An image of people of various religious denominations sitting peacefully together under a tree, symbolizing unity and peace.

Millennium Mindset: Transforming Today for Tomorrow

Can we prepare for a peaceful Millennium? Latter-day Saints apply mercy in truth, which can foster unity in faith.

I was born between the years of 1981 and 1996, which makes me what demographers call a “millennial.” I’m a millennial fascinated by the Millennium.

My patriarchal blessing, which I received in September of the end of the previous millennium, tells me that one of my sacred responsibilities in this life is to prepare people (myself included) for the glorious Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Millennial reign that will follow. Scripture teaches that the Millennium will be 1,000 years of peace and righteousness. “Christ will reign personally upon the earth” (tenth article of faith). “The enmity of man, and the enmity of beasts, yea, the enmity of all flesh, shall cease” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:26). The Devil will be “bound, that he shall have no place in the hearts of the children of men” (Doctrine and Covenants 45:55).

I love scriptures about the Millennium. But these can sound utopian. The word “utopia” comes from a book written in 1516 by Sir Thomas More about an imaginary and ideal country. The word itself is a cobbling together of two Greek words that together literally mean “no place.” This is why I’m fascinated most by the truth that there will be religious pluralism during the Millennium. In other words, it will be far more than faithful Latter-day Saints who survive the Second Coming. At that time, “all people on the earth will be good and just, but many will not have received the fullness of the gospel. Consequently, members of the Church will participate in missionary work.”

It will be far more than faithful Latter-day Saints who survive the Second Coming.

Think of that. Missionary work during the Millennium. We must learn to live together with others now because we will do so then.

When I consider the responsibility of Latter-day Saints to help prepare the world for Christ’s coming, I think of what President Russell M. Nelson taught early in his ministry about how to use truth with care for the best outcome.

Speaking to Brigham Young University students in 1985, then-Elder Russell M. Nelson most helpfully taught that truth by itself is insufficient. To illustrate, he spoke of one doctor who tells a patient of an advanced illness that cannot be cured, then coldly leaves the room, ignoring the damage done by the truth bomb he just dropped. Elder Nelson contrasted this with a doctor who has the same information—and compassion. He tells the patient the truth and then mercifully says the patient and his family will be supported with all the resources available to him as their caring physician.

“Truth, like justice, can be harsh and unforgiving when not tempered by mercy,” Elder Nelson said, noting that the word truth is coupled with expressions of mercy in verses of scripture dozens of times. “But when truth is magnified by mercy or rectified by righteousness, it can be converted from a force to destroy to a force to bless.”

“Important as truth is,” he said, “we often need truth … and more.”

As we continue to persuade others to embrace some of the more difficult truths of the Restoration—such as the truth that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “Christ’s New Testament Church restored”—we will need to keep in mind President Nelson’s wise counsel.

What implications does this have for how we build Zion here and now?

1. We must continue to respect agency.

One of the wonderful attributes of the King of Kings is that, though He is the truth and though He is omnipotent, even during His millennial reign, He will force none of the good and just people who remain to believe in Him. That’s not His way. We know this from His invitations.

Come, follow me”.

Come and see” 

Come unto me, and drink” 

Come and dine” 

Elder Quentin L. Cook reminded us at the April 2024 general conference of the fundamental doctrine of moral agency, which includes free will. “Agency is the ability to choose and act,” Elder Cook said. “It is essential to the plan of salvation. Without moral agency, we could not learn, progress, or choose to be one with Christ.”

At the same conference, Elder Patrick Kearon taught us that “God is in relentless pursuit of [us]. He ‘wants all of His children to choose to return to Him,’ and He employs every possible measure to bring [us] back.”

But God will not force us to make that choice. And He certainly doesn’t want us forcing others to make it, either.

2. We must continue to learn from others.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson once said that “truth is scattered liberally across the globe.” Considering that Latter-day Saints make up 0.24 percent of the world’s population, we should not be surprised to learn of good things happening outside of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

One lesson I have learned from people of other faiths is the need to take our faith with us everywhere. For example, on a work trip from New York to London six years ago, I observed a group of Orthodox Jews near me who stood several times to pray during the seven-hour flight. I admired their devotion and, admittedly, was grateful my church did not require me to do the same in front of hundreds of strangers. And on a cruise to Mexico six years ago, I attended a Catholic mass on the Sabbath (there was no Latter-day Saint worship option). Though we were in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, the 50 or 60 Catholics around me chose to rise early for 8 a.m. worship. The service ended with an encouragement to attend confession as soon as possible because, as one man said, God wants to forgive us.

God will not force us.

People of other faiths have also taught me how to wrestle constructively with difficult doctrines. A few years back, I heard Colleen H. Dolan, the communication director of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, tell a story about disagreeing with one of her faith’s teachings. She shared her feelings with her local leader (and a friend of our church), the late Cardinal Francis George. He admitted to her his own struggles in accepting that teaching. But, in an admirable show of submission that would no doubt please the Savior of the world, he added, “I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. You follow the teachings if you are a Catholic or you don’t. You can’t be a cafeteria Catholic. You have to follow all the teachings. Now, if this was the Church of Francis George, it might look a little different.”

A glowing globe surrounded by diverse individuals from various cultures, each reaching out to symbolize a global pursuit of truth, under a twilight sky.
Truth can be found across the globe.

One of the things I cherish most about being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is our approach to truth. Joseph Smith encouraged the early Saints to “get all the good in the world” and to “receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” This Church is as much a receptacle of truth as it is a dispenser of it. 

We can and should learn from those outside the walls of our Church. As Hugh B. Brown of the First Presidency said in 1969, “We have been blessed with much knowledge by revelation from God which, in some part, the world lacks. But there is an incomprehensibly greater part of truth which we must yet discover. Our revealed truth should leave us stricken with the knowledge of how little we really know. It should never lead to an emotional arrogance based upon a false assumption that we somehow have all the answers—that we, in fact, have a corner on truth. For we do not.”

3. We must encourage everyone to be the best believer they can be.

Last month I wrote an article for the Church’s Middle East Newsroom website about three Brigham Young University men’s basketball players who are Muslim. Imagine being thousands of miles away from home amid multitudes who do not look like you and who do not share your faith. We asked them why they chose to become part of a university community filled with Latter-day Saints.

Communicating all truths requires the care of a surgeon’s skilled hands.

Aly Khalifa of Alexandria, Egypt, said he prefers to be in a place where he can practice his faith comfortably.

“I feel like I’m not the only one who’s a man of faith in school,” Khalifa said. “[Muslims and Latter-day Saints] practice their religion really well. We don’t drink, we don’t smoke, we don’t have sex before marriage. There’s a lot of similarities between both religions.”

Khalifa said he also appreciated the respect and support he received as he fasted during Ramadan, the Islamic holy month.

“I feel like everybody’s supporting me. I feel like they understand because I’m doing this for my faithful reasons,” Khalifa said. “They respect it a lot, and they try to help me get through the day every day during practice and games. They’ve been great to me. It means a lot.”

For Fousseyni Traore, a native of Bamako, Mali, the Latter-day Saint community’s high moral values are a significant plus. “This helped me a lot in my decision to come to BYU. We share a lot of similarities. Especially marriage-wise, the law of chastity is super similar,” Traore said. “[Being a Muslim at BYU] is actually super cool. Everyone respects our beliefs.”

This is an excellent example of what Elder Cook meant when he taught that “we should strive to include others in our circle of oneness.”

This also radiates the warm, welcoming spirit of toleration that Joseph Smith promoted. We should never forget the 1841 ordinance in the city of Nauvoo, Illinois—a city Joseph helped found—which welcomed people of all faiths. “Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Nauvoo,” the ordinance says, “that the Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Latter-day Saints, Quakers, Episcopals, Universalists, Unitarians, Mohammedans [Muslims], and all other religious sects and denominations whatever, shall have free toleration, and equal privileges in this city.”

4. We must continue to be courageous and bold in believing and proclaiming the unique truths of the Restoration.

It’s easy to share with your Lutheran neighbor the truth that Christ is the Savior of the world. They already believe that. It’s easy to talk to your Muslim friend about why we fast and give tithes and offerings. Fasting and giving to charitable causes are two of the five pillars of Islam. It’s easy to talk to a follower of the Bahá’í faith about the inherent nobility of every soul. This is one of their fundamental beliefs. It’s harder to tell someone of another faith that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “Christ’s New Testament Church restored,” possessing priesthood keys and the “authority to join families together forever in eternal relationships that transcend death.”

Communicating all truths—especially the more difficult ones—requires the care of a surgeon’s skilled hands. And so we are wise to consider the following words from President Nelson, himself a former world-renowned heart surgeon:

“Without priesthood keys,” he said at the end of the April 2024 general conference, “the Church could serve only as a significant teaching and humanitarian organization but not much more. Without priesthood keys, none of us would have access to essential ordinances and covenants that bind us to our loved ones eternally and allow us eventually to live with God. Priesthood keys distinguish The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from any other organization on earth. Many other organizations can and do make your life better here in mortality. But no other organization can and will influence your life after death.”

Truth to Make Us Whole

The most important truth of the Restoration is precisely the thing the Restoration is restoring: Israel. Scholar Patrick Mason teaches us that when we read how Latter-day Saint scripture and the early Saints—Joseph Smith included—spoke of “restoration,” this is often what is meant. Take, for example, these words from Nephi: “[In the last days,] the Lord God shall commence his work among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, to bring about the restoration of his people upon the earth.”

And, of course, we regularly hear what President Nelson has said about a key aspect of restoring God’s people. He called the gathering of Israel the “most important thing taking place on earth today.”

“Yes, there are many ‘things’ to restore,” Mason writes, noting the need for things like a church and scriptures. “But ultimately, God isn’t concerned with restoring ‘things’ as much as he is with using those things to restore what really matters—‘his people.’ So the ‘restoration of all things’ is designed with one grand aim in mind: restoring God’s people—our Father and Mother’s children, their eternal family—to wholeness.”

We are not yet in the Millennium. Do we have any hope of wholeness now? The Book of Mormon seems to say, yes, we do. Remember the book of 4 Nephi? After Christ visited the Nephites and Lamanites, they chose to have 200 years of peace before new generations began to choose wickedness.

Sixteen years ago, President Henry B. Eyring taught that “a great day of unity is coming.” He was talking about the Millennium. And he used an interesting verb in doing so. He said the Millennium will be a time when “the Lord Jehovah will return to live with those who have become His people and will find them united, of one heart, unified with Him and with our Heavenly Father” (emphasis added).

Notice that this seer saw that Christ will find us united. Christ will not simply wave a wand and make us good. This means we will have already been doing those things that bring unity and oneness. And so we must perfect these skills now.

Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find” him and her building bridges and making peace and sharing truth.

 

 

About the author

Samuel B. Hislop

Samuel B. Hislop is a writer in Utah.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Barry Keoghan shines in weak star vehicle

“Bring Them Down” is a careful small-town drama about Irish sheep farmers. The film stars Christopher Abbott as Michael after his acclaimed performance as the villain in “Poor Things,” and titular role in “Wolf Man.”  Barry Keoghan plays opposite as Jack, the son of neighboring farmers. Keoghan also made his mark in a Yorgos Lanthimos film, “Killing of a Sacred Deer.” He is as up-and-coming as an actor can be, set to star in the highly anticipated Beatles biopic.  The film is mostly a showpiece for the two talented leads to luxuriate in the acting moments that the revenge plot affords them. Abbott builds a character suspended in tension between his guilt over his mother’s passing, his deference to his strong-willed father, his honor, and his self-sufficiency. Keoghan has a slightly more complicated job, as he needs to find the motivation to start the feud inside a character that is juvenile and slight. As a showcase, the film is a success. Not many people will see it, but it will certainly help burnish the reputations of Abbot and Keoghan as formidable actors. And the plot is good enough to serve that purpose. Caroline, Michael’s ex-girlfriend, and Jack’s mother, has decided to leave Jack’s father because of their financial problem. A bridge is out, and Michael’s father is reluctant to let Jack’s family cross his property. So Jack hatches a plan to steal two prized rams from Michael’s family. When Jack’s dad catches him, he makes him kill the ram and get rid of it. The woman they sell it to offers them good money for sheep legs, offering what Jack sees as a solution to his family’s problems. But rather than tell the story in a forthright way, the edit tells the story twice, first from Michael’s point of view, and then from Jack’s. So during the first half of the film things move so fast and with so little context, you struggle to know what’s going on. Then when it restarts, the audience doesn’t know the device yet, and doesn’t figure it out for about twenty minutes when plot points begin to repeat themselves.  Once we figure it out, the idea isn’t terrible. When we were strictly in Michael’s perspective the feud seems meaningless and is cast in strictly moralistic terms. When we revisit it through Jack’s perspective, we can begin to appreciate the complicated factors that led to Jack’s decision.  But the edit doesn’t tell the story clearly enough. So the main emotion I felt while watching the film was confusion. I’m certain that the film would improve on a rewatch, but the ultimate story that a feud develops because Jack steals Michael’s sheep to keep his parents together doesn’t have enough heft to draw me back. It’s a pastoral film, and it does a good job of capturing the place. Colm Meaney, who plays Michael’s father, Ray, does a particularly notable job speaking Irish at length. First-time director Chris Andrews has some interesting ideas. He is clearly capable of letting talented actors do what they do best, a skill that will serve him well in his directing career. The film is also shot in a subdued way that highlights the natural light and natural beauty of the setting, but without ever drawing attention to itself.  The use of fire in the film’s back half is particularly notable.  “Bring Them Down” is R-rated for its violence and language. The domestic violence where Jack’s mother beats Jack’s father is particularly harrowing. But I found the film’s moral message to be largely in the right place. Jack’s theft leads to nothing but suffering. And revenge is shown as almost entirely futile. The film even offers a glimpse at honest redemption. Still, I wouldn’t watch this with my kids, at least until they were adults.  Two and a half out of five stars. “Bring Them Down” releases in theaters nationwide February 7, 2025.

The Supreme Court’s Textualist Temptation

The Supreme Court’s much-anticipated decision in Bostock v Clayton County may in fact tell us more about how courts decide what law is than what law says. It may also serve as an unexpected opportunity for judicial conservatives to move away from textualism and reclaim a more inclusive jurisprudential methodology. For over four decades the legal community has been arguing about first principles for interpreting our laws. In Bostock v Clayton County, a case about LGBTQ rights that the United States Supreme Court will decide this term, the central question involves an interpretation of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which famously bans discrimination based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. The case is important because it will determine whether discrimination based upon “sexual orientation” is covered by the original prohibition in the statute against discrimination on the basis of “sex.” But the case may actually be more important for the ideas used by the court in how we interpret our laws. The case presents what may well become a textbook example of the application of textualism, and its related concept, originalism, to the interpretation of a landmark statute. Thus from the standpoint of how laws are interpreted, the case is fraught with meaning and symbolism.  That argument will take center stage in a highly ironic way. Judicial liberals will be arguing for textualism (typically the conservative position) and conservatives will be arguing for a much more broadly based contextual understanding (usually the liberal position). From my perspective as a judicial conservative, this is an opportunity to restore textualism to its traditional place in jurisprudence, which could also have the added benefit of reducing the tension between textualism and originalism, something that has received too little attention from conservatives. To understand the debate, some brief history is necessary.  Textualism, Orginalism, and the Rise of Judicial Activism For many decades the main complaint of conservatives focused on “judicial activism”—the idea that courts are reading into the language of our laws certain policies that the framers or the legislators did not address. This is typically done by using arguments based upon fairness, equality, and broad readings of the purpose of the language in question. Doing so, conservatives, argued, was to subvert democratic decision-making and turn republican government into rule by the judiciary. This further tends to foreclose the discussion, debate, give and take, and compromise that will address all the related implications of the decision. To deal with their concerns, many judicial conservatives argued for increased reliance on two particular methods of interpretation: originalism and textualism. Textualism focuses on the literal words being interpreted, their grammatical meaning and their dictionary definition, and largely, although not entirely, ignores other considerations if the meaning of the words is thought to be clear. Originalism focuses on the meaning of the words as they were understood at the time, usually in the sense of how they would have been understood by the public. Neither method was new, but various champions of these concepts who emphasized their application (particularly when it came to constitutional questions), rose to prominence. Several of them are now on the United States Supreme Court. The late Justice Antonin Scalia was especially associated with textualism, and current Justice Gorsuch has publicly associated himself with this same approach Scalia favored. Justice Thomas is a devoted originalist; and Justice Alito is sympathetic to both originalism and textualism. On the other hand, the so-called “liberals” on the court are much more in tune with what former Justice William Brennan called “living constitutionalism.” That approach takes the position that many of the provisions of constitutions are intended to have broad and evolving meanings. They are generally in favor of giving preference to judicially developed ideas of fairness, equality, and policy considerations that they believe are appropriate for the current times and circumstances. While not rejecting the ideas of originalism or textualism out of hand, they view the usual application of those concepts as too narrow —insisting that other approaches should be given equal or more weight, depending on the circumstances. In this way, what others might argue is plain, they often find ambiguous. It’s also the case that many of the tools that they would apply are broadly accepted by judicial conservatives and liberals alike, such as looking at the structure and purpose of the law, and related statutes, as well as somewhat more controversial but commonly used methods such as legislative history, or even weighing the consequences of a decision. By contrast, originalism emphasizes the long understood idea that a written constitution by definition was constructed by its framers to have fixed meaning. Constitutions provide for a means of amendment, and that process implicitly confirms that what was not amended should be understood as unchanged. The bedrock idea is that a constitution represents the will of the people, freely adopted by both representation and ratification, and not imposed by any other means. Although statutes can be freely changed by the legislature, originalists insist they should have the meaning that they had when enacted. This straightforward concept is eroded, however, by two hundred years of change, some obvious and some, as the great historian Gibbon would have said “insensible”—happening so gradually and imperceptibly that most hardly even noticed it. Major events like the Civil War and the amendments to the Constitution that it generated, introduced broadened concepts of due process and equal protection to the constitutional text and our way of thinking about laws more generally. The massive economic growth of the country also generated different ways of thinking about commerce, and how the state regulates behavior through a huge administrative process.  Together with these developments, a growing body of legal academics began to emphasize various sophisticated issues, such as the potential elasticity of some of the language of law, arguing that standards such as “cruel and unusual punishment” were intended to have an evolving meaning, not one fixed for all time unless amended. Finally, as judges and scholars have noted for over 150

August Public Square Media Features

Welcome to this month’s lineup of Public Square Media episodes. We hope this month’s curated episodes inform your thinking, spark meaningful conversations, and inspire civil discourse. Family Bro Evening In this month’s podcast trio from Family Bro Evening, hosts Scott and JC explore the little-understood Law of Consecration with Dr. Steven C. Harper, and tackle BYU’s dating culture in an insightful two-part discussion. Steven C. Harper on the Law of Consecration Two-part series on toxic dating culture:  Toxic Dating Culture Part-1 Toxic Dating Culture Part 2   Pop Culture on the Apricot Tree Dive into the eerie world of Black Mirror in this episode, as Liz and Carl team up with Radical Civility for a captivating crossover. Unpacking the chilling “Hated in the Nation” episode, they dissect how social media’s hashtags can take a lethal turn. Explore with them the grip of online cruelty while discovering strategies to resist negativity and promote civil discourse. Black Mirror: Hated in the Nation #deathtosocialmedia   Raising Family Step into a world of transformation as hosts David and Linda chat with guest Jeff Carney, who teaches “7 Habits” to inmates, helping them uncover their divinity. Inspired by The Family Proclamation, Jeff shares his inmate interactions, unwavering belief in individual worth, and insights on shedding self-limitation. His perspective reveals how viewing ourselves as God does ignites profound change. Jeff’s wisdom culminates in the notion that purpose is discovered, not created. Prepare to be inspired to embrace your own potential through a divine lens and riveting conversation. Inmates, Divine Potential, and Pepper   Sit Down with Sky and Amanda In this episode, Sky and Amanda confront the controversial question: “What is a woman?” Delving into the contrasting perspectives of societal norms and divine definitions, they explore the disparities that arise. Their exploration extends to the intricate balance between valuing motherhood and the modern pursuit of equity, uncovering how societal shifts have sometimes led to the devaluation of this essential role. Join them for an enlightening journey. The Redefinition of Woman: Reclaiming Womanhood

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!