"The doctrine of one true church is as offensive to much of the Christian world today as was the testimony of Christ anciently that he was 'the way, the truth and the life' (John 14:6). Yet some reason as did the youthful Joseph Smith: 'If God had a Church it would not be split up into factions and that if He taught one society to worship one way and administer in one set of ordinances, He would not teach another, principles which were diametrically opposed' (HC 4:536).
There is no more self-evident truth in this world, there is nothing in all eternity more obvious than that there is and can be only one true Church. A true Church does not create itself any more than man creates God or resurrects himself or establishes for himself a celestial heaven. All churches may be false, but only one can be true, simply because religion comes from God and God is not the author of confusion.' (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 2:506-7)
Many in the religious world claim that no church is better than any other, just different. As 'all roads lead to Rome,' it is reasoned that all beliefs must lead to heaven. Be it remembered that both scoundrel and saint traveled those ancient roads with quite different intent. If all religious paths do indeed lead to heaven, the righteous will be at a considerable disadvantage. If the gates of the celestial city are to be thrown open that widely, why the need for Apostles and prophets, their doctrines, their priesthood and keys; indeed, why the need for the Savior himself and a strait and narrow way?...
Christ made no pretense to being ecumenical (or all inclusive); he and his seek alliance with none but the God of heaven and His truths. The testimony of all holy writ is that there is but 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism.' (Ephesians 4:5)…
In stating that there are save two churches only - the church of the Lamb of God and the church of the devil - the Lord is not categorically condemning all who are not members of the Church. Nor is he, for that matter, ensuring an exaltation to all those who have received the fulness of the gospel. The Lord has said that he is pleased with the Church collectively and not necessarily individually (D&C 1:30); we are neither baptized nor judged as congregations…
Elder Bruce R. McConkie has written: 'There is only light and darkness; there is no dusky twilight zone (in regard to the fulness of salvation). Either men walk in the light or they cannot be saved. Anything less than salvation is not salvation.'" (Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Millet, McConkie, Vol. 1, page 109 -111)
BYU Professor, Dr. Robert Millet, was asked by a friend from another faith, how he would respond to the following question:
"Okay Bob, here’s the one thing I would like to ask in order to determine what you really believe.” He continued: “You are standing before the judgment bar of the Almighty, and God turns to you and asks, ‘Robert Millet, what right do you have to enter heaven? Why should I let you in?’”
It was not the kind of question I had anticipated. (I had assumed he would be asking something more theoretical. This question was poignant, practical, penetrating, and personal.) For about thirty seconds, I tried my best to envision such a scene, searched my soul, and sought to be as clear and candid as possible…
I looked my friend in the eye and replied: I would say to God: 'I claim the right to enter heaven because of my complete trust in and reliance upon the merits and mercy and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.' My questioner stared at me for about ten seconds, smiled gently, and said: “Bob, that’s the correct answer to the question.”
Obviously a person’s good works are necessary in the sense that they indicate what we are becoming through the powers of the gospel of Jesus Christ; they manifest who and what we are. But I also know there will never be enough good deeds on my part—prayers, hymns, charitable acts, financial contributions, or thousands of hours of Church service—to save myself.
The work of salvation requires the work of a God. Unaided man is and will forevermore be lost, fallen, and unsaved. It is only in the strength of the Lord that we are able to face life’s challenges, handle life’s dilemmas, engage life’s contradictions, endure life’s trials, and eventually defeat life’s inevitable foe—death."
"First Corinthians, Chapter 15, introduce Paul's testimony of the resurrection, including an important listing of some appearances of Jesus after his resurrection. Verses one thru three imply that Christ's death and resurrection are the heart of the gospel. In verse seven we learn that Jesus appeared to his younger half-brother James and then James knew and understood. (Later James became an Apostle himself.)
How could some say there is no resurrection? Not only did the Sadducees deny the reality of the resurrection, (that's why they're sad you see) but some of those espousing Greek mythology and philosophy believed that the body was evil, that though there might be eternal life for the spirit, there certainly was none for the body. Paul's response is that the doctrine of the resurrection is pivotal in importance and that all other truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ depend on it. In effect, Paul says the following:
If there's no resurrection, then Christ is dead; then we're wasting our time and our faith is a terrible joke; then (apostolic preachers) are liars; (if there's no resurrection) then there's no spiritual redemption and no redemption from physical death; and why then perform baptism for the dead?...
What a miserable excuse for religious belief we would have if life ended with this mortal sphere? ... There is evidence outside the Bible that the ordinance of baptism for the dead was taught and practiced by early Christians. Even the Roman Catholic Jerome Biblical Commentary admits that it seems as though Christians at Corinth:
'would undergo baptism in the name of their deceased non-Christian relatives and friends, hoping that this vicarious baptism might assure them a share in the redemption of Christ.' Nevertheless, the Commentary regards the passage as obscure and the practice strange.' (Brown, Jerome Biblical Commentary 2:273)
The following is a reconstruction of an interview between Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed, a renowned Bible translator and scholar and the late Dr. Paul R. Cheesman, professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University. The interview took place on the campus of UCLA in the summer of 1945…
Cheesman: Is the scripture found in 1 Corinthians 15:29 translated properly as found in the King James Translation?
Goodspeed: Basically, yes.
Cheesman: Do you believe that baptism for the dead was practiced in Paul's time?
Goodspeed: Definitely, yes.
Cheesman: Does the church to which you belong practice it today?
Goodspeed: No.
Cheesman: Do you think it should be practiced today?
Goodspeed: This is the reason why we do not practice it today. We do not know enough about it. If we did, we would practice it.
Cheesman: May I quote you as a result of this interview?
Goodspeed: Yes."
(Verse By Verse, Acts to Revelation, Ogden & Skinner, pgs. 144-146)
