The following is an argument for Mormon Universalism. I present this argument not as a personal endorsement in every particular, but rather as a prompt for constructive discussion and critical self-reflection.
What is “Mormon Universalism”? It is the belief that every single person who has ever lived will eventually return to and be reconciled with God, and that this is perfectly compatible with a reasonable interpretation of Mormon theology.
The argument is based on two key ideas: 1) the “Piano Model” of grace, and 2) eternity is a very long time.[1]
THE “PIANO MODEL” OF GRACE
The first key idea is from an article by Brad Wilcox in the September 2013 Ensign entitled “His Grace is Sufficient.” Wilcox has become popular the last few years by challenging the Stephen Robinson “Parable of the Bicycle” model of grace that was popular in the 1990s. In brief, the Robinson “Bicycle Model” argues that the Atonement is like a parent who purchases a bicycle for his or her child after the child expends his or her own “best efforts” to save up the money, even though this might only be a few pennies. The Atonement, in effect, makes up the huge difference in the “purchase price” of salvation between what we can earn for ourselves and what is required.
Enter Brad Wilcox in 2013 who challenged this popular model by arguing instead that our “best efforts” are not needed to “pay off a debt” or “make deposits” toward a desired salvation. Rather, the Atonement has already paid the entire price in full and God asks us for our best efforts not because it helps earn our way into his presence, but so we’ll get a lot of practice becoming the type of person who will be comfortable in his presence. Instead of a bicycle, he uses the analogy of a piano. Our parents purchase piano lessons for us and give them to us as a gift. We practice the piano not to pay back the purchase price of the lessons to our parents (it was a gift, after all), but rather to show gratitude for the gift our parents gave us and to take advantage of the opportunity to learn how to become a pianist. In this sense, our best efforts are not what we do to “earn our way” into heaven but rather what we do to show gratitude for the gift of the Atonement by developing a desire to have a personal relationship with our Heavenly Parents, to be in their presence, and to become more like them.[2]
One could argue that the “Piano Model” of grace suggests that the “entry fee” to God’s presence is already paid in full. Therefore, God is literally standing at the door of Heaven inviting everyone back in, since everyone’s fee has already been covered by the Atonement. And since “all are alike unto God” the entry fee has been paid for Mormons and non-Mormons alike: NO EXCEPTIONS. The only reason, then, that some do not accept the invitation is simply because they feel awkward or uncomfortable in God’s presence. The Piano Model suggests that all are welcome to return to God literally whenever they have the desire to accept the open, eternal, and standing invitation to do so.
ETERNITY IS A REALLY, REALLY, REALLY LONG TIME
The second key idea supporting Mormon Universalism is inspired by Steven Peck’s thought-provoking novel “A Short Stay in Hell.” This book illustrates how absurdly and infinitely long “eternity” is. (A review is available here). Given the incomprehensibly infinite duration of eternity, one could ask who in the world would choose forever to permanently decline the standing and open invitation back into God’s presence (see discussion of the Piano Model above). Some may decline the invitation for years. But millions of years? Eons? Forever? Who would realistically never choose to accept the invitation? Who would never get around to making the choices that would lead them to feel comfortable in God’s presence, if nothing else than out of sheer boredom at having done everything else there possibly is to do in the Universe a trillion times over?
From a literal Mormon theological perspective, this of course requires the existence of “progression from kingdom to kingdom.” Someone initially more comfortable in the Telestial Kingdom, for instance, would need to be able to move up to the Celestial Kingdom when he or she feels comfortable accepting the invitation to do so.[3] Bruce R. McConkie emphatically stated in 1980 that such a possibility does not exist, labeling such a view a “heresy.” This stands in stark contrast, however, to the plethora of teachings by other prophets and General Authorities that support (to one degree or another) the idea of eternal progression between the eternal Kingdoms (see here and here, e.g.). Importantly, a 1952 letter from the First Presidency states that there is no “definitive” stance by the Church on this doctrinal question. Given the absence of an authoritative definitive stance and the weight of prophetic statements weighing heavily in favor of the availability of eternal progression between the Kingdoms, it stands to reason that Mormon theology strongly supports this possibility.
SUMMARY
Combining these two key ideas leads to a narrative that goes something like this: The Atonement of Jesus Christ is literally infinite and has fully paid everyone’s “entry fee” to return to God’s presence. Because of this, everyone (literally: everyone!) has a standing and open invitation to return to God’s presence and the only thing preventing some people from immediately accepting the invitation in the eternities is their own reluctance to do so. However, given that eternity is a very, very, very, very, very, very long time, everyone will have plenty of time to work out whatever they need to work out in order to eventually feel comfortable accepting the open and eternal invitation back into God’s presence and for full reconciliation with Them. And assuming there is no barrier on progression between the Kingdoms, even a literal understanding of the Mormon afterlife is amenable to the idea that everyone will eventually be able to make their way back, when that is what they desire.[4] And a reasonable prediction would be that there will be few, if any, who will not eventually choose to return to God’s presence and partake of “eternal life and exaltation.”
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
- What are the strengths of the Mormon Universalism model as outlined above? What are the weaknesses?
- Does this argument “taste good” to you?
- What other arguments are there either for or against the idea of Mormon Universalism aside those outlined above?
- What similarities and differences exist between Mormon Universalism and other strains of Universalism, including Unitarian Universalism or Christian Universalism?
- Assuming this perspective is true (or parts of it are true), what implications does it have for your personal life? How would it affect your decisions, priorities, and values pertaining to your relationships with others or with the Church? What would you do differently in your life if you believed in Mormon Universalism than you would not do if you didn’t?
- What motivations would the institutional LDS church have to promote this Universalistic perspective? What motivations would the church have to discourage this perspective?
Discuss.
[FN1] Others have also recently made appeals for Mormon Universalism, but based on different arguments. See chapter chapter 4 of The God Who Weeps by Terryl and Fiona Givens, for instance. More on the Givens’s approach to universalism can be found here. My strong hunch is that they would maybe even consider the term “Mormon Universalism” redundant.
[FN2] The “Piano Model” is also closer to the model of grace currently being promoted by Adam Miller and as recently explained by Pres. Uchtdorf’s General Conference talk on grace. It also moves Mormonism rhetoric and theology on grace closer to Evangelical Protestantism than what I had understood (and taught) as a missionary more than a decade ago…
[FN3] Note that this says “more comfortable.” According to this model, individuals are not “assigned” a Kingdom of Glory in the afterlife, but rather they choose which one they’d like to go to based on where they feel most comfortable.
[FN4] But, some may question, what of the salvific ordinances or authority that can be found only within the Mormon Church? Again, even assuming a literal Mormon approach to institutional authority, the doctrine and practice of vicarious ordinances means everyone will be covered eventually (and remember, eternity is plenty long to get everyone covered). Even if that weren’t the case, Mormons believe that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is literally “infinite,” it seems reasonable to ask why couldn’t the Atonement cover for someone who happens to be missing an institutional-specific salvific ordinance, especially when such ordinances have been available for such short time frames and among such small populations of God’s children throughout the history of the world?
Benjamin Knoll
Benjamin Knoll was an active PermaBlogger at Rational Faiths from 2015-2020. At the time, he was a political science professor at a liberal arts college in central Kentucky. He's since changed careers and now works in the private sector, running business survey research projects. Born and raised a seventh-generation Mormon (on his mother's side), he is now an active Episcopalian who earned a Diploma in Anglican Studies from Bexley-Seabury Seminary in 2022. Indeed, we may say that he follows that admonition of Joseph Smith—that we should "embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same."
All posts by Benjamin Knoll
I personally resonate with this idea, but I wonder how to reconcile scriptures like Alma 34:32-33 (“This life is the time to prepare to meet God…”). I’m sure this is part of the basis for McConkie’s rejection.
I believe the logical support is just as profound. Current population of earth 7 billion. Current LDS membership, 15 million and holding. Current LDS membership going to the Celestial Kingdom, i.e. holding a temple reccommend…2-3 million estimated to have a full reccommend? So .04% go to the CK, 4/100ths of 1 percent? I don't think that makes sense to anyone who reads the scriptures. Certainly a God who puts a plan of salvation together is going to save more than he loses. At least that was my mission presidents belief which was many prophets doctrines. That is just a snapshot of the numbers today, what about the total numbers of people sent to earth? Estimates are at 108 billion. How many total temple reccommend holders have their ever been? How many of those died with an unrepentant sin lingering? Do the current temple reccomend holders that are dealing with porn issues or yelled at their wife and kids last night make it?
Christianity is only 2000 years old and in LDS doctrine as is preached every sunday and as I sold it as a missionary, being Christian isn't good enough. We can assume that Paul and Peter and a few thousand saints may have been worthy of the current temple recommend although I don't know if they could answer some of the questions on the current pass/fail test to get into the temple and thus CK, but lets just say that the percentage goes down quite a tick or two. .00004% ??? .0000000001%. And then there are all those non mormon friends of mine that are at least as righteous as my mormon friends, dare I say, more righteous in regards to Matt. 25:31-46, which is Christs definition who goes to the CK in the initial judgment (even without progression). So you have temple reccommend holders who are goats and not going and then just plain ol' Christians who are sheep and are going, so that really messes things up. I think the universalism perspective fits with the world in which I have been placed and with the God that I worshop much better than the current LDS dogma! When you really look at it, seriously, the CK would be a very un populated place as no unclean thing can enter, but we are all unclean when we die. Some lucky ones may have got killed on the way home from confessing to the bishop or just after a wrestle of a prayer with God, but it can't be many. Just sayin.
I know that these ideas will be threatening to the "mercy cannot rob justice" crowd, but they have been a sentimental, almost intuitive belief of mine since joining the church in 1975. I leave open the reality that my interpretation of scripture is limited, and that I am flawed. But I have yet to see a full refutation of these ideas that is purely doctrinal and complete, and which does not come off as seeming personally defensive. Usually, those that dispute these concepts have personally been hurt or damaged by someone (who has'nt in this life?) and want to see "Justice done" to their offenders. Yet, if mercy satisfies justice, through the atonement, and it is truly limitless, who of us can then put limits on it?
This is what I believed was LDS doctrine when I joined the church four years ago, although perhaps not worded exactly this way.
What do you guys want to do with D&C 76:112?
Roger Taylor,
Even without Universalism, the numbers aren’t as bleak as you think. You’re going to need to add all those who died before the age of accountability over a 6,000 year stretch – and on this planet that is one impressive number of souls. And then all those who didn’t get a chance at accepting the Gospel while in mortality but will accept it hereafter – again, a fairly substantial group. Here we can only speculate, but it could clearly be another impressive gain (and I believe it will be). And then how about all those who will be born during the Millennium – a time where no one dies from violence or disease? Under the conditions that will prevail then, more people might experience their mortal probation during the Millennium than during the whole of the preceding 6,000 years, and clearly most of them will grow up without sin to salvation.
Tim Bone,
What are we to do about D&C 10:67-68?
While it is only an interpretation of the scripture it seems to make sense to me that eternal progression for all can still exist and the separation of the kingdoms exist at the same time. If we interpret the “Kingdoms” as mental states of progression. As we all progress we all maintain our distance in progression from each other as well. All will be saved and all will progress but some to the celestial some to the terrestrial and some to the telestial. Like different graduating classes they will forever remain separate throughout time and all eternity but progression and salvation continues for both. There is no end to progression.
The bike metaphor and the piano metaphor are both fine but they are both incomplete. They teach and emphasize different points about the atonement.
The thing that I don’t like about the piano metaphor is that it makes it sound like keeping the commandments is primarily about self-improvement. It emphasizes that Jesus pays for salvation, but then it seems to leave Jesus behind and says that since Jesus get that annoying detail out of the way, we can thank him and then move on to get on with the real work of making ourselves the kind of person that is comfortable in God’s presence, all we have to do is keep practicing and eventually we will become perfect.
To me, that seems wrong. We cannot improve ourselves. All we can do is rely on the merits, mercy, and grace of Jesus to convert us and transform us into something better. Once you have become redeemed, you keep the commandments out of love and gratitude to God, as a token of the covenant relationship that exists between you and God, not because you are able to make yourself a better person by doing it. In my view, continuing to keep the commandments cannot make you a better person any more than keeping them can redeem you to begin with, the only thing that can make us a better person is grace, which we access through continual repentance. Jesus does not teach us how to convert ourselves, he converts us, he changes us, and he asks us to keep his commandments to retain and deepen that conversion relationship. Only one thing can change human nature, and obedience ain’t it.
Of course, we can become better, but we only become better through the grace of Christ, not through our own obedience. Our obedience maintains the relationship with Jesus that gives us access to grace, but it is grace, not obedience, that makes us better.
That said, the piano metaphor is fine to the extent that it emphasizes that Jesus already paid the price and is only waiting for us to accept this sacrifice. But it shouldn’t be pushed too far. As has been said, all metaphors are wrong, but some are useful.
I agree with you here, that it is only through Christ’s grace that makes better, but you should listen to the “piano metaphor” in context (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLXr9it_pbY This is the talk by Brad Wilcox that is sited) He clearly states that it is only through grace that we are brought back to our Heavenly Father, and it is through grace that we can repent (which I define as turning away from that which is ungodly toward that which is godly).
In the “piano metaphor” (do I need to keep using quotes?) I see Christ, not only as the one who pays the bill, but also as the teacher. Lessons are not merely us trying to keep the commandments, but us sitting with the Master and learning, from him, how to become like him.
Elder Oaks gave a beautiful talk that clarified many of my beliefs. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE3nS62kAC8) In this talk he says, “The gospel of Jesus Christ promises the incomparable inheritance of eternal life, the fulness of the Father, and reveals the laws and principles by which it can be obtained. We qualify for eternal life through a process of conversion.” later he says, “The gospel challenges us to be ‘converted,’ which requires us to do and to become.” To become what? Like our savior.
He also gives a beautiful parable the teaches that the commandments are ‘laws and principles’ that, if lived, help us to acquire ‘knowledge and stature’ like that of our Father.
So, while I agree that we cannot improve our state without the Savior’s constant care. I also believe that the commandments are more than a method of being close to the savior. They are a tool of learning and growth. The same learning and growth that we are here to attain.
The Savior has provided the payment and the lesson plan. If we are to gain anything from it we must put in personal effort.
Tim Bone,
So it is just the poor folks that were born to those goodly christian parents in Florida that don’t have time to listen to the missionaries who knock on their door because they are headed down to the homeless shelter— they are screwed. But the people who die before 8 years old- They’re in. A person who grows up in Timbuktu, never hears of Joseph Smith or Jesus Christ, but accepts them after they die – they are in. Those fortunate enough to be born in the millennium, which is most of the people is the jist I get from your explanation, they are in as they won’t be sinning, they’re in. But Mother Teresa, Ghandi, the Dali Lama, and the kid who falls away from the church because he comes home early from his mission and feels the scarlet letter on his chest from not serving a full mission, they are out! Hmmmm. I don’t know T Bone. I think there is some justice or mercy or fair play or something missing there.
I think there are problems with Universalism.
First, it’s a tough sell from a scriptural standpoint. D&C 76:112 doesn’t seem very encouraging to the concept. There is also a lot about a coming Day of Judgment, and it doesn’t appear to me that what’s being judged is the level of gratitude shown by an individual. Some are in the Terrestrial Kingdom because they weren’t valiant in the testimony of Jesus – does this mean their gratitude was insufficient? And if a level of gratitude is coextensive with, or in direct proportion to, the deeds/thoughts/faith exhibited while in the flesh, what meaningful difference is there between “gratitude” and “works”? Something is going to be judged.
Are we to believe that at said Judgment, a contract killer will be told not to worry overmuch, seeing that as soon as he/she wants to take advantage of the Plan of Salvation the door is wide open after all – when he/she feels less “awkward”? Hitler going to smack his forehead with his hand one day in the distant future and finally get it, is he? Not buying it.
Finally, I think we as mortals are limited in our understanding of time. Reading some cosmology is a real eye-opener (the author Brian Greene is good here). I don’t believe it is accurate to characterize eternity as a really long stretch of time. Eternity is spoken of as being circular rather than endlessly linear. It’s a condition of existence rather than a measure of its duration. It’s a place where time is looked upon just as one looks upon space, which is really odd in our present fallen, mortal circumstances. I don’t think it is even meaningful to think of eternity as having “duration.” It is “something else.” The whole time thing is tough to get one’s mind around and I’m no better at it than anyone else, but I think projecting our current experience of time (and what will count as “boredom” or “running out of things to do”) into the eternities is problematic. I think the argument of time is actually the weakest part of the argument for Universalism.
Alma 34:34 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/34.34?lang=eng#33) Clarifies a lot on this point.
” Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.”
We often discount agency in discussions like this. Regardless of the nature of eternity, we will choose then what we choose now.
I don’t know if we will be able to eventually rise from one kingdom to another but I do believe we will end up where we are most comfortable. I do believe that we will end up where we choose to be.
Brother WilCox gave another good example of how he imagines this will all go down. He talks of a friend who is struggling with a son who makes all the wrong choices. They convinced the son to go to EFY thinking that it will help him. Not even one day into the trip he called his mother pleading to be taken home because he had no desire to be there.
You use the example of a contract killer. Do you imagine that a man who chooses a life of contract killing would want to be in Gods presence. Possibly, but he would have a LOT of changing to do to feel comfortable there.
What compels people to make the choices they make now? Would the same thing NOT compel them after death?
Roger Taylor,
I think the plain meaning is that D&C 10:67-68 applies to our pre-resurrection probation and that D&C 76:112 applies to the eternities, after Judgment and after resurrection.
Roger Taylor,
All of examples you mention may well go into the Kingdom of God ahead of me. But it doesn’t take a theology of Universalism to get that done.
My personal feeling is that the term “Universalism” is outdated. From all the reports I am aware of (NDEs and through mediums), the consciousness of everyone continues on after death of the body and existed prior to incarnation. We are all spirit beings (conscious individuals) having the temporary experience of mortality. The spirit world is our home — always has been and always will be. While a mortal body allows us to briefly have experiences we otherwise could not have, a physical body is not essential for our overall progress and thus a resurrection is not necessary. It makes no sense to me that what happens to us in this brief mortal life would (could) disrupt the timeless relationships we have developed as spirit beings in the spirit world. At least that is the way I see it.
Thanks Benjamin,
One potential problem with the reasoning in regards to eternity is that our entire perception of time may be a mortal concept. Our present reality is animated by time, so it is incomprehensible to imagine an existence that doesn't play out in such a linear fashion, but there are plenty of doctrinal suggestions to this effect. If the entire concept of eternal time turns out to be flawed, then so may our conceptions of progression as we experience them. The uniformity principle, however, scolds my speculative argument.
I do see it as likely that our desire for justice for others might lead to a tendency to push for a less forgiving worldview. On the other hand, our desire for mercy might bias our worldview towards a more forgiving narrative. Suggesting to an immature soul, such as must teens, that regardless, they can make out fine eventually, seems dangerous, though I'm not sure it actually is.
I’ve sometimes thought that physical death is a somewhat arbitrary end point in which to repent and prepare. Take two friends, equal in every degree who go through good times and bad (maybe very bad) times together. One dies in a car accident while the other, in the opposite seat, is injured and survives.
Conventional wisdom is that the living friend could take that accident as motivation to turn his life around, repent of his evil deeds, participate in a saving ordinance or three, and be set for the hereafter. The dead friend? Sucks to be him. Someone will eventually do his temple work.
I suspect it doesn’t work quite that way. God is not only more powerful than I can imagine but more loving, more compassionate, more merciful, (and more just). Similarly, the atonement is far wider than I can imagine and applicable in ways not not even whispered.
How, when, and where it works out????? I just know that He is also more fair.
Hi,
Thank you for this post.
I have been struggling with fatigue for nearly 3 years and having heavy physical symptoms for all these years. I was addicted on perscription opiates for a long time (well… my doctor told me some people just need pain killers regularly), so maybe you understand the degree of my fatigue. I have recieved professional help and so far I have learned of myself that GUILT plays a big role in my condition.
Even though I´m not convinced of this mormon universalism (very good points though) these two examples of grace, the bicycle and the piano, got me thinking of my own behavior and thinking patterns. I also read the talk by Elder Uchtdorfs on mercy.
I am a very “tasks and lists” oriented person, and also very logical in my thinking, so the bicycle example of the atonement and grace has seemed very logical and true to me, when thankfulness and love has been quite hidden in my motivation of doing things.
When thinking of this GUILT, I´m not saying that there are sins and trangressions against God that force guilt in me, but rather relationships issues.
An example of this would be that I would not do something for someone when I should have realized to do so, and the other person tells me about it (work, family, friends etc.)
So, my thinking patterns go as follows:
1. I should have realized to help that person
2. I was not well enough tuned with the spirit that the spirit could have told me to do it. I did not read, pray, fast today/this month.
3. I do not have enough love for person that I should have helped
4. I am not doing my best to keep the commandments
5. I have to do more and better
6. I am really not good enough, YET
7. Someday I will be good enough
You see in my thinking patters that the “bicycle” example has (partly, together with my logical personality) formed my thinking patterns to be very sensitive to failure and GUILT.
This is why this post and the talk by Elder Uchtdorf gave me very good and needed perspective on my own life and well being.
So… the piano version of grace gives me a sense of forgiveness, love, compassion on Christs part that I need right now. The piano version also turns my thinking towards me loving myself and others, having peace in heart, understanding that life is not perfect, and that things just go as they go sometime without my “devine intervention” (haha), and that I AM GOOD ENOUGH with my flaws (even though I realize the need I have for partaking the sacrament every week).
So thank you very much for this post and your thoughts.
/K
Hi, Benjamin. I really appreciate the arguments for universalism you’ve presented here. I believe the scriptures clearly teach a doctrine of near-universal salvation, and I recently started a blog on this subject at near-universal-salvation.blogspot.com. Please feel free to review what I’ve written so far, and I hope it will contribute to further discussion on this generally overlooked but vital doctrine.
D&C sections 19 & 76, along with the Bible Dictionary entries for “Hell” and “Damnation” teach that all but the “sons of perdition” will receive some degree of salvation. The article by Bible scholar William Barclay, “I am a convinced Universalist agrees with the teachings of D&C 19 on the meaning of eternal punishment. The Bible Dictionary entry on “Hell” supports this viewpoint.