BEING A DISCOURSE, GIVING AN EXPLANATION OF SOME OF The PROMINENT
DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, DELIVERED
BY ELDER WILLIAM BUDGE, AT CHESTERFIELD, AUGUST 10TH, 1879.
(Phonetically Reported.)
_My Brethren, Sisters and Friends:_
I am thankful for the privilege of speaking to you a short time this
afternoon. I am anxious to explain, whenever opportunity affords,
the nature of our faith. And I presume that, on this occasion, I am
justified in feeling that our friends who have kindly visited our
meeting room have come for the purpose of learning something regarding
that subject.
In this free country, where we congratulate ourselves in enjoying and
allowing the greatest freedom to everybody, I presume we will, all of
us, speaker and congregation, exercise the privilege of explaining and
reflecting upon the things that may be said; so that our friends, I
trust, will leave us understanding a little more about the nature of
our religion than when they came to the meeting.
I can feel, in part, the interest that exists, even in the minds of
our friends. They have, doubtless, heard about the Latter-day Saints.
They have had the opinions of men who have spoken in the pulpits, and
who have written books about the "Mormons," and they, very likely, have
come here under certain impressions in regard to the "Mormon's" faith.
I am sorry to say that experience has taught me that the public
generally have been deceived. I am gratified sometimes in listening
to acknowledgments of this kind from our friends who have heard for
themselves, and have thus been able to judge intelligently as to
whether the reports which they have heard from our enemies are correct
or not.
It seems strange, but it is nevertheless true, that many people who
wish to know the faith of the Saints go to their enemies to learn of
them. I do not know whether our kind {120} friends have thought of the
inconsistency and injustice of such a course as this. If I wished to
learn what the Roman Catholics believed in, I do not think, at present,
that I would go to the Protestant Church to learn it; or, if I wished
to learn what any denomination of professing Christians believe, I do
not think it would be just for me to go to some other denomination to
ascertain it. In the first place other churches might be led--perhaps
unwittingly, perhaps intentionally--to misrepresent the faith of their
neighbors, and I might be deceived through their misrepresentations.
On the other hand, there is no need of my going to any one church to
learn the faith of another people, because I can go just as easily to
their own church to listen to their explanations, and thus be sure
of getting information of their peculiar views, without trusting to
the misrepresentations of their neighbors. Now I submit that such a
course as this is right; it is just, and accords with our impressions
of a fair and just hearing and consideration from the parties most
interested, as to whether their faith be correct or not.
Of course we have no disposition, as Latter-day Saints, even if we had
the power, to constrain any person to believe our doctrines. We have
not the power; we have not the disposition. It is not for the purpose
of using an undue influence in any respect, or in any degree, in favor
of our faith, that we preach to our friends. We simply wish to explain
to them the nature of that religion of which we are ministers--laboring
under a feeling of anxiety to deliver the message with which we have
been sent, that our friends may have the privilege of receiving or
rejecting it, just as they think proper. But, in the meantime, while
we are explaining it, my friends, be pleased to follow me with your
faith and sympathy and good wishes, so far as your assistance may help
me to lay before you the peculiar faith and doctrines of the Church
with which I am connected, that you may be able to judge, and I will
place before you, as plainly and briefly as I possibly can, some of the
prominent doctrines of our Church.
I approach the subject feeling that I have the sympathy of many
good friends, because I feel there exists an impression upon their
minds that a system of religion that has more power with it than
those now taught, is necessary. I approach the examination of this
subject because I believe that many of our kind, honest, well-wishing
friends--those who desire to serve God according to his will and
pleasure--are under the impression that there exists a confusion so
general, and errors so prevalent, that religion seems to be losing its
{121} hold upon the minds of the people; and, of course, we, who have
faith in God and in his revealed word--as contained in the Old and New
Testaments--deplore a state of things which indicates a departure from
that respect and reverence which we wish to see existing and manifested
on the part of the people towards the Supreme Being.
What is the reason, my friends, that people are becoming irreligious?
What is the reason that people talk of sacred things lightly? What is
the reason that men, who have heretofore been respected as ministers
of religion, are now little thought of? It is simply because the
religions that are taught are losing their hold upon the minds and
affections of the people; because the religions that are taught do not
supply the want that men and women feel; because the word preached
by most ministers carries with it no power to convince people as to
the truthfulness of the doctrines that are presented, or the sinful
condition of the people to whom they are taught.
The present condition of the Christian world does not present that
union, that love, that we expect from the perpetuation of the doctrines
that Christ taught, and it is this fact, understood by many, that
increases their doubts and strengthens their objections to what is
called "Christianity." The New Testament teachings lead us to expect a
state of unity in the Christian Church. The admonitions of the Apostles
were to the effect that the Saints in early days should be united
together, that they should understand alike, that they should speak
the same things, that they should be of the same mind and of the same
judgment. Such are the words of the Apostle, to be found in I Cor., 1,
10.
Now, my friends, does such a state of things exist around us in
connection with the Christian churches that we might expect from the
nature of a perfect religion, introduced by Christ? Does there exist,
at the present time, a state of things so perfect as to agree with the
expectations raised from the teachings of St. Paul in this Scripture
that I have quoted? I think not. I am safe, I believe, in stating--and
I think our friends are prepared to agree with me--that there does
not exist amongst the Christian denominations, that unity and that
oneness of faith, peace, kindness, and love which, by reading the New
Testament, we might expect to appear amongst them as the true fruits of
Christianity. And it is upon this I wish to make a few remarks before
proceeding to explain to you, from the Bible, the nature of our faith.
Of course the existence of a number of denominations called "Christian"
cannot be denied. But we are told that all {122} the Christian churches
exhibit to us one church: that if one denomination does not teach the
whole perfect plan of religion revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ, all
the churches put together do; although there may be divisions existing
amongst the members of these denominations. Unless we accept this view
we must object to Christianity on the ground that we cannot find which
of all the Christian denominations teach the truth. Here is one church
called Christian that teaches certain doctrines, another more or less
in its teachings contradicts them, a third teaches doctrines that are
in conflict with the other two; and so we might go through them all,
and speak in like terms of those who think honestly enough that they
are serving God.
Now, my friends, I will ask--First:--Is it reasonable to suppose that
God would sustain two distinct religious churches as his churches?
Is it reasonable to suppose that God would set up two distinct
religious bodies, the ministers of which teach different doctrines?
After learning from the Bible so much indicating the anxiety of
God's inspired servants for a time of perfect unity, I say it is not
reasonable to suppose it. And just so long as two distinct religious
systems exist, teaching different doctrines and preaching different
principles, there exist a conflicting influence, division, feelings
perhaps very strong if the difference in doctrine is very decided. If
it is not reasonable, what are we to do? How can we account for such a
condition of things?
This leads to the position we occupy. We want to know something more.
Is it true that the bodies called "Christian" at present represent the
Church of Christ? Or is it true that they have ignored some things
belonging to the perfect doctrine of Christ, and taken as their guide,
their own conclusions in regard to what is right, which leads to this
division of doctrine? How is it? But I will endeavor to show that it
is unscriptural as well as unreasonable for us to receive different
Christian bodies as the Church of Christ.
I will direct your attention to a few passages from the word of God.
Jesus, when he sent the Apostles to preach in the first place, said
to them, "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every
creature." Not _any_ system that might be termed a Gospel. There was
no choice left to anybody. He spoke definitely in regard to the Gospel
plan which he, the Son of God, came to the earth to set up. Paul, in
the first chapter of Galatians, 8th verse, says, "Though we or an
angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than {123} that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Paul, one of
the apostles, taught the Gospel, the same Gospel that Peter, James,
John and others taught. They all taught the same system. And Paul
said in another place, that he went up, by revelation to Jerusalem,
taking Barnabas and Titus with him, and communicated the Gospel which
he preached among the Gentiles (Gal. ii, 1, 2), thus showing that he
taught the same thing everywhere. You see, Paul's words and practice
show that he did not admit of the least change or alteration from the
Gospel as taught by Christ, and preached by the apostles to the people.
In another place it is said, "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth
not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the
doctrines of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son," (2 John
ix,) showing us that he taught strictly the necessity of abiding in
that form of doctrine which had at first been delivered. I quote these
passages to show you that the Gospel which Christ and the apostles
first taught was intended to be taught continually, without change, and
that none had a right, not even an angel from heaven, to preach any
other Gospel than that which had been delivered at the first.
Do you agree with this? Because I am about to examine, in detail, some
of the doctrines that will readily show to you the difference between
the ministers of the true Gospel, and the ministers of the so-called
Gospels that are preached at the present time. But are you prepared to
come to the conclusion, with me, that it is the old Gospel, Christ's
Gospel, the doctrine of the apostles that we ought to seek and follow,
if we expect eternal life? Or do you think you are safe in following
the teachings of men, who have made great changes from the ancient
Gospel, with the following passage before you? If there come any unto
you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house,
neither bid him God speed" (2 John, 10th verse). Do you think you can
obtain God's blessing by being members of a church or churches that
teach doctrines opposed to what Christ taught? How is this?
"Well, certainly," says one--a Bible believer--"of course I wish to
have the religion of the Bible. I would like to have the religion
of Christ. I do not admit of any departure." This is right. This is
consistent. Of course, if there is a question as to whether God has
made any change in his primitive faith, revealed through Christ, we
shall consider it; for I am willing also to make a change, if God has
authorized it. I am quite willing to accept any doctrine that God has
revealed from heaven for my salvation. I confess to you that I have
{124} no disposition whatever to maintain private views or speculations
which may have been engendered on my own part, through reflection.
I wish the doctrine of Christ, as Christ taught it, as the apostles
taught it, and I will not, with the light that I possess, depart one
particle from the letter and spirit of that ancient plan. And if there
are any friends here who have heard that the Elders of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not believe in the Bible, let
them judge. There are no practices pleasing to God, or likely to bring
his blessings upon the heads of the children of men, except those
inculcated by him, through his servants by the power of revelation from
heaven, so that we will not depart from the Book. We will not teach
doctrines that are opposed to this book, but we are prepared to show
our friends, in the spirit of kindness, that doctrines opposed to those
contained in this Book are displeasing to God, and are not calculated
to bring peace and salvation to the children of men.
"But," says one, "what matters it whether we go this road that you
point out or some other? You know if we can get to heaven one way, is
not that as good as another?" We will try to illustrate this idea.
If a man wish to go to London, says the enquirer, may he not go the
road that leads towards the south, or a road that leads towards the
north, as the case may be; what matters it so that he gets to London?
It would not matter in the least. He might go the road that led to
the north, or that which led to the south, and by making a shorter or
longer journey, as the case might be, he might get to London. But you
see there is no parallel between this figure and the facts in regard
to religion, because there are not two ways to get to heaven. This is
the difference. There are two ways to get to London probably, perhaps
more, but you see there is only one way to get to heaven, so that when
we admit, as an illustration, a figure of this kind, we start with an
error and it leads us astray.
The Bible speaks of one way. It speaks of two ways. It speaks of a
broad road, that leads to destruction, and it speaks of a narrow way
that leads to eternal life. So you see there is only one way that leads
to heaven, and if any one persuades us that the wide road will lead us
there, he deceives us, for there is only one way, and it is narrow. The
Bible is very plain upon this, because the doctrines are steadfast and
sure, and the words are plain that there is but one way that leads to
life and glory. Now that is the way we want to find out.
Jesus came, he said, to do his Father's will, not his own. He called
apostles and ordained them, and he said, "As I have {125} been sent,
so send I you. Go and preach the Gospel to every creature." That was
their business. But he said, "Tarry ye first in Jerusalem, until ye
are endowed with power from on high." Jesus called the apostles.
He ordained them himself. He instructed them personally, and he
commissioned them to preach the Gospel to every creature. But he wished
them to tarry at Jerusalem until they received power from on high; a
certain gift which God had promised, that they might be qualified,
in every sense, to discharge the important duty devolving upon them,
of administering words of salvation to a fallen world. The apostles
did this. They gathered in Jerusalem. They were there on the Day of
Pentecost, and whilst there, in the upper room, the endowment of which
Jesus spoke was given unto them. The Holy Ghost came upon them, in the
upper room, as a mighty rushing wind, and it sat upon them as cloven
tongues of fire. And, whilst under that influence, the apostles who
were sent to preach the Gospel, stood up--at least Peter did, as the
mouth-piece of the rest at that time--to preach the Gospel that Christ
sent them to declare. Now, what was it? Let us lay a good foundation as
we proceed.
Were they qualified to preach it? I do not think any Christian will
doubt it. If they were not prepared to teach the Gospel of the Son of
God, then I would have no hope, my friends, of hearing it in this life.
Never. Jesus himself chose them. He ordained them; he instructed them,
and after all this, as you will find, in the 2nd chap, of the Acts of
the Apostles, 1st, 2nd and 3rd verses, they assembled in Jerusalem, and
had fulfilled unto them the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ, receiving
the endowment of which I have been speaking.
I think that all my friends here are certainly prepared to accept the
words that Peter spoke, and acknowledge them to be true. What did Peter
say? First, he preached Christ and him crucified. You see the people,
who had gathered together on the day of Pentecost, were people who had
no faith in Christ. They had rejected him and his instructions. They
had been of those who persecuted Christ and the apostles. They were of
those who had either personally or in their sympathies sustained the
crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. Therefore, Peter, knowing this, stood
up and preached to them, first Christ and him crucified, and he was
successful. Who can doubt it? Peter, a servant of God, ordained by
the Son of God. Peter, upon whom the Spirit of God rested as tongues
of fire, as the Scriptures have it. This man stood up and argued the
point, and explained about Jesus. And who can doubt the result? I am
sure we would have been disappointed {126} if we had been told in the
Bible that Peter was not successful. He was successful. Many believed
on him, and the result of their belief was that they said, "Men and
brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts ii, 37). No wonder they asked that
question. People who had either helped to crucify the Lord, or who had
rejoiced when he was crucified, as many of them did, to be convinced
that that same Jesus whom they had assisted to crucify was indeed the
Lord, the Christ, and when they were convinced of this they cried out,
"Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
Peter was prepared to tell them. He had the very instructions that were
needed, and the words of Peter are applicable to-day, my friends, to
you and to me, so far as we have not obeyed them.
We are believers in Christ, I trust. We have fortunately made our
appearance in this life, in the midst of a people who at least believe
in the divinity of Christ, and we have received impressions favorable
to this end; therefore the words of Peter, spoken to those who believed
in the divinity of Christ, are applicable to us, and are the words of
salvation to us, if that ancient Gospel is not changed. What were the
words? He says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name
of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts ii, 38).
Was that the Gospel? Yes, unless the apostles disobeyed the
instructions of Christ, because they were sent to preach the Gospel,
and they were endowed that they might preach it perfectly and represent
God, the Maker of heaven and earth, in the words and spirit by which
they presented it unto the people.
Now, my friends, faith in Christ was the first principle of the Gospel;
repentance of sins was the second principle; baptism for the remission
of sins was the third principle, and then the reception of the Holy
Ghost, by the laying on of hands, as taught by Peter on that day in
Jerusalem. Is there any objection to this? "None at all," says one,
"that is Scriptural; we cannot object to it." A Bible believer cannot
object to it. But what is becoming of us if such doctrines are not
taught? "Well," says one, "are they not taught?" No. "Faith in Christ"
is taught, and "Repentance of sins is taught," although by some people
the latter is taught first, before faith in Christ. Some teach that we
must repent of our sins before we can have faith in Christ. This is
a mistake. We cannot possibly repent of sin committed unless we are
convinced that we have committed the sin. We cannot repent of laws
broken, {127} which Jesus has taught through his apostles, unless we
are first convinced that Jesus was divine, and had the authority to
teach them; so that faith in Christ and his divine mission must be
the foundation of our practice as Christians. And the first effect
that faith in Christ produces, is repentance of the sins which we
have committed. So repentance is the second principle of the Gospel.
But we differ a little more about the third principle. Just read your
Bible, and you will find that Peter taught baptism for the remission
of sins (Acts ii, 38). Again, John the Baptist, who was the forerunner
of Christ, baptized for the remission of sins (Mark, i, 4). "John was
sent from God." You will find this in the 1st chapter of the Gospel
according to St. John, 6th verse. John himself said, in the 33rd verse
of the same chapter, "He that sent me to baptize with water, the same
said unto me," referring to the instructions he received from the
Father regarding Christ. Both passages assert this, that John the
Baptist was sent by God to baptize with water, and we are taught in the
Bible that he did teach the baptism of repentance for the remission of
sins. That is just what we might expect. John was God's servant. So
was Peter. They both taught the same doctrine. John taught baptism,
and Peter told the people to be baptized every one of them. You will
remember the servant of God who was sent to speak to Paul, to instruct
him just after his conversion. He went to him, and when the scales
fell from the eyes of Paul, or Saul, this man of God said to him: "Why
tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling
upon the name of the Lord" (Acts xxii, 16.) Be baptized and wash away
his sins? Yes. Now, that agrees exactly with the doctrine of Peter, and
the doctrine of John the Baptist. They were all three servants of God,
and they all taught the same doctrine, and those who heard and believed
that doctrine possessed the self-same faith; so that so far as baptism
is concerned, the ancient Saints did teach and practice the self-same
doctrine--baptism for the remission of sins.
I want to talk a little about this. One says, "Well, I have always been
taught that baptism was a doctrine of Christ anciently, but I have
been under the impression that it was not necessary to salvation."
That may be, my friends, we have been taught a great many things, and
good Christian people have believed a great many things that Christian
people have rejected since. But that is no reason why we should change
the Bible doctrine. The thing is right here. "Well," says one, "I
thought we were not able of ourselves to do anything to help to save
ourselves." This requires proper understanding. {128} If baptism brings
the remission of sins, and baptism is not attended to by us, we cannot
obtain the blessing. Certainly not. God gives us bread to eat, but he
does not present it to us. A man sows seed in the ground and he sees
to it and he harvests it and it is threshed and prepared and placed
before us in the shape of flour, but we have no disposition to deny
that it is the gift of God. If it were not for God's goodness we should
have no bread. If it were not for the gift of God, we could not attend
to the ordinance that brings remission of sins. We have not power,
of ourselves, to bring within our reach a single saving principle
belonging to the plan of eternal life. It is all God's free gift. It is
all in consequence of his mercy, and his charity, and his goodness and
love, and pleasure manifested to us that we have any privilege at all
that will help to make us better or that will bring us into his church
and kingdom and give us a right to say that we are really his children.
The fact that he has laid down ordinances, through which a remission of
sins is brought to us does not warrant us in saying that we do it of
ourselves, and when people talk like this it is likely to deceive.
Now, my friends, the Bible says, in the place I have quoted, that
baptism is for the remission of sins. Do we believe this? If we do you
know we must also come to the conclusion necessarily that we cannot
have a remission of sins without it. If God has placed the ordinance
of baptism in his church, as part of his divine system for a certain
purpose, the object cannot be obtained without it. The means which
God reveals for certain purposes must be used. We cannot say, and it
would be unreasonable in us to say, that when God speaks from heaven in
regard to any particular thing we can ignore his advice when we please
and adopt something else that suits us. It is wrong, and it is this
disposition that has led to the present deplorable state of things.
"Well," says one, "I have thought that baptism was for an outward sign
of an inward grace, or of membership in the Church." Another error, you
see! The Bible does not say anything about that. Of course the act of
a person embracing the principles of the Gospel and becoming a member
of the church, may be a sign, but baptism was not set in the church for
that purpose. It was taught in the Church, and administered for the
_remission of sins_ and nothing else. And no man or woman can obtain a
place in God's kingdom, or enjoy his presence here or hereafter, unless
their sins are washed away in baptism, as Paul's were washed away when
he accepted the advice of the good and inspired man, Ananias, who
instructed him.
1{129} When I think of the importance of this offer which God has
made, my heart is filled with thankfulness instead of a disposition to
discard what he has taught. It is strange, and we can only account for
it on the ground of the waywardness of men naturally, to think that
we would attempt to do things in opposition to the will of God. Is
there a more important blessing offered to mankind than the remission
of sins? Have we any hope of enjoying the glory of God in our present
sinful condition? Surely not, for nothing sinful or unholy can enter
the courts of glory. Then if God has so put in his Church an ordinance
for the purpose of enabling us, like Saul, to wash away our sins,
why not be prepared to receive it with joy instead of cultivating or
encouraging a disposition to ignore it?
Baptism for the remission of sins is the third principle of the Gospel
of Christ. Then comes the ordinance of the laying on of hands for the
gift of the Holy Ghost. Peter says on the day of Pentecost, to which
we have directed your attention, "And ye shall receive the gift of
the Holy Ghost." What did that consist of? The gift of God's Spirit.
The reception of God's power, a portion of his power. The reception
of an influence which leads those who possess it near to God in their
feelings and in their faith. A spirit which produces not only that
inward consciousness of acceptance with God, as his son or daughter,
but a power which gives outward manifestations of its divinity. Jesus
did promise to the apostles when he sent them out first, that "These
signs shall follow them that believe." Here are his words, "Go ye
into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall
be damned, _and these signs shall follow them that believe_." The words
of Christ, in the last chapter of Mark, 15th and following verses.
"Well," says one, "You know we do not believe in miracles now. These
signs were miracles, but we do not believe in them now." That may he,
my friends. This is the very reason why we are here, because there is
such a great disbelief in the Bible; because there is a disposition to
ignore the Bible; because there is a disposition to ignore the promises
of Christ; and we wish to show you the things that are denied; we wish
to point out to you the doctrines our fathers have denied; that our
teachers have denied, and we wish to show you that they are in the
Bible, the word of God, in the book which some have gone so far as
to assert that the Saints do not believe in. But is it true that the
promises of God were fulfilled anciently in regard to this matter? Yes!
In the 19th {130} chapter and 6th verse of the Acts of the Apostles,
you will find an instance related of the Apostles laying their hands
on some that had been baptized, and they spake with tongues. This was
one of the gifts that was manifested, in consequence of their receiving
that spirit which produced them. See also Mark, 16th and 20th.
You must not consider that, in teaching these doctrines, we are
advancing something of ourselves, something new. If we were teaching
new doctrine you would have a right to call us to account and ask us
for the proof. We are teaching old doctrine. We are teaching the New
Testament doctrines, instead of those of our Christian friends. We
have no spirit of enmity in the least degree, towards any living soul,
and when we refer to the faith of our Christian friends remember, it
is simply to make the difference between their views and ours more
distinct to you. I say instead of our friends calling us to account,
it is the Latter-day Saints who have the right to come out and say
to their christian friends "See here, why do you deny signs which
Christ said should follow believers?" What believers did Christ speak
about? Why believers in his Gospel. He taught us that these signs
should follow believers. Well then, if our Christian friends deny
that, we have the right to call them to account. If Christ said that
these miracles--manifestations of Almighty power--should follow the
believers, I say what reason have you to deny it? The question is
not now whether the Latter-day Saints possess the power or not. The
question at issue at present is, not whether the teachers of other
churches have the power or not. The question is, Does Christ promise
that power to believers in the Gospel? I say he does, and I say that
those who deny that such powers should follow believers, teach that
which is contrary to the word of Christ, and contrary to the facts
that appeared in connection with the teachings and administration
of the doctrines of Christ. So that it is not the Latter-day Saints
that introduce a new doctrine, and we say to our friends. Hear us, we
beseech you. Hear the message we have to deliver, for God has sent us
to teach the old religion, the religion of Jesus, the simple plan which
was revealed from heaven in ancient days, to save the children of men.
Peter said, on the Day of Pentecost, speaking of the Gospel and its
attendant blessings, "for this promise is unto you"--that is, to the
people who stood before him--"to your children and unto all that are
afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."
You see it was not confined to the members of the church {131} in the
first place, as some would have us believe. The promise of the laying
on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost was made to the children of
those who heard Peter, and to all who were afar off, even as many as
the Lord our God should call. And if it be true that God is calling
sinners to repentance now, we should see the same power manifested
to-day, that is, if we have the true Gospel. There can be no doubt of
this.
Which will you have, my friends, the doctrine of the Bible or the
doctrines of men? If you accept the doctrines of the Bible you will
have to become Latter-day Saints, and of course that would be out
of the question for a good many. But we cannot find these doctrines
anywhere else, and that is a perplexity. What shall we do about them?
When I am speaking to you I think of the position I occupied myself,
when I heard the Latter-day Saints first. I went to their meeting, not
expecting to hear anything that would interest me by any means, but I
heard the Bible doctrine taught. I could not deny it. I found I had
been mistaken. I did not incline in my heart to fight against God,
but considerations came up. If I become a Latter-day Saint, people
will call me a "Mormon." If I embrace these doctrines, my friends will
point at me the finger of scorn. If I become a Latter-day Saint my
good neighbors will say I am deceived and led astray, and that I have
embraced a doctrine that is in opposition to the teachings of Christ.
Of course these things flashed through my mind when I considered and
read the Bible to ascertain positively whether these "Mormons" taught
the truth or not. I thought this--well! I have been religious for the
purpose of making my peace with God, but I have been mistaken and led
astray by men whom God had not sent to preach the Gospel; but now I
have found the truth, the old promises relating to God's power, all
things as at the beginning, have been restored, and I have the promise
of obtaining a place with the righteous, according to the mind and will
of my Heavenly Father. Let friends say what they please, let them say
I am deceived, but I believe this Bible is true. Let them say whatever
they may in regard to my faith; no matter. I thought of the time of
Christ. They called Christ hard names; and of the apostles they spake
a great deal of evil. In fact the Bible says they called them all
manner of evil, and although I expected my friends would denounce me,
still when I thought of what Christ had suffered, I was reconciled and
instead of fighting against God, I was willing to accept his doctrine,
in order to obtain his blessings.
{132} I state to you my friends, that since the day I entered this
Church, I have rejoiced exceedingly. I have found proofs upon proofs.
I have had reason to rejoice in consequence of the manifestations of
God's power, confirmatory of the doctrines, and I can say that the
Church of Christ is set up, its doctrines are taught, its practices are
practised, its promises are fulfilled, and the evidence of its divine
power are manifested in the midst of this people.
I would like to say a few words in regard to another point. I have
just said that I had been taught a religion by men whom God _had not
sent_. I would like to explain. You will excuse us if we seem to be
very extreme in our views. We have taken the liberty to teach you the
truth, just as we have it, and when we say something that comes in
contact with what you have received, excuse us. There is no bad feeling
at all, or unfriendliness in the least. But we believe in persons being
invested with the proper authority to preach the Gospel. Paul says,
speaking of the authority of the holy priesthood, "No man taketh this
honor unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron" (Heb. 5,
4), Faith cometh by hearing, and how can we hear without a "preacher"
(Rom. x, 14-17). "No man taketh this honor unto himself, except he be
called of God as was Aaron." Now that is very plain, and what does it
mean? Simply what it says. That no man has a right to administer in
the ordinances of religion, except he be sent of God as was Aaron,
for how can a man preach except he be sent? (Rom. x, 15). If that be
admitted, of course the next question of importance is, How was Aaron
sent? By turning to the history we have of God's dealings with Moses,
in reference to the gathering of the Israelites, from Egypt, you will
find that God instructed Moses to call Aaron to be his helper. (Ex. iv,
15, 16.) Here is the proof. No man can preach the Gospel simply because
he feels inclined within himself to be a preacher. No man can preach
the Gospel--that is with God's approval and authority--unless God
commission him. God commissioned every one of his preachers in ancient
times. He spoke from heaven. He directed those who held this authority
to call others. Christ called the apostles as he was called. His Father
called him: he called the apostles, and he said, "As my Father hath
sent me, even so send I you" (St. John xx, 21). "He that receiveth
you receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent
me." The authority was here you see. God called Moses; he instructed
Moses to call Aaron; so that Aaron stood exactly in the same relation
to God as did the apostles: {133} the latter being called of God the
Father through Christ. That would be evident, because one whom God had
authorized to act as his servant was instructed by him to call Aaron.
Now, you observe, no man has a right to exercise the authority of the
Priesthood, unless he is called of God, as was Aaron.
Are the preachers--those who commonly preach in connection with the
churches of the present day--called of God as was Aaron? Or, in other
words, are they called by revelation from God? This is the question.
We do not doubt the propriety of their being called in this way,
because the Bible says they ought robe. Do our Protestant ministers,
at the present time, profess to be sent of God as was Aaron? Is there
a minister connected with the Christian denominations of the present
day who professes to be sent of God by direct revelation? Not one. It
does not require any argument at all. They do not profess that they
have heard from God. They say that God has not spoken since the last
book of the New Testament was written. They say it is a sin, and they
find fault with the Latter-day Saints because we believe that God does
speak; that he has a right to speak; and that it is necessary we should
have his approval and commission in order to qualify us to attend to
the business of his Church. So that our present Christian teachers do
not profess to be called of God as was Aaron. They deny all revelation
at present, or since the Bible was written.
You know the ministers, among their other errors, receive pay for
preaching. That is an innovation also. The ancient apostles, and
seventies, and bishops, and so on, were not paid for preaching. But
our present ministers are. The preachers of this Church, with whom I
am connected, are not paid for teaching. They preach without money,
without purse, and without scrip. Now, the preachers of the present
churches make a business of preaching. They learn to be preachers.
They are brought up to be preachers in consequence of their parents
or guides finding in this way a place where they make a living. Such
ministers sometimes acknowledge one kind of revelation. Not that God
tells the people about his will, or that he manifests his power, but
they sometimes tell us they have received a call from one congregation
to another. But there is one peculiarity about it, viz.: the
congregation that calls them is a congregation that almost invariably
offers them more money than the congregation to which they have been
attached. This is the only instance of any kind of revelation being
acknowledged by our Christian teachers. God has not spoken, say they,
by inspired men, since the days of the ancient {134} apostles. He has
not spoken directly to the Church. He has not authorized a single man
to preach, but sometimes a call is given from less money to more. And
though they are feeling full of love and affection for the congregation
with which they have labored for years, yet they are sorry and regret
so much that that call must be made, which takes them from among their
old friends to a new congregation. But, you see, the new congregation
offers the most money, and that cannot be disregarded.
My friends, these are a few of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. Are we displeased with anybody? No, not
at all. All are at liberty to believe what they please. But we are
placed under obligations to deliver the message which God has sent. We
say we are not solely dependant on the Bible, because God has revealed
the Gospel, and we possess a living Priesthood divinely appointed. We
do not wish you to think that we regard the Bible lightly. Of course
you will have noticed, from our remarks, that this is not the case.
But we say from the Bible alone, without revelation, we could not
have been able to obtain all the knowledge we have received. Why,
millions of people have read the Bible but have not discovered some of
these doctrines. They have not been led to preach even all the things
contained therein, and if they had discovered the doctrine, this Bible
cannot lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. That part of the
work that is necessary for man's salvation must be done by one whom God
authorizes. Therefore the Bible alone is not sufficient. It contains
the truth. It is the word of God. It contains the instructions of
the apostles. But it does not contain the divine authority that is
necessary to commission a man to baptize or administer in any ordinance
pertaining to the house of God.
Now, my friends, may God bless you. And my brethren and sisters, may
the Holy Spirit, which leads into all truth, abide upon us, and may we
who have found the truth have a disposition to retain it. May we have
the moral courage to say, "Let God be served. Let his truth be obeyed."
Let the Almighty be honored, and if other people choose to follow their
own fancies, or the deceptions presented before them by men whom God
has not sent, as for us and our house, let us serve God.
May God bless us, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
{135}
He that judgeth a matter before he heareth it is not
wise.--_Solomon_.