’s conclusion is problematic above and beyond the specific motivations that may be driving it. The first issue is that the argument implies a definition of fullness that is excessively closed and static, thus being in conflict with the foundational LDS principle of continuing revelation. If fullness of truth or fullness of the gospel means that all the answers relative to God and to eternal salvation are already found in the teachings and practices of the Church as presently constituted, there would be no need for additional revelation, whether institutional or personal. If we have all the answers, then we have no questions, and if we run out of questions, then we cease to learn or to seek for divine guidance. Joseph Smith often denounced similar approaches to truth inherent in established traditions or in well-defined definitions of beliefs, since what they underlie is a completion and restriction of learning. He warned the Saints against “setting up stakes” that limit God’s revelation and emphasized the open-ended progression in knowledge and understanding by stating, “We believe that He [God] will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” [9] What, then, is the fullness of the gospel? Without delving into the different possible definitions of the term gospel , I would suggest that the term fullness should be more closely associated with an idea of sufficiency rather than of completeness. The Church administers all the necessary ordinances and teaches all the key principles which lead to eternal life, but it does not claim that additional, expanded, or reworded knowledge of truth would be useless in the process of achieving this same objective. In short, fullness understood as perfection or completion, whether in knowledge or action, is always necessarily an objective ahead of us, not a condition already achieved.

Indeed, the great majority of those who have expressed the fullness argument to me are very much aware of their need for development in knowledge, character, and understanding. They do not feel that they “have it all” and do not object to the need for greater and more refined truth, particularly in matters relating to salvation. What they argue, however, is that the unique source of this knowledge is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the divinely chosen channel for the conferral of additional light and truth to the world. Then, since the Church already gathers all the partial truths taught by other religions, the argument continues, no additional truth of salvific value can be found in other faiths because all knowledge of this kind is already available through official Mormon teachings. In my view, however, the meaning and the sources of truth are quite broader than what this particular interpretation implies. While I subscribe to the belief that the prophetic authority of the Church ensures a preferential revelatory channel, and even an exclusive authority in the realm of doctrinal declarations, I also understand truth to involve more than mere propositional statements or declarations of beliefs. Truth includes actions, thoughts, emotions, and many other visible expressions of the created world; channels of divine influence and communication, with greater or lesser intensity, are spread throughout history, geography, and religions. In short, I believe that any manifestation of goodness and light, whatever its specific source, is of some salvific value inasmuch as it embodies a witness of the divine’s connection to the world. [10]

Several Mormon prophets have also expressed an understanding of truth which emphasizes great breadth. For example, John Taylor once stated, “I was going to say I am not a Universalist, but I am, and I am also a Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic, and a Methodist, in short, I believe in every true principle that is imbibed by any person or sect, and reject the false. If there is any truth in heaven, earth, or hell, I want to embrace it, I care not what shape it comes in to me, who brings it, or who believes it, whether it is popular or unpopular.” In another context he declared, “If there are any religious ideas, any theological truths, any principles pertaining to God, that we have not learned, we ask mankind, and we pray God, our heavenly Father, to enlighten our minds that we may comprehend, realize, embrace and live up to them as part of our religious faith. Thus our ideas and thoughts would extend as far as the wide world spreads, embracing everything pertaining to light, life, or existence pertaining to this world or the world that is to come.” [11] Wilford Woodruff put it succinctly in these terms: “If any man has got a truth that we have not got, let us have it. Truth is what we are after. . . . If we have not the truth, that is what we are after, we want it.” [12] More recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley exhorted: “The learning process is endless. . . . It therefore behooves us, and is our charge, to grow constantly toward eternity in what must be a ceaseless quest for truth. And as we search for truth, let us look for the good, the beautiful, and the positive.” [13]

There is no reason to think that other religions should be excluded from this rich picture of available knowledge, which does not necessarily emerge from standard Mormon channels. Even when accounting for missing or distorted elements in these religions’ teachings, there remains much in their distinctive expressions of faith that is uniquely beautiful. There is much that we Latter-day Saints can learn from them. For example, the lives and spiritual experiences of many devotees from most religious traditions can be a source of inspiration as they reveal much that may be worthy of emulation. [14] Poetic, musical, and scriptural writings of various kinds may also highlight a degree of commitment and adoration of God, which any person of faith can find uplifting. Certainly, unique formulations of beliefs or interesting connections among various aspects of theology and religious practices can provide enlightening intellectual insights. In short, there are many possible areas of learning which are visible, available, and open to discovery as soon as one seeks for this encounter. Does it not make sense that jewels of divine inspiration can be found in many different cultures and settings when God is truly viewed as an eternal, loving Father who meets his children in their agency and at their levels of understanding? Indeed, when recognizing that the present LDS population accounts for about 0.2 percent of the current world population, it would seem quite provincial to believe that God’s hand should not be manifested in some visible and magnificent manner among faithful followers of the world’s faiths, even in their unique beliefs and practices. Then why would any believer be indifferent or even opposed to such divine evidences simply because they emerge from a different religious or cultural context than the one to which one is accustomed?

The Only True Church

The “only true church” argument is a second argument commonly used by those Latter-day Saints who struggle to reconcile the study of other religions with the restored gospel. It overlaps somewhat with the fullness concern in its emphasis on exclusivity, but it presents additional challenges for the starker language with which it juxtaposes Mormonism to other religions. At its core it claims that since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “the only true church” on the face of the earth, other religions are at best a mix of half-truths and distorted knowledge and at worst a tool of the adversary to spread lies and falsehood in the world. As a result, if one approaches these faiths at all, it is often with the goal of identifying their unique problems rather than with the desire to learn anything from them. Indeed, those who espouse this argument feel the need to add a qualification, a “but” of some sort, which underlies a problem or significant failure in the other faith, if anything positive about it happens to be mentioned. For example, after mentioning a visit to the beautiful cathedrals in Europe, a member quickly added, “but the Spirit was not there,” and a fellow Mormon spoke highly about a neighbor while feeling the need to specify, “but he is not a member.” True, emphasizing the negative or the deficient in other religions further legitimizes Mormonism as the only true church and functions as a way of expressing one’s full commitment to its truths, but these juxtapositions also convey a very black-and-white picture, which does not do justice to the gradations of truths found in other faiths.

Again, the problem with this argument is not its emphasis on the uniqueness of Mormonism or its status as the truest religion; instead, it is its failure to explicitly recognize any truth or salvific value in alternative religious paths. Perhaps this is not what most members want to communicate when they justify their indifference to the world’s religions through the “only true church” argument, but it is certainly difficult for any non-LDS observer to feel that Mormonism is sympathetic to other faiths when remarks on different religions regularly culminate in patronizing criticism. If asked whether other religions are considered to be primarily good (although somewhat misguided) or primarily evil, I would hope that most Latter-day Saints would opt for the former choice. Yet many members of different faiths would be confused in hearing Mormons state that theirs is “the only true church,” particularly when these words are used as a set formula without additional explanations. They would probably understand it to imply that non-Mormon religions are false and possibly evil because the “only true church” formula underlies the claim that truth is exclusive to Mormonism. To use an illustrative analogy, if the Church is the only true original Mona Lisa painted by Leonardo, then other religions are cheap imitations which falsely claim to be what they are not; they are frauds. Any LDS clarification articulating the significance of priesthood authority or the claim of historical continuity with the early Christian church would then need to be included to prevent misunderstandings of this kind.

It is also enlightening to examine the scriptural passage from which this particular statement has traditionally been extracted. Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 indeed states that the Church is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth,” and those who see in this statement a divine condemnation of other churches often point to the following clause “with which I, the Lord, am well pleased.” However, the text does not necessarily imply that the Lord is not at all pleased with other churches, only that he is “well pleased” or “very satisfied” with the church to which he is speaking. Furthermore, the qualifier that follows, “speaking unto the church collectively and not individually,” seems to be a warning against the use of this formula in support of personal pride or self-righteousness. In fact, the cross-referenced scripture in Doctrine and Covenants 50:4 recognizes that God can also be unhappy with his church when it states that “I, the Lord, have looked upon you, and have seen abominations in the church that profess my name,” with the context obviously indicating that the church being referenced is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of that time. In short, whatever interpretative tool one chooses to employ in understanding this particular passage, I do not see a sweeping divine condemnation of other religions or a warning to keep one’s distance from them.

Certainly, President Ezra Taft Benson saw God’s involvement in the world to be much broader than the “only true church” when he stated that “God, the Father of us all, uses the men of the earth, especially good men, to accomplish his purposes. It has been true in the past, it is true today, it will be true in the future.” In the same general conference speech he then cited the late Apostle Orson F. Whitney, who stated: “Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along. They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. . . . God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. . . . They [the Gentiles] are our partners in a certain sense. [15]

Similarly, Elder William Bangerter posed the question: “Do we believe that all ministers of other churches are corrupt? Of course not. . . . It is clearly apparent that there have been and now are many choice, honorable, and devoted men and women going in the direction of their eternal salvation who give righteous and conscientious leadership to their congregations in other churches. Joseph Smith evidently had many warm and friendly contacts with ministers of other religions. . . . Some of them who carried the Christian attitude of tolerance did not join the Church. There are many others like them today.” [16]

Creedal Abomination

Still, a few Latter-day Saints find it particularly difficult to see much or any truth in other religions. Their focus is exclusively on the evil; in fact, they would be the first to suggest that important scriptural evidence indicates that God condemns other religions, especially apostate Christianity. For lack of a better term, I have labeled this particular obstacle to the study of other religions the “creedal abomination” argument, even though a different focus than the creeds may characterize some of its expressions. Where the fullness argument explicitly emphasizes the perfection of Mormonism (while implying the irrelevance of other religions), and the “only true church argument” explicitly emphasizes the exclusive truth of Mormonism (while implying the falsehood of other faiths), there is nothing implicit in the “creedal abomination” argument. Every religion has some members who feel so threatened by a different faith that when they encounter the “religious other,” they can only condemn it as evil. I have experienced this in a few instances with some who use scriptural references to state unequivocally that we should refrain from studying other religions, because God has condemned them. Specifically, a few have quoted the Joseph Smith—History account of the First Vision, where the Prophet reports, with reference to the Christian sects and denominations of his time, that “the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight.” [17]

There is no question in my mind that God has indeed condemned some of the beliefs and actions found in various religions throughout the history of the world. For example, my experience and understanding of God are such that I could not possibly conceive that he would require actual human sacrifices to take place in his name (the word actual accounts for the near-sacrifice in the Abraham and Isaac story). There has been, there is, and there will continue to be evil in humanity, which is contrary to God’s will and which God utterly rejects and condemns. Some of this evil may even receive religious sanction. However, before condemning something as evil simply because it emerges from a different religious context than one’s own, it is important to be aware of our human tendency of seeing only the bad in the other and only the good in us . For example, in relation to the previously quoted passage in Joseph Smith—History, retired BYU professor Roger Keller once stated, “There is a tendency to understand the word creed here as a con fession of faith, such as the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed. The whole context negates this interpretation, however, for that which precedes and follows this passage deals entirely with the religious people of Joseph’s day. Thus, their creeds were their pro fessions of faith, which had few outward manifestations of love.” [18] Furthermore, it is interesting to notice the more amiable tone used by the Prophet Joseph in his later 1842 account of the same vision, where he reports that the Personages “told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom.” [19] There is no “condemnation” or “abomination” in this latter passage, thus possibly suggesting that the more polemical language used in 1838 may have emerged as a direct consequence of the persecutions the Prophet and the Saints suffered in Missouri by the hand of so-called Christians.

Still, regardless of specific scriptural interpretations, arguments of this kind possess significant psychological strength because they protect and legitimate one’s identity as it is rooted in a specific worldview. At least for a few of the Saints, it seems that a focus on the positive that exists outside of Mormonism represents a threatening challenge to the claims and commitments associated with one’s own faith. Hence, the more the religious other is understood to be bad, the more one’s religion shines in comparison as the ultimate good. An effective illustration of this particular human tendency is a conversation I once had with a student who was attending one of my courses on Islam. He came to speak with me about his difficulty in reading the course textbook, which he attributed to the reading process being so emotionally charged that it took him hours to complete every assignment. He specifically mentioned the anger and internal arguments he had experienced when finding in the textbook such expressions as “the prophet Muhammad,” “the revealed Qur’an,” and so forth (the book was authored by a non-Muslim who wrote sympathetically about Islam). While reading these words, he had felt driven to continuously deny them in his mind by retorting the exact opposite, namely that “Satan had inspired the Qur’an, and Muhammad was clearly a false prophet.”

As we continued our conversation, I realized that attaching any possible degree of divine inspiration to the Qur’an or to Muhammad would represent a challenge to his belief in Christ, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon. He said, for example, that just as the Book of Mormon could only be either of God or of the devil, so the Qur’an must either be from God or from the devil, and it was obviously the latter. Moreover, if Jesus is truly the Savior, and Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God, then Muhammad must be a false prophet; it was all very logical in his mind, as he was simply reasserting his commitment to his faith while denying the truthfulness of a religion which advances competing claims.

I praised him for his devotion, but I began to challenge his core assumption. When I asked him whether he thought it possible that he could hold his commitment to Mormonism firm while at the same time being able to identify God’s hand within a different religion, he seemed very skeptical. So we turned to a statement of the First Presidency dated February 15, 1978, which affirms, among other things, that “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.” [20] I reiterated to him that viewing individuals, sacred texts, and religions as either perfectly inspired by God or satanically motivated is a false dichotomy, because God can confer various degrees of light and knowledge as he sends portions of his Spirit to individuals and groups. [21] In short, the interaction of God’s perfect light with the imperfect human filters who function as its receptors gives rise to many different intensities of light, some brighter and some darker. To recognize, to love, and to commit to the brightest of these lights does not require the denial of light in any of its other manifestations.

I do not know whether that student was completely convinced when he left my office, but I do know that looking for light rather than for darkness is a more rewarding experience when studying other religions. Obviously, there is a point and a time when error should be recognized and when disagreement is the only option, but since we are already trained and naturally accustomed to find problems in the religious other, we are probably better off in withholding judgment to begin with by giving a religion the benefit of the doubt, so to speak. If we set out with the desire to understand and identify what is true rather than false about a particular faith, then when we finally are in a position to evaluate it more broadly, it is more likely that our criticism will be fair. This is probably what we would want people to do when they approach the study of our own faith: we would hope that their preconceived notions would be suspended long enough to allow them to truly listen to our message. In that way they will be able to experience what Mormonism has to offer that is exciting, beautiful, and true. Similarly, if we listen and study primarily with the desire to learn rather than to criticize, we will be able to expand our own understanding as well as to offer an informed and less prejudiced judgment when needing to do so. Hence, if approached with the right attitude, the study of world religions can be a fascinating, enlightening, and ultimately faith-promoting experience. Conversely, the “fullness,” “only true church,” and “creedal abomination” arguments, although correct in some of their premises, ultimately hamper true appreciation by emphasizing the irrelevance or falsehood of other religions.

Therefore, there is no incompatibility between the sympathetic study of other religions and a solid commitment to the truths of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On the contrary, there are several pragmatic and spiritual benefits that are likely to emerge from this enterprise. Pragmatically, learning about different beliefs and practices will only facilitate communication and mutual understanding with individuals of different religious persuasions with whom we are increasingly likely to come into contact. Better education on other faiths will facilitate trust and respect as we join hands in the defense of religious freedom and of other foundational values like morality and the family. It will further assist us as we continue to expand our missionary efforts by endowing us with a better understanding of the cultural and religious backgrounds of the people we will teach. I find the best evidence of this conclusion in the many returned-missionary students in my classes who remark at the end of each semester that they wish they had taken a world religions course prior to their missions.

As far as spiritual benefits are concerned, we will be able to deepen our friendships with family, friends, and neighbors of different faiths by appreciating more fully the truth and beauty that they have embraced in their lives and by being able to express without prejudice our own enthusiasm for the gospel of Jesus Christ. Additionally, we will be able to enlarge our own repository of light and truth as we encounter revealed knowledge in other faiths that will shine even brighter when combined with the light of the gospel that we have already internalized. In short, learning about the truth and goodness of other religions will help us become better people and better Mormons.

Three Rules for Religious Understanding

In 1985, during a press conference associated with the construction of the LDS temple in Stockholm, Krister Stendahl, the Lutheran bishop of the Swedish capital, spoke in defense of the Mormons’ right to erect the sacred building. Those who opposed the temple’s construction had used reports based on anti-Mormon publications to criticize the Church, its beliefs, and its practices. In that context Stendahl, who had previously served as the dean of the Harvard Divinity School, expressed what have come to be known as his three rules for religious understanding. [22] These rules provide a solid philosophical and ethical foundation for any engagement in comparative religions and thus are particularly beneficial to any discussion about LDS approaches to other faiths. Indeed, they are useful for the broader context of dialogue and personal interactions of any kind, whether focused on potentially divisive issues like politics, religion, and athletics, or when applied to daily interactions within families and communities. If more people in the world would abide by these rules, there would not be as much conflict and misunderstanding, and greater dialogue and harmony would certainly ensue.

The first rule states that relevant information about a religion should be gained from the very source and not from a competitor or a secondhand account. A student of a particular faith should go to that church’s official literature or ask committed members of the same church when wanting to become educated about its beliefs and practices. In other words, it is better to err on the side of internal bias than on the side of external prejudice. As it relates to an LDS approach to another religion, this means that we will want to describe a religion in such a way that if a believer of that faith were to drop into our discussion unexpectedly he or she would not consider what was being presented to be a caricature of that religion. It also means that if we are ever uncertain about the details of what a religion believes or practices, we should refrain from assuming, generalizing, or judging prior to having acquired solid evidence to support our conclusions. Unfortunately, I have often heard both Latter-day Saints and members of different faiths comment ignorantly on a different religion when it was obvious that they had never taken the time to seriously try to understand it. Therefore, the first rule reminds us that it is important to do our studying and focus that study on the appropriate sources.

The second rule addresses the comparison between one’s religion and the religion being studied, which often follows the initial stage of information gathering. This comparison should not take place too early in the process, otherwise the religion under analysis will not have sufficient time to speak for itself. For us it means that we do not want to express an LDS perspective on a particular faith until we have had the time to examine and understand it. When this time arrives, Stendahl’s second rule reminds us that we need to be fair, namely to compare our best with their best and not our best with their worst . It is too easy and too human to pick and choose the best that one’s community has to offer and juxtapose it with what is most controversial and problematic in a competing group. It happens in sports, national politics, and international relations, and religion is no exception. Certainly most Mormons would protest if a focus on controversial historical issues like plural marriage or the pre-1978 restrictions on priesthood ordination for blacks would be used as a starting point of comparison between Mormonism and another faith, especially if great humanitarian achievements or virtuous and heroic lives originating from the other religion were to function as the other side of the juxtaposition. Similarly, if we were to compare Mormonism to Catholicism, for example, it would not be fair to highlight the great good that is brought about by bishops, missionaries, and other LDS priesthood leaders while painting the whole Catholic priesthood as abusive and corrupt by focusing exclusively on the recent scandals associated with a minority of priests. In short, whether we are dealing with human frailties, attractiveness of beliefs, or devotion to particular practices, we should extend to other faiths the same kindness and benefit of the doubt that we are prone to show ourselves.

Finally, after encouraging us to obtain the correct information about another faith and subsequently to err on the side of goodness and generosity in evaluating it, Stendahl asks us to open ourselves up to being changed by borrowing something of value from the religious other. Indeed, his third rule tells us to leave sufficient room for “holy envy,” namely a feeling of deep respect and admiration for some aspect of the other religion that we could integrate into our own life in whatever form may be compatible with our own faith. For example, a Latter-day Saint could feel motivated to improve his daily prayers after learning about the daily devotions of Muslims, of Catholic religious orders, or of a number of devotees from different religious traditions. Some other member of the Church could become so fascinated with the practice of Buddhist Zen meditation to want to include it into her own practices of spiritual development, whereas others still could find great inspiration in the writings of the Sikh guru Nanak or of any of the other religious founders whose sacred literature they may have spent some time reading. Obviously, holy envy is built on the assumption that we are indeed able to identify something in the other faith, whether relating to history, sacred texts, beliefs, devotions, or other practices, that is lacking in our own or which finds better expression in the other religion. It also presupposes that our own religion is open to such forms of cross-religious learning and that our commitment to our own faith is not in question as a result.

Even though a theme of embracing all the truth is quite prevalent in the restored gospel, we Latter-day Saints probably struggle the most with this third rule. Some feel that they would manifest a lack of loyalty to their own religion if they allowed themselves to admire some aspect of a different faith to this extent. A Catholic friend of mine once put it simply when he said that believers have feelings of love and commitment towards their own religion that are similar to the feelings they hold for their own mothers. Hopefully, most people feel that their own mother is the best mother there could ever be, but recognizing that someone else’s mother may have done a few things a little better than ours does not diminish the value of our mother or our love and commitment to her.

A second obstacle to holy envy that may emerge among the Latter-day Saints was once expressed to me by one of my students in these terms: “Holy envy applies to people from religions which are incomplete; my religion is perfect and complete, thus there is nothing out there which I do not already have.” I have already addressed this issue in a previous section, so I will only add that for most people the concepts of “religion” and “church” are not completely separable from the individuals who embody their beliefs and lifestyles. Thus, if we enlarge our understanding of church or religion to include the words, actions, and lives of its devotees, we will at least be able to find something admirable and worthy of emulation in another faith even when unable to identify holy-envy material in their theologies or doctrine. In short, we are a special people—but not that special! We do not have a monopoly on goodness; we cannot claim the absence of problems among us or boast that we have nothing to learn from different faiths. [23]

It is then in the spirit of these rules that I believe we could and should approach other religions as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Although it may at times be difficult to find the perfect balance between openness to the truth of other faiths and firmness in our commitments to distinctive LDS doctrines, indifference and rejection of light in other religions are not doctrinally sound options. We can overcome false obstacles and follow Stendahl’s guidelines for comparisons, but more than anything else, it will be the excitement of the discovery that will push us forward, not in spite of our Mormonism but because of it. Many Latter-day Saints have already enjoyed this experience, and in so doing they have enlarged their circles of friendships while joining hands with others in defending faith, family, and society. Indeed, this is a time when we should feel more threatened by some aspects of the world, such as materialism, sexual immorality, pride, violence, and faithlessness, than by any religious competitor.

We will also notice that as we listen and sincerely desire to understand others we will be better listened to, and we will be better understood by others. In so doing we will share the gospel message in the spirit of President Hinckley’s words: “God bless us as those who believe in His divine manifestations and help us to extend knowledge of these great and marvelous occurrences to all who will listen. To these we say in a spirit of love, bring with you all that you have of good and truth which you have received from whatever source, and come and let us see if we may add to it.” [24] He added, “Love and respect will overcome every element of animosity. Our kindness may be the most persuasive argument for that which we believe.” [25]

[1] Huston Smith, The Way Things Are: Conversations with Huston Smith on the Spiritual Life , ed. Phil Cousineau (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 143.

[2] Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Quentin L. Cook are the two Apostles who have probably spoken the most on this subject. See Elder Quentin L. Cook, “The Restoration of Morality and Religious Freedom,” BYU–Idaho commencement, December 16, 2011, http:// www.mormonnewsroom.org/ article/ the-restoration-of-morality-and-religious-freedom; Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Transcript of Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ Speech Given at Chapman University School of Law,” http:// www.mormonnewsroom.org/ article/ elder-oaks-religious-freedom-Chapman-University; Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Truth and Tolerance,” Religious Educator 13, no. 2 (2012): 1–15; Elder Quentin L. Cook, “Lamentations of Jeremiah: Beware of Bondage,” Ensign , November 2013, 88–91. Other Apostles and General Authorities have also spoken on this issue: see Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, “Faith, Family, and Religious Freedom,” http:// www.mormonnewsroom.org/ files/ Elder-Holland-Address--Faith--Family--Religious-Freedom/ elder-holland-faith-family-freedom.pdf.

[3] “Religious Freedom,” http:// www.mormonnewsroom.org/ official-statement/ religious-freedom .

[4] Mauro Properzi, “LDS Understandings of Religious Freedom: Responding to the Shifting Cultural Pendulum,” Journal of Mormon History 38, no. 3 (Summer 2012): 128–47.

[5] “Selected Beliefs and Statements on Religious Freedom of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” http:// www.mormonnewsroom.org/ article/ beliefs-statements-religious-freedom .

[6] “As the ruling principle of conduct in the lives of many millions of our citizens, religion should have an honorable place in the public life of our nation, and the name of Almighty God should have sacred use in its public expressions. We urge our members and people of good will everywhere to unite to protect and honor the spiritual and religious heritage of our nation and to resist the forces that would transform the public position of the United States from the constitutional position of neutrality to a position of hostility toward religion.” “ First Presidency Warns Against ‘Irreligion,’” Ensign , May 1979, 108–9 . Also see W. Cole Durham Jr., “The Doctrine of Religious Freedom,” in BYU Speeches, 2000–2001 (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2001), 213–26.

[7] Terryl Givens, People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 3–63.

[8] Mauro Properzi, “The Religious ‘Other’: Reflecting upon Mormon Perceptions,” International Journal of Mormon Studies 3 (2010): 41–55.

[9] B. H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , 2nd ed. rev. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 5:529–30; 5:554; 6:57; 6:184; Articles of Faith 1:9.

[10] “But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge . . . that which is good and of God to be of the devil” (Moroni 7:13–14).

[11] John Taylor, in Journal of Discourses (London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1854–86), 1:155; 14:337.

[12] Wilford Woodruff, in Journal of Discourses , 17:194.

[13] Gordon B. Hinckley, Standing for Something (New York: Times Books, 2000), 62, 64.

[14] “Many Christians have voluntarily given sacrifices motivated by faith in Christ and the desire to serve Him. Some have chosen to devote their entire adult lives to the service of the Master. This noble group includes those in the religious orders of the Catholic Church and those who have given lifelong service as Christian missionaries in various Protestant faiths. Their examples are challenging and inspiring, but most believers in Christ are neither expected nor able to devote their entire lives to religious service.” Dallin H. Oaks, “Sacrifice,” Ensign , May 2012, 19.

[15] Orson F. Whitney, as quoted in Ezra T. Benson, “Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints,” Ensign , July 1972, 59.

[16] William G. Bangeter, “It’s a Two-Way Street,” in 1984–85 BYU Speeches of the Year (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Publications, 1985), 161.

[17] Joseph Smith—History 1:19.

[18] Roger Keller and others, Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View , rev. ed. (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1997), 199.

[19] Karen Lynn Davidson, David J. Whittaker, Richard L. Jensen, and Mark Ashurst-McGee, eds., Histories, Volume 1: Joseph Smith Histories, 1832–1844 , vol. 1 of the Histories series of The Joseph Smith Papers , ed. Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 494.

[20] “God’s Love for All Mankind,” First Presidency Statement , February 15, 1978. This statement is referenced in an April 2006 general conference talk given by President James E. Faust, entitled “The Restoration of All Things.”

[21] Doctrine & Covenants 71:1.

[22] “Interfaith Relations,” http:// www.mormonnewsroom.org/ article/ interfaith .

[23] “Of course, our church does not have a monopoly on good people, but we have a remarkable concentration of them.” Dallin H. Oaks, “The Gospel in Our Lives,” Ensign , May 2002, 33–35.

[24] Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith,” Ensign , November 2002, 81.

[25] Gordon B. Hinckley, “We Bear Witness of Him,” Ensign , May 1998, 5.

Contact the RSC

185 Heber J. Grant Building Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 801-422-6975

Helpful Links

Religious Education

BYU Studies

Maxwell Institute

Articulos en español

Artigos em português

Connect with Us

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Essay on Religious Beliefs And Practices

Students are often asked to write an essay on Religious Beliefs And Practices in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Religious Beliefs And Practices

What are religious beliefs and practices.

Religious beliefs and practices are the things people believe in and do in their religion. These may include praying, going to a place of worship, or following certain rules. Every religion has its own set of beliefs and practices.

Importance of Religious Beliefs

Religious beliefs are important because they give people a sense of purpose and direction in life. They help people understand the world around them. For some, these beliefs also provide comfort during difficult times.

Types of Religious Practices

Religious practices can be different for each religion. Some may involve praying at specific times, fasting, or attending religious festivals. These practices can also help people feel closer to their faith.

Respecting Others’ Beliefs and Practices

It is important to respect others’ religious beliefs and practices, even if they are different from our own. This shows understanding and kindness. It also helps to create a peaceful world where everyone feels respected.

The Role of Religious Education

250 words essay on religious beliefs and practices.

Religious beliefs and practices are the things that people in different religions think are true and the actions they do because of these thoughts. These beliefs and actions usually come from sacred texts, traditions, or teachings from religious leaders.

Types of Religious Beliefs

There are many types of religious beliefs. Some people believe in one god, like in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Others believe in many gods, like in Hinduism. Some people don’t believe in a god but follow teachings about how to live, like in Buddhism.

Religious Practices

Religious practices are the things that people do because of their religious beliefs. This can include praying, going to a place of worship, or following special rules about food or behavior. For example, Muslims pray five times a day, Christians go to church, and Hindus have a festival called Diwali.

Importance of Religious Beliefs and Practices

Religious beliefs and practices are important because they help people understand the world and their place in it. They can give people a sense of purpose and community. They can also guide people’s actions and choices in life.

Respecting Different Beliefs

It’s important to respect people’s religious beliefs and practices, even if they’re different from our own. This helps us live together in peace. We can learn from each other and grow as people when we understand and respect different religions.

500 Words Essay on Religious Beliefs And Practices

Religious beliefs and practices are a part of many people’s lives. They are ideas and actions that are linked to a religion. A person’s religious beliefs can shape their views on life, the world, and other people. Religious practices are the things that people do to show their faith. This can include going to a place of worship, praying, or taking part in special ceremonies.

Different Types of Religious Beliefs

There are many different types of religious beliefs in the world. Some people believe in one God, like in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. These are called monotheistic religions. Other people believe in many gods, like in Hinduism. This is called polytheism. Still, others, like Buddhists, do not believe in a personal god but follow a spiritual path towards enlightenment.

Common Religious Practices

The role of religious beliefs and practices.

Religious beliefs and practices play a big role in many people’s lives. They can provide comfort and guidance in difficult times. They can also help to create a sense of community among people who share the same beliefs. For many, their religion gives them a sense of purpose and meaning in life.

Respecting Different Religious Beliefs and Practices

It’s important to respect other people’s religious beliefs and practices, even if they are different from our own. Everyone has the right to choose their own beliefs and to practice their religion freely. We can learn a lot from each other’s religions and grow to understand each other better.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Spiritual Growth and Christian Living Resources

• BROWSE TOPICS X
• Devotionals
• Newsletters

How Should Christians Treat People of Other Faiths?

• Clarence L. Haynes Jr. Contributing Writer
• Updated Jul 31, 2023

When dealing with people of other faiths sometimes we as Christians struggle with the right way to approach them and more importantly how to treat them. In America, we are a country that gives people the freedom to practice any religion they choose as long as they are not being harmful to anyone in the process. It is written into the Constitution that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

As Christians, I think sometimes we forget this because we want things to bend in the direction of our beliefs. So, what is a good way for Christians to engage people of different faiths? And is there a proper way to share the gospel with them? I want to share with you four important things to remember when you are engaging people of other faiths. 

1. Respect their decision to believe.

The freedom to choose is a God-given right. God gives everyone the right to choose the direction they want to walk in. Even if that means walking away from him or in a different direction than God would want them to go. Ultimately it is each person’s own decision. You have to respect their decision to believe as they choose.

It doesn’t mean you don’t try to reach them with the gospel, but it means you must respect if they choose to walk another way. By showing them the proper respect, even if you disagree, you are able to demonstrate what it means to love your neighbor.

2. Understand where they are before telling them where to go.

In the zeal to win someone to Christ, we will often disregard a person’s situation to get to the gospel. After all, I have to tell everybody about Jesus.

The best way to do this is to ask questions. Here are two that work well:

Why did you choose to follow this path or religion? By the way there are some people in Christian churches who can’t answer this question.

Have you found fulfillment or do you feel like there is something missing?

It’s wise to recognize that if a person is satisfied where they are, it is very rare they’re going to feel the need to change what they’re doing. If you find a person in this situation, don’t try to convince them why they are not seeing things correctly. That rarely works. Simply pray for them, love them, and ask God to begin to open their hearts to the truth.

Too often we want to beat people over the head with the gospel and then wonder why it doesn’t work.

Understanding where they are will require you to learn about their religious system or beliefs. Again, the goal is not so you can form strategy, but so that you can begin to develop empathy and compassion for where they are. 

Often what you will find in many other religions is that a personal relationship with God doesn’t really exist. There may be difficulty in relating to God as a loving father. You may also discover that the assurance of salvation and the hope of heaven are generally absent.

Here’s a perspective on three different religions:

Islam: They have a monotheistic view of God, meaning God is one, not one God revealed in three persons. Though they approach God in prayer , it is not from a perspective of building a relationship. They want to do their best to try to please God. Also at the end of life, they believe men are judged on the scales, and then it will be determined if you will go to heaven or hell. They never know if they have done enough in this life to enter heaven.

The concept of sin is foreign in Hinduism. Your good deeds impact your next life favorably and your bad deeds can lead to suffering in your next life. Because of the law of karma there is no room for forgiveness because the result of what you do, good or bad, will be reflected in the next life. 

Jehovah’s Witness: Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in the Trinity and do not see Jesus as being fully God. He is not seen as divine. They believe Jesus came and died—but on a stake, not a cross. In this faith, salvation can only come by believing in Jesus...but not Jesus as God. You must trust in this lower version of Jesus. In addition, you must do good works or your salvation won’t be complete. This is one of the reasons they spend so much time witnessing.

Let me ask you, does knowing these simple little truths give you a better idea of where someone in a different religion is coming from? I hope so. By understanding what someone is being taught in their faith you may gain insight into what is driving their behavior.

You may also begin to understand why they think the way they do. Knowing these things can help you relate to them better. If you ever have the opportunity to share the gospel with them, at least you will know where they are coming from.

3. Remember, you are not trying to win an argument—you are trying to win a soul.

Let’s assume you’ve taken a step forward and you decide to share the gospel with your friend, neighbor, or relative who is of a different faith.

Let me remind you of one thing, you are not trying to win an argument. In fact, I would encourage you to stop looking at people of other faiths as checkmarks. Remember they are people first, who are loved by God. They have goals, dreams, and ambitions. They love their families and want many of the same things you do.

When I lived in New York City, I used to engage in discussions with Jehovah’s Witnesses. I would invite them into my home and we would sit and have conversation. My goal back then was to try to show them the error of their ways and hopefully win them to Christ. After many conversations, I was highly unsuccessful. They later blacklisted my house and stopped ringing my doorbell.

I don’t think I ever once asked them about their famiIy, goals, dreams, or anything to truly get to know them because I was determined to prove my point. No wonder it didn’t work. I needed to follow Jesus’ model who would take time to have a meal or engage someone. Jesus would ask questions that would cause them to think about their situation and their condition. You must do the same. That’s why those first two questions I shared with you earlier are so important.

Before you can have a conversation about change, you need to make sure they are open to it or are looking for it, or the conversation is useless. You may not understand this if you are trying to win an argument...but you will understand it if you are trying to win a soul.

People don’t change until they realize they need to change. That’s why we need the Holy Spirit to make them aware of their condition and to open their eyes to the truth of the gospel. Without him working in their heart, you may indeed win the argument—but you won’t win the soul.

If they don’t want to change at least you haven’t ruined a relationship in the process. And who knows what the value of that open door will be at a later point.

Photo Credit: Artem Podrez / Pexels

4. It’s not about removing or disparaging faith, it’s about transferring faith.

One of the things you must realize is that people of other faiths actually have faith. They believe in something. It may be different than you, but they believe.

When you engage with them, especially if you are going to share the gospel, your job is not to get them to lose their faith, you want them to transfer their faith. You want them to move from what they truly believe and transfer that to the one true and living God .

For this to happen, you must be willing to be in it for the duration, not just hit them with the gospel, run away, and hope it works. You must understand that it is a big step for someone to shift their belief system. Imagine the process you would go through to change what you believe and then place your hope in something else. That is not easy, yet it is what we are asking them to do.

As a final word, love people.

As you engage people from other faiths, remember more than anything: they are people, too. You have a responsibility to love them, try to understand them, and—when appropriate—share Jesus with them.

However, you must realize that you will never get to share Jesus if you don’t respect them and meet them exactly where they are. After all, isn’t that what Jesus would do? Let’s follow his model and engage people the way he would.

I think we would see much better results in the process.

Photo Credit: ©GettyImages/Rawpixel

Recently On Spiritual Life

Editor's Picks

Popular Today

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Crosswalk App
• California - Do Not Sell My Personal Information
• California - CCPA Notice

How Should Christians Respond to Other Religions?

by Ben Edwards

Recent decades have provided Christians with an increasing evaluation of and interaction with various world religions. The growth of immigration from non-Christian nations combined with a greater global awareness through travel and communication have confronted Christians with the reality of diversity in faith and practice. Protestant Christians have responded in different ways to this reality. Often, these responses are grouped in three broad categories. However, with the rise of postmodernism a fourth category has appeared. I will endeavor to explain and evaluate these four approaches below, concluding with the approach I believe best adheres with biblical Christianity.

Universalism

The first approach to world religions may be classified as universalism. Universalism proposes that all religions are more or less equal, with no one religion able to claim supremacy. Two common illustrations are used when explaining this approach, but provide slightly different nuances. The first is to picture salvation or truth as a mountain top and various religions as paths up the mountain. At points along the way these paths may appear different, but when followed to the end they lead to the same place. Thus, all religions ultimately teach the same thing. If adherents merely took the time to interact with one another they would discover how much they actually agreed. This perspective would eschew proselytizing, opting instead for simple dialogue.

Another picture is of a group of blind men approaching an elephant, with each man grabbing a different part of the animal and concluding partially true statements about it. However, none of them fully understands the elephant. In this illustration, no one religion has a claim to all truth. Instead, one must recognize that all religions have part of the truth, so the best approach is to incorporate beliefs from different religions.

Though this approach is popular among more liberal Protestants, attempts to defend it biblically are scarce. This scarcity is not surprising since there is little to no biblical support for universalism. Throughout the Old Testament, the God of the Jews is set in opposition to the gods of the surrounding peoples. The first commandment in the Decalogue places Yahweh as the supreme God. The nation is called to abandon other gods for the true God. In the New Testament, Jesus points to himself as “the way,” claiming that “no one comes to the Father except by [him].” Paul refers to the worship of idols as the worship of demons and applauds the Thessalonians for turning from idols to serve the true and living God. Nor are believers called to look to other religions to gain a better understanding of God. Jesus claimed that those who knew him knew God and that those who rejected him rejected God.

Universalism also creates logical difficulties. A thorough study of the different religions reveals that they do not all teach the same thing but often proclaim explicitly contradictory truths. Some religions are monotheistic, while others are polytheistic or pantheistic. Some believe that life is cyclical, while others hold to a linear view of history. Clearly all religions are not teaching the same thing. Arguing that all religions only have part of the truth does not ultimately solve this dilemma, for the only way to know that each religion has part of the truth is to have access to all of the truth. Those who hold universalism may have a laudable goal of reducing conflict by emphasizing unity, but they do injustice to the Bible and to other religions.

With the rise of postmodernism a modification of universalism has emerged that could be classified as relativism. Whereas universalism claims that all religions lead to the truth or contain part of the truth, relativism says that all religions have their own truths. In essence, a relativist would say that religions are not different paths up one mountain but different mountains altogether. This approach recognizes the clear differences between religions, but states that these different truths are not ultimately contradictory because they are true in themselves. There is no universal truth by which to judge the truths of the various religions. Again, the relativist sees no need for proselytizing, since no religion could be judged as better than another.

The relativist approach runs into the same biblical problem as the universalist approach. Christ not only claimed to be “the way” but also “the truth.” He called his followers to go throughout the world making disciples, which entails conversion to the truth. God is never portrayed as one choice among many but as the only God.

Ultimately, a relativistic approach to religions crumbles under the same difficulty as relativism in general—it is a self-defeating philosophy. Relativism proceeds on the idea that ultimate or universal truth is non-existent, but the claim that there is no universal truth is itself a universal truth. Further, relativism is incapable of condemning any action or attitude, since there is no standard by which to judge. In relativism, acts of terrorism and acts of charity are equally valid ways to demonstrate one’s commitment to religion. However, most people easily recognize these acts are not equally valid because of their universal sense of right and wrong. Though some may argue for a relativistic approach to religion, they never fully embrace it because of these difficulties.

Inclusivism

A third approach to religion is inclusivism. In inclusivism, one’s own religion is the supreme religion, but other religions have truths that will ultimately lead to the truth found in the supreme religion. From a Christian perspective, that means that one can only be saved in Christ, but the Bible is not the only revelation of Christ. On the more liberal end of this perspective, proponents argue that sincere worshippers in other religions may be saved if they follow their religion and never have a chance to hear of Christ and Christianity. They believe the Quran has truths in it inspired by the Holy Spirit, so a devout Muslim who never hears of Christ may be saved by following these inspired truths in the Quran. On the more conservative end of this approach, proponents believe that someone may become a Christian by believing the gospel of Christ but continue to worship in their original religion. Thus, a Muslim may put faith in Christ but continue to practice as a Muslim because of the inspired truths in the Quran. An inclusivist would practice proselytizing but may not consider it an urgent matter.

Inclusivism does take seriously the biblical teaching that salvation is in Christ alone. It also recognizes the biblical teaching that some revelation of God has gone out to all people, i.e., general revelation. However, it fails to incorporate the Bible’s teaching on how an individual is saved through Christ. There are no biblical examples of a person being saved without knowledge of Christ. Rather, Paul states that people cannot believe in someone of whom they have never heard. Jesus’ command to go and make disciples would be less significant if salvation were possible apart from the proclamation of the Gospel. Inclusivism actually makes general revelation salvific in nature when the Bible never indicates that general revelation is able to lead to salvation. Romans 1 and Romans 2 both point to general revelation as important for the condemnation of all people, since people universally suppress the truth God has revealed about himself and his moral law, leaving unbelievers with no excuse.

On the more conservative end, proponents fail to incorporate the biblical teaching of conversion. Though they rightly recognize that salvation comes through faith in Christ, they minimize the transformative effects of that salvation. Salvation includes regeneration, which enables believers to turn from their sinful ways and turn to serve Christ alone. One of the evidences of regeneration is a rejection of false religion to embrace biblical Christianity. The proponents also distort the teaching of inspiration. The Bible claims inspiration for itself but does not extend that inspiration outside of itself. Any truth in other religions can be traced to general revelation and common grace rather than inspiration.

Exclusivism

The final approach to world religions is exclusivism. This approach teaches that there is only one true religion and only one way of salvation. For a Christian, Christ is the only way of salvation and the Bible is the only source of saving revelation today. Other religions are sourced in man’s rebellion against God and/or demonic influence. Though other religions may have some truths in them, they are not saving truths. Exclusivism encourages proselytizing since it is the only hope for adherents of other religions to be saved.

This approach best lines up with the teachings of Scripture and of the beliefs held by the majority of Christians in church history. A potential danger in this approach is that one may develop an arrogant attitude that assumes possession of the truth entails superiority. However, a true understanding of salvation in Christianity minimizes this danger. Since the Bible teaches that salvation is a work of God graciously given to unworthy sinners, those who have been saved have no grounds for boasting. They do not have the truth because they have greater intelligence, morality, or wealth. Rather, they have the truth because they received grace and mercy and should desire to see others experience that same grace and mercy.

Photo credit: ©Getty Images/VectorMine

• Search for: Search

Accepting Others Regardless of Beliefs

People with different religious views often focus on their differences and push each other far apart. What would happen if we focused on how we are alike?

In a speech given at BYU , Barbara Culatta gave seven tips to help us accept those who believe differently than we do. She offered the following advice:

• Look for commonalities.
• Accept people where they are.
• Reflect on the goodness in other religions.
• See differences and weaknesses as part of life .
• Value what we can learn for others.

Photo by Sara Riano.

In other words, we should treat people with Christlike love. As followers of Christ, we are striving to make the world a better place. To do this, we must understand how to love and accept each other despite our differences.

Christ’s love can help bridge differences, creating friendships in even the most unlikely of places. In March 2019, President Russell M. Nelson visited the Vatican and met with His Holiness, Pope Francis. After the meeting, President Nelson said that Pope Francis was a “sweet, wonderful man.” When asked about the differences between their religions, President Nelson said, “the differences in doctrine are real and they’re important, but they’re not nearly as important as the things we have in common—our concern for human suffering, the importance of religious liberty for all of society, and the importance of building bridges of friendship instead of building walls of segregation.”

President Nelson is a wonderful example of how to love and accept others wholeheartedly, even when we disagree. As members of Christ’s church in the last days, we need to remember this in our everyday lives. Regardless of what others believe, we can follow Sister Culatta’s tips and President Nelson’s example by always showing others Christlike love and respect.

Read Barbara Culatta’s full speech “ Loving Our Neighbor: Tolerance and Acceptance as We Come Together in Knowing Christ .”

Source: BYU Speeches

—Robbyn Merrell, Mormon Insights

FEATURE IMAGE BY CHERYL HOLT

Find more insights

Watch “ We Aren’t God’s Only People ”  on Mormon Channel or by reading Elder Bednar’s talk “ Gather Together in One All Things in Christ .”

Read about President Nelson’s visit to the Vatican .

Share this:

• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Each comment will be reviewed by a staff member before it will appear on the site. We reserve the right to not approve any comments that do not meet our community standards. View our community standards here .

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Click here to subscribe to our newsletter

Source Publications

BYU Speeches

BYU Studies Quarterly

BYU-Idaho Speeches

Church History

Church Newsroom

ChurchofJesusChrist.org

ChurchofJesusChrist.org Blog

ComeUntoChrist.org

FamilySearch

General Conference

Gospel Topics

Joseph Smith Papers Project

Mormon Channel

Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship

Religious Studies Center

The Wheatley Institution

Ensign College Devotionals

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Learning to Respect Religion

By Nicholas Kristof

• April 7, 2012

A FEW years ago, God seemed caught in a devil of a fight.

Atheists were firing thunderbolts suggesting that “religion poisons everything,” as Christopher Hitchens put it in the subtitle of his book, “God Is Not Great.” Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins also wrote best sellers that were scathing about God, whom Dawkins denounced as “arguably the most unpleasant character in fiction.”

Yet lately I’ve noticed a very different intellectual tide: grudging admiration for religion as an ethical and cohesive force.

The standard-bearer of this line of thinking — and a provocative text for Easter Sunday — is a new book , “Religion for Atheists,” by Alain de Botton. He argues that atheists have a great deal to learn from religion.

“One can be left cold by the doctrines of the Christian Trinity and the Buddhist Eightfold Path and yet at the same time be interested in the ways in which religions deliver sermons, promote morality, engender a spirit of community, make use of art and architecture, inspire travels, train minds and encourage gratitude at the beauty of spring,” de Botton writes.

“The error of modern atheism has been to overlook how many aspects of the faiths remain relevant even after their central tenets have been dismissed,” he adds, and his book displays an attitude toward religion that is sometimes — dare I say — reverential.

Edward O. Wilson, the eminent Harvard biologist, has a new book, “The Social Conquest of Earth,” that criticizes religion as “stultifying and divisive” — but also argues that religion offered a competitive advantage to early societies. Faith bolstered social order among followers and helped bind a tribe together, he writes, and that is why religion is so widespread today. And he tips his hat to the social role of faith:

“Organized religions preside over the rites of passage, from birth to maturity, from marriage to death,” Wilson writes, adding: “Beliefs in immortality and ultimate divine justice give priceless comfort, and they steel resolution and bravery in difficult times. For millennia, organized religions have been the source of much of the best in the creative arts.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Respectfully debating different views of religion and beliefs is possible — here's how

Topic: Philosophy and Ethics

Embarking on a discussion about religion is possible but good will and consideration for others is essential. ( ABC Everyday: Luke Tribe/ Unsplash: Alan Carrillo )

Are you an atheist who has religious friends or family members? Or maybe you're a lapsed believer surrounded by the more devout?

Few topics cause as much drama as arguments over religion. But it should be possible to talk to one another, and even question someone's beliefs, without resorting to disrespect or yelling.

So how exactly do you talk to someone respectfully who has a different value set based on the word of a God — or gods — you don't believe in?

Every fortnight ABC Everyday's resident ethicist Dr Matt Beard tackles your thorny, everyday moral dilemmas in our series Hairy Questions. Let's get into it!

How do I talk respectfully about faith with true believers without doubting their religion?

I grew up with virtually no religious instruction as my parents weren't very religious. I discovered Jesus when I was about 10 years old, and loved going to church every Sunday.

I love singing songs and being in the company of very good, caring people. But I am only a half believer, and cannot partake in much of the service.

Reading philosophy led me to question my religious beliefs. My dilemma is wanting to talk about this with full believers, but cannot as I do not want to put doubt into anyone's mind about their beliefs. Should I keep my doubts to myself?

This question has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Dr Beard's response

Dr Matt Beard is a husband, dad, pop culture nerd, moral philosopher and ethicist. ( Supplied )

At the core of your question is a wonderful and respectful attitude toward other people's faith. You're so concerned with not spoiling someone's theological party that you're putting your own intellectual journey on hold.

The respect you're showing deserves kudos (though I do have one thought on respect I'll come back to), so kudos!

Kudos aside, though, you need to be careful not to slip from respect into something that's a bit more patronising.

Respect means more than being sensitive to the beliefs of others. It also means recognising that people are smart, resilient and competent agents. Have you ever had someone talk down to you? Or felt like someone was trying to protect your feelings? It's insulting, right?

I'm a bit concerned that you're underestimating the believers with whom you want to chat. It sounds like you're concerned that by expressing your doubts to them, you'll be destroying their faith.

But for that to happen you'd have to be selling a particularly contagious and persuasive brand of scepticism.

The questions you've posed of your own beliefs aren't new — they've been around for thousands of years. Odds are, most of the believers you know have at least heard of them and kept their faith intact thus far. Your doubt may not be as devastating as you think.

Be careful not to dismiss people's genuine beliefs

I'd also be careful not to trivialise your idea of what religious belief is for many people.

You seem to have concluded that a bunch of the theological claims people believe in are wrong. But you're also worried that there's something special about religious beliefs that mean we should let believers be happy in their wrongfulness.

There's something to say in support of this, but you should also bear in mind that it's a loaded claim.

On one hand, it gives off a vibe that the only way religious belief can survive is if it's protected from criticism. On the other, it suggests we — or some people — should prefer comfortable falsehoods to hard truths.

Let's deal with each of these claims in turn. First, the intellectual fragility of religious belief. You've noted that you remain fond of the aesthetics of religion — the songs, stories and role it had in your life — but think the theology is hokum. And you're also worried that telling other people you think this way will break their faith.

For this to work, it would have to be true that there are no good answers to the challenges you've identified. Also, we'd need to assume that all it takes to destroy false beliefs are good rational arguments.

It's not clear to me either is the case.

While some religious beliefs are harder to swallow than others, there's no shortage of defensible, well-argued believers and beliefs out there. You don't need to find them persuasive to accept that others might.

More importantly, though, there is less and less evidence to suggest that what we find persuasive is purely a product of rational evidence.

While your loss of faith was a case of head leading heart, you're the exception, not the rule. More often than not our beliefs are closely connected to our relationships, identity and emotion. That means it's unlikely your expression of doubt is going to shatter anyone's faith in the way you fear.

But let's assume you could cause people to doubt their faith. Why wouldn't you? After all, you've decided the beliefs aren't backed up by reality — wouldn't you be doing a service by making people doubt?

Sometimes hard truths are better than comfortable falsehoods

Let me introduce you to Immanuel Kant. He was a German philosopher who was well known for being a massive stick in the mud. Also, his work has defined an entire school of thought within moral philosophy.

Kant believed that what made ethics possible is our ability to act autonomously — we can think and made choices for ourselves.

Kant reached a whole bunch of different conclusions about the significance of autonomy. One that seems relevant here is that you should never, ever lie.

Say there's a murderer at the door, asking where your buddy is (so they can murder him). Kant argued that you shouldn't lie about your friend's location (yes, Kant wrote an essay about this absurd scenario).

He abhorred lying because we cannot act autonomously if we don't have a clear picture of the world. The more we know, the better we are able to navigate our choices and arrange our lives in a way that maps to reality.

This gives us some pretty compelling reasons to think we should prefer hard truths to comfortable falsehoods. That might give you cause to pursue the conversation, even if it does cause doubt.

But be careful: those who tend to like telling "hard truths" tend to like doing so in ways that resemble being a massive dick.

How you have the conversation matters, so don't be a jerk

Many non-believers today ( hello, New Atheists ) consider themselves to be the great rational liberators of false beliefs.

They hit the speaking circuit and YouTube, using their mighty reason to show how religious beliefs are illogical, improbable or downright immoral. But in doing so, they tend to break the very rules of rationality they claim to uphold.

They create straw man versions of religion, beg the question and fail to subject their own beliefs to the same rigour they do their opponents. In short, even if their goal — intellectual liberation — is noble, their methods (and sometimes their arguments) suck.

The point here is that how you go about the conversation matters as much as whether you have the conversation.

If your goal is to better understand your own doubt, that's going to go a long way toward a meaningful discussion. It's going to make you humble, open to other views and respectful of the people you chat with.

But if your goal is to change minds, proceed with caution. That's where you can start to patronise and infantilise the views of the people you're debating. Plus, it probably won't work.

Even though respect is important, we don't have to respect every single belief

Sometimes I worry we spend too much time worrying about the importance of respecting other people and their beliefs.

We also spend a lot of time working out which views are not worthy of respect (see: Nazis, misogynists, climate deniers). But in among all this, we've lost a clear sense of what it means to respect a view.

To respect a view means to let it be a serious candidate for truth until we have reasons to dismiss it.

We can have a big debate about how high a standard we have to reach before we dismiss a view, but I think we can all agree we don't need to respect views that are obviously wrong, dumb or unethical.

My view is the source of these views — religion, politics, moral corruption or whatever — matters less than the view itself.

It's also my view that the belief matters less than the person who holds it. If we care about people — and we should — we should want them to know what's true and what's right.

This means we might be especially obliged to respond to ideas we don't respect. But not because the ideas should be taken seriously; because the people — both those who hold the beliefs and those who might be harmed by them — do.

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Geneva

General Comment:  EU Resolution on Freedom of Religion or Belief

 Statement by the Delegation of the United States of America As Delivered by Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe

Human Rights Council 22 nd Session

Geneva, March 21, 2013

The United States is pleased to co-sponsor the EU-sponsored resolution on the freedom of religion or belief. The United States strongly supports freedom of religion for all people around the world.  Unfortunately, in too many countries, governments fail to protect, or actively deny, their peoples’ fundamental right to believe according to their conscience and to manifest those beliefs, and subject their citizens to violence, severe discrimination, or arrest on account of those beliefs.  Too many people around the world face the threat of prosecution from blasphemy and apostasy laws, which governments frequently use to shield themselves from legitimate criticism, and fellow citizens use as weapons in private disputes.  Too many governments routinely fail to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of sectarian crimes, leading to a climate of impunity that may breed violent extremism.  These trends must be reversed if we are to realize sustainable peace in this world.

We note with particular concern the worsening plight of religious minority communities in Iran, including Christians, Sunnis, Sufis, Jews, and Baha’i. Iranian officials continue to restrict these communities’ freedom to practice their religious beliefs free from harassment, threat, or intimidation. Christian pastor Saeed Abedini’s continuing harsh treatment at the hands of Iranian authorities exemplifies this trend. We repeat our call for the Government of Iran to release Mr. Abedini, and others who are unjustly imprisoned, and to cease immediately its persecution of all religious minority communities. The United States also repeats its call for the Government of Iran to provide without delay the urgent medical attention Mr. Abedini needs.

Respect for religious diversity is an essential element of any peaceful society, and religious freedom is a universal human right that all states have a responsibility to uphold.  We implore all states to live up to their obligations and to hold accountable those who seek to restrict the freedom of religion.

The latest Department of State travel updates and guidance on travel.state.gov .

• Smart Traveler Enrollment Program The Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) is a free service to allow U.S. citizens and nationals traveling and living abroad to enroll their trip with the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate. Enroll Now
• Looking for the nearest embassy or consulate? Visit the official list of embassies, consulates, and diplomatic missions from the U.S. Department of State. Find the nearest Embassy or Consulate
• Coronavirus.gov A portal for public information that is curated by the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Task Force at the White House, working in conjunction with CDC, HHS and other agency stakeholders. Visit Coronavirus.gov .

Have an emergency?

• Contact your nearest embassy or call 1-888-407-4747 (U.S./Canada) or +1-202-501-4444 (overseas)
• Contact the nearest Embassy or Consulate
• Enroll for Alerts

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) landing page on CDC.gov is the latest public health and safety information from CDC and for the overarching medical and health provider community on COVID-19. Visit CDC Covid-19 Page

Visit the official list of embassies, consulates, and diplomatic missions from the U.S. Department of State.

The Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) is a free service to allow U.S. citizens and nationals traveling and living abroad to enroll their trip with the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate.     Enroll Now

Use up to three keywords instead of using a full sentence for the best search results.

product warranty

free shipping offer

Would you help us improve our website

Note: This feature is strictly for feedback about your experience using the website. All other questions and feedback will be disregarded. Thank you for your understanding. You are visiting a website that just underwent a redesign. Please take a few moments to provide us with your valuable feedback.

Note: This feature is strictly for feedback about your experience using the website.

Please take a few moments to provide us with your valuable feedback. Note: This feature is strictly for feedback about your experience using the website. All other questions and feedback will be disregarded.

{{ error }}

* Please see our Contact Us page for more information on how to reach us.

Thank you for sharing your feedback!

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Personal Development
• Showing Respect

How to Respect and Be Open to All Beliefs

Last Updated: April 17, 2024 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Mary Church, PhD and by wikiHow staff writer, Glenn Carreau . Dr. Mary Church is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist based in Honolulu, Hawaii. With over a decade of clinical experience, she aims to integrate evolution, genetics, and neuroscience within the practice of psychotherapy. Dr. Church holds a BS in Psychology from Eckerd College and an MS and PhD in Experimental Psychology from The University of Memphis. She completed a Post-Doctorate in Clinical Psychology at The University of Hawaii at Manoa. In addition, Dr. Church is a member of the American Evaluation Association and Hawaii-Pacific Evaluation Association. There are 10 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 199,703 times.

Being open to all religious beliefs might seem like a tall order, but once you start to understand what they're really about, it's a piece of cake. Regardless of what they believe, most people have more in common than differences. You can get started by doing a little research, listening carefully to perspectives beyond your own, and being kind to everyone you meet. Read on for our complete guide on respecting all religious beliefs!

Observe another faith in person.

• Make sure you get permission before attending a ceremony, whether through your friend or a local religious institution.
• Ask for etiquette advice if you need it. It can be seen as disrespectful to attend a ceremony without knowing the ropes, to find out everything you need to know beforehand.

Find similarities between all beliefs.

• Separate the beliefs of religious extremists from regular people. Terrorists exist in many major religions—including Christianity and Islam—but the religion itself doesn't deserve scorn because of that. [3] X Research source

Look for the reasons behind a person's beliefs.

• You could say, "I believe what I do because it was a big part of my family's routine. Would you mind sharing where your beliefs come from?"
• Understand that not everyone will want to talk about their connection to religion. Rather than pressing them for an answer, accept this and find someone else to talk to.

Ask thoughtful questions.

• While this can be a great way to learn about different religions more personally, do some research beforehand. That way, anyone you ask for help can see you've already made an effort to learn!
• "I realized that I wanted to know more about other religions. I did some research, but there were a few concepts that confused me. Would you be willing to explain them?"
• "I'm trying to be more open to other religious beliefs, and while research has been really enlightening, I thought talking to someone might help. No pressure, but I'd love to hear your perspective on this."

Listen to others without judgment.

Create an open dialogue.

• For example, if you approach an open dialogue as a Christian, don't ask someone a question that assumes there's a singular God. That's your belief, but someone who practices Hinduism believes in many gods.

Control your emotions.

• If you get angry, it's okay to politely excuse yourself. Take a walk, take some deep breaths, and return when you feel calm.
• For example: "This is a sensitive subject for me. I want to be more open, but I think I need to go cool off. Can we come back to this in a few minutes?"

Find common ground outside of religion.

• Ask typical "getting to know you" questions like, "What hobbies are you into?" and "What movie could you quote by heart?"
• Once you find something you have in common, it'll be easier to relax and get to know the other person deeper.

Empathize with others.

• Empathy is vital when talking about religion because many people hold it close to their hearts. Study facial cues and body language so you can lighten the conversation if someone gets upset or emotional.

Appreciate your differences.

• If you eventually agree to disagree, you can do it without putting down the other person's beliefs. Acknowledge their point of view, and use "I" statements to avoid sounding argumentative.
• For example, "I'm happy to continue following my own beliefs, but after learning about yours, I feel like I understand you better, and I have a lot of respect for your faith. Thank you for sharing your perspective with me!"

Do some research.

• Read about different beliefs and traditions from around the world.
• Watch movies and TV shows and listen to podcasts about different cultures and religions.
• Read up on other cultures' viewpoints of your own beliefs.

Expert Q&A

• Read the sacred texts of other faiths, but remember that many traditions and interpretations surround them. For unfamiliar traditions, you may wish to include reading that is geared to give a newcomer or outsider background information. Thanks Helpful 8 Not Helpful 0
• Be kind to people and be a good listener. Let people talk about their faiths the way they understand them, and accept that you are not the expert on their traditions. Thanks Helpful 7 Not Helpful 0

• Not everyone likes talking about their faith. That's normal; try to respect that, too. Thanks Helpful 34 Not Helpful 7
• Some people take their religion to extreme levels. Try to keep your temper (even if someone else loses theirs), and if necessary, end the conversation politely but firmly. Thanks Helpful 11 Not Helpful 2

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://au.reachout.com/articles/understanding-a-different-culture
• ↑ https://www.loveisrespect.org/resources/religion-relationships/
• ↑ https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/religion-and-belief
• ↑ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-resilience/202104/finding-common-ground-through-religious-disagreement
• ↑ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/nurturing-cultural-intelligence/201905/cultural-intelligence-respect-basic-rule
• ↑ https://au.reachout.com/articles/respecting-others-spiritual-beliefs
• ↑ https://kidshelpline.com.au/teens/issues/all-about-respect
• ↑ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-wise-brain/201902/common-ground
• ↑ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/comparatively-speaking/202009/increasing-respect-and-decreasing-hatred
• ↑ https://www.unifrog.org/know-how/how-to-show-respect-towards-people-from-other-cultures

About This Article

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Deepesh Kashyap

Aug 9, 2017

Did this article help you?

Ronella Louf

Jun 12, 2019

Jul 14, 2019

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

• Crime & Courts
• Govt / Public Policy
• Business Times
• Cars Bikes Trucks
• Sunday Vibes
• Infographics

Home / Essay Samples / Religion / God / The Connection Between Religion And Culture

The Connection Between Religion And Culture

• Category: Religion
• Topic: God , Religious Tolerance

Pages: 1 (404 words)

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Mandala Essays

Protestant Reformation Essays

Spirituality Essays

Karma Essays

Hell Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->