I was recently struck by the realization that a particular chapter in the Book of Mormon seems to demand of its readers an openness to something like inter-religious dialogue. This was an interesting and mildly ironic realization to have, because my fellow missionaries and I in Denmark a little over ten years ago basically agreed that sharing this chapter with people “outside the church” was a very bad idea.

We thought this because the chapter berates readers who reject the Book of Mormon, saying that they already have the Bible and it is scripture enough. Even though something about this kind of in-your-face truth-telling appealed to the zealous natures of nineteen- and twenty-year-old boys, along the way most of us had absorbed enough of the wisdom in the old maxim about flies, vinegar, and honey to hold ourselves back while looking for more inviting ways to testify.

But reading this chapter now, a decade later, I find more charity in it than righteous zeal, even if it is charity in one of its sharper guises. This vision of charity seems to speak rather pointedly to the challenges posed by the religious pluralism that is the raison d’être for State of Formation.

Responding to those who would say, “A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible,” the Lord (speaking through the prophet Nephi) says, “O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people” (2 Nephi 29:3-4). The Lord then chastises the Christian world for thanking the Jews for the Bible by cursing and hating them, saying “I will return all these things upon your own heads, for I have not forgotten my people” (2 Nephi 29:5).

These passages do several important things. First, they acknowledge the reality of the differences between Christians and Jews. Second, even though the Book of Mormon by this point is an explicitly Christian document (cf. 2 Nephi 25:26, among other places)—written, as its title page proclaims, “to the convincing of Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ”—these passages seem to take the side of the Jews. The Lord saves his harshest language for those who claim to believe in Christ but who refuse an additional witness of his divinity, while lamenting the Christian persecution of Jews. He insists on the importance of the Jewish witness at the expense of its subsequent appropriators—even as he condemns the Jews for failing to understand the witness given them.

Interestingly, the Lord does not emphasize the universal relevance of the Jewish witness. Nephi writes that “the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews” (2 Nephi 25:5).

Instead—and here is where the real potential for broad inter-religious dialogue appears—the Lord says, “Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, even upon all nations of the earth?” (2 Nephi 29:7).

The universalizing breadth of this vision brings with it two implications of significance to the State of Formation community. First is the plea for recognition that God remembers and speaks to all people, no matter where on the earth they may reside. God condemns both Jews and Christians who reject his message, and yet he continues to plead: behind the hints of exasperation can be found the love of one who will not give up on humanity. Second, and no less important, is the acknowledgment that God tailors his speech to the manners of the nation he’s addressing—even if doing so involves confronting cherished beliefs that get in the way of what he’s trying to convey.

If these implications ought to engender in us a charitable attitude toward others’ engagements with the divine, they also ought to bring us up a little short. In our dialogue, we must always remember how little we understand each other, even if we’re speaking the same language and using many of the same words. By choosing dialogue, we’ve chosen to accept these limitations on our understanding as challenges to be worked through instead of insuperable obstacles, but the success of our enterprise depends in part on our refusing to wish such challenges away by embracing a formless universalism.

As an instance of these limitations, I’ve written in this post about some scriptures with which I assume the majority of readers are not familiar. Moreover, space does not permit me to provide adequate context for what I’ve shared. Beyond these are some more difficult facts, including the genuine affront that the verses I’ve quoted offer to orthodox Christians and probably also to Jews.

I’m participating in State of Formation because I believe that facing challenges such as these is the very essence of religion. According to the OED, the Latin “religio” signifies a supernatural sense of constraint or limitation. I could have written off this difficult chapter of sacred writ based on my nineteen-year-old’s perception of it as less than tactful. Returning to it again and again over the past decade has increased my understanding somewhat, but the difficulty remains unexhausted. I’m hoping that State of Formation will similarly challenge its readers—a tall order for those of us who contribute! But in the end, we should remember this: a religion that doesn’t push back is none at all.