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

Is it Time for Latter-day Saints to Support Same-Sex Marriage?

I wanted to thank Blair Hodges for calling attention to an article we ran earlier this year by Professor Robert P. George.  Blair has been a frequent critic of the magazine, and we appreciate his engagement and efforts in drawing attention to the work we’re doing. As one of the pre-eminent political philosophers working today, Professor George’s decision to publish with us was a major sign of legitimacy.  Hodge’s article was, in many ways, perceptive. He noticed that Professor George, and by extension, many of our editors here, is concerned that many people, especially religious people, struggle to justify their beliefs about family, marriage, and sexuality through anything other than appeals to religious authority. (We kindly disagree that these positions are anti-LGBT+ as Blair describes them.) And he’s right about that motivation. Church leaders have been very clear about the doctrine of the family for more than a generation, as we highlighted earlier this year. But where the cultural messaging on sexuality is so dominant, it’s easy for Latter-day Saints to feel overwhelmed and struggle to explain to others why they accept what prophet leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ teach what they do.   And Hodges is right that we hope to make a difference in this regard with our work. But otherwise, his article falls into the same traps of many before him that George and others have largely dealt with. Conflating “Hyper-Individualism” with “Expressive-Individualism” Hodges attempts to address George’s concern with individualism. But he makes a category error. Individualism, as Hodges uses it, seems to be a synonym for selfish. Individualism, as George uses it, means how we define the individual. These are two substantially different concepts. On this basis, Hodges raises concerns about hyper-individualism (hyper-selfish)—pointing out this issue is no more relevant to LGBT+ issues than to anyone else. That’s a fine argument to make, but it really has nothing to do with the point George makes. His point being, how we define the individual is of crucial importance to issues of sexuality. Because today the predominant cultural approach to defining the self is expressive individualism. Expressive individualism is a philosophy that holds that who we are is defined by what we feel we are at our psychological core. And that the greatest good is expressing that psychological core to the world, including through our behavior.  As described by Carl Trueman in his recent book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, this idea has its roots in the work of Romantic philosophers like Jean-Jaques Rousseau and like-minded poets, literary figures, and artists of the 18th and 19th centuries, but largely took off in the 1960s at the beginning of the sexual revolution. Expressive individualism has substantially become our culture’s default approach to defining identity. But many Christians push back on this idea as we choose to make our central identities based on a different foundation.  As articulated by President Nelson in a recent devotional for young adults, he explained that the three identities we should prioritize (and not allow to be obscured) are 1) Child of God 2) Child of the Covenant 3) Disciple of Christ As Latter-day Saints, then, we choose to make those our central identities and base our choices on that foundation.  Hodges also suspects that “queerness would be less ‘central’ to a person’s identity the less social pressure and regulation they’d face about it.”  But what does Hodges mean by less central? If identity powerfully influences the choices we make, then the less central an identity, the less influence it has over our choices. These choices include why, how, when, and with whom someone has sexual relations. Prioritizing disciple of Christ and child of the covenant as identities, as Russell M. Nelson suggests, would lead to different choices about sex than prioritizing sexuality as identity. Love and Disagreement One of Hodges’ main requests is that George “spent more time saying how a person can be loving towards someone while also condemning an important part of their identity.” In our view, this is a tired argument in an already wearisome conversation. Sexuality is not an inevitably central part of identity.  Our editorial team falls across the political spectrum. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite having serious concerns with that political part of our identity.  Our editorial team are all Latter-day Saints. In each of our lives, we have people who love us despite harboring serious questions about the important religious part of our identity. We’ve also felt loved by people who thought it was a dangerous and outdated idea not to have sex until marriage, constituting an important part of all our sexual identities. But Hodges’ argument suggests it’s somehow impossible to love someone while having honest concerns about how they prioritize the sexual part of their identity.  But of course, it’s not. Not only is it possible, but Christian believers are under clear command to love those we disagree with.  It’s those who demand “you can’t love me unless you agree with my paradigm for identity” that are preaching an extreme and radically alternative  approach to tolerance in a pluralistic society, not those who say, “I love you, but I disagree.” That has been the durable default of pluralistic tolerance that has helped make our diverse nation possible. Race and Sexuality Blair also goes to the old tired well of comparing race and sexuality. This is a comparison that many civil rights activists have rejected.  Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, and William Avon Keen, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Virginia, the organization Martin Luther King Jr. started, have rejected the connection between sexuality and race in civil rights.  In fact, George takes on Blair’s point at length in his article in Harvard’s Journal of Law and Public Policy: Revisionists today miss this central question—what is marriage? when they equate traditional marriage laws with laws banning interracial marriage. … But the analogy fails: antimiscegenation was about whom to

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

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

You have Successfully Subscribed!