of so grave importance treated. Sarcasm and ridicule doubtless
have their place even in polemics, but it is only as they may be
incidentally used that they can be of force. One could no more think
of succeeding in an argument on a serious question by using them
exclusively, than he would think of making a hearty meal on condiments
alone.
That the subject of the Apostolic letter of Leo XIII is a serious one,
no one will deny. That it calls for earnest thought and not sarcasm
and ridicule, admits of no doubt. It involves the question of divine
authority in the Protestant ministry and churches; and, for that
matter, the divine authority of the church of Rome itself. For, if the
alleged successor of St. Peter, by a method of reasoning satisfactory
to himself and his council, arrives at what the Protestants of this
generation will regard as a startling conclusion, viz., that their
ministry and churches are without divine authority, the Protestants
will reply in kind. They will revive the charges brought against the
church of Rome during the revolt from the pope's authority in that
wonderful sixteenth century revolution miscalled the "Reformation."
They will proclaim him the Anti-Christ of New Testament scripture;
charge upon the church of Rome complete apostasy from primitive
Christianity; and accuse all those continuing in communion with her
as being idolaters and pagans. Such a rejoinder on the part of the
Protestants is inevitable, since it is only on the ground that the
church of Rome was become a corrupt church, in complete apostasy and
dispossessed of divine authority, that the so-called "Reformation" of
the sixteenth century, or the existence of Protestant churches today
can be justified.
Why is the unity of the Christian churches broken? Why does there exist
a Roman Catholic church and numerous Protestant churches? Because the
Protestants of the sixteenth century believed that the church of Rome
was in a state of apostasy from true Christianity, and hence they came
out from her dominion; revolted against and rejected her authority,
while the church of Rome, on her part, regarded the Protestants of the
same century as heretics, as renegade children, apostates. That there
has been no change in the attitude of the respective parties to this
great controversy since one first denounced the other as "an heretic,"
and the other replied with the charge of "anti-Christ," is emphasized
by this latest utterance of the bishop of Rome, in which he declares
that "ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been
and are absolutely null and utterly void."
This question of possessing divine authority goes right down to the
foundations of Christianity. No one will attempt to say that a man
has a right to act in the name of Jesus Christ without authority from
him to do so. If it required direct authority from God to handle the
sacred utensils of God's sanctuary in the wilderness, and to care
for the Ark of the Covenant, and for touching these things without
authority, one was smitten with death (see Numbers chapter iv, and
Samuel vi: 3); if it required divine authority to burn incense before
the altar in the temple of God at Jerusalem, and for usurping the
priest's office and attempting without divine authority to burn incense
one was cursed of God with leprosy, even though a king (II Chronicles
xxvi); if it required divine authority to cast out devils, and certain
ones in attempting to cast them out without having authority to so
command them, were leaped upon by the evil spirits and prevailed
against (Acts xix); if, I say, it required divine authority to do these
several things, how reasonable it is to conclude that it will more
abundantly require divine appointment, or delegated power from God to
make proclamation of the gospel and administer its ordinances. As the
sacraments of the Christian religion are of infinitely more importance
than the handling of sacred utensils, touching the Ark of the Covenant,
burning incense or casting out devils, so, too, it is to be expected
that God will be all the more careful to entrust their administration
only to those having a divine commission.
To say, as the bishop of Rome does say, that the "ordinations carried
out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null
and utterly void," is, of course, to deny to the English clergy divine
authority. To deny them divine authority by saying that their orders
are and have been null and void, is to say that their administration
of the Christian sacraments through all the years that have elapsed
since the church in England revolted against the authority of the pope,
have been useless. And if Rome denies the validity of the church of
England orders, it may be taken for granted that she will deny the
validity of the orders of all other churches separated from her; for
of all the churches separated from the Roman See the church of England
has most nearly conformed to, or what would be more accurate to say,
departed the least from the ritual of the old church. In plain terms
the church of Rome holds all churches that have separated from her,
and all churches that have sprung into existence from the churches
so separated, as being without authority from God, and regards their
ministry as a disorderly crowd.
I know there are a class of Protestant churchmen, who seek to satisfy
themselves on this question of divine authority by claiming that it
has come down to them on lines independent of the church of Rome. But,
unfortunately for this contention the church of England herself and
the other Protestants cut off not only the source of divine authority
that might be claimed as coming from the church of Rome, but also every
other source from which that authority could spring. In her great
homily on the "Perils of Idolatry" the church of England says: "Laity
and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages and sects and degrees have
been drowned in abominable idolatry most detested by God and damnable
to man, for eight hundred years and more" (Perils of Idolatry, page
3). By making this charge against all Christendom one is unable to
see how the Church of England can make any claim whatsoever of divine
authority; for, if all Christendom was plunged into this awful abyss of
apostasy for eight hundred years and more, no divine authority survived
that period.
Nor is the Church of England the only Protestant authority which makes
this charge of universal apostasy from primitive Christianity. John
Wesley, in making an explanation of the cessation of scriptural gifts
among Christians, says:
"It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy
Spirit [speaking of I Corinthians xii] were common in the church
for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after
that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a
Christian; and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian
cause thereby heaped riches and power and honor upon Christians in
general, but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this
time they (the spiritual gifts) almost totally ceased; very few
instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has
been supposed) because there was no more occasion for them, because
all the world was become Christians. This is a miserable mistake,
not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christians. The real
cause of it was that the love of many, almost all, Christians
so-called was waxed cold. The Christians had no more of the spirit
of Christ than the other heathens. The Son of man when he came
to examine his church, could hardly find faith upon earth. This
was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost
were no longer to be found in the Christian church--_because the
Christians were turned heathens again and only had a dead form
left"_ (Wesley's Works, Vol. vii, sermon 89, pp. 26, 27).
If the Christians were turned heathen again, and only had a dead,
form of religion left, like the other heathens, it will be extremely
difficult for the followers of Mr. Wesley, and those who have received
whatsoever of authority they possess from him, to point out just where
their divine authority came from since their great leader proclaims
this entire corruption of the Christian church. If on the one hand the
Catholic church denies to Protestant Christendom the possession of
divine authority, and if, on the other hand, Protestants declare the
universal corruption and apostasy of mediaeval Christianity in order
to justify the religious revolution of the sixteenth century, and
their own existence as so-called reformed churches, then there is no
possible channel through which they can claim that divine authority to
administer the ordinances of the gospel has come down to them; unless
they shall claim that the heavens have again been opened and a new
dispensation of the gospel, including as it would, divine authority,
has been committed to them. Not one of all the Protestant sects claims
that such a new revelation has been given, and as every other source
from which divine authority could come is cut off by them, there is
left but one conclusion to come to and that is that they are without
divine authority, and hence their administrations of the Christian
sacraments are vain.
The position of the Catholic church is more logically consistent than
that of Protestants; for she insists that there has been an unbroken
line of authority and divine mission through the succession of her
bishops, and more especially through the succession of the bishops
of Rome from St. Peter to Leo XIII. But the church of Rome is asking
us to believe too much when she demands that we shall believe that
God's authority has come down to modern times through the corrupted
line of the Catholic priesthood. One has only to become acquainted
with the melancholy history of the Roman popes to be convinced of
the impossibility of God acknowledging them as the line down which
he has transmitted the power to speak and act in his name. One need
only contrast the spirit of humility which characterized the Apostles
and Elders of the Church of Christ with the worldly pride, ambition
and wickedness of the popes of Rome, to see how far the latter have
departed from the standard of character established by the lives of
the former, and one need only contrast the beautiful simplicity of the
principles and ordinances of the early Christian church, as described
in the New Testament, with the canon-law and the elaborate ceremonial
of the Catholic church to see how wide a departure has been made from
the religion given to the world by the great peasant teacher of Judea.
The fact is, this controversy precipitated on the religious world by
the decision of Pope Leo XIII, in respect to Anglican Orders, brings
us face to face with the great truth prophesied of in holy scripture,
to-wit: The universal apostasy from the Christian religion. Men have
transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances and broken the covenant
of the gospel of Christ (Isaiah xiv: 4-6). Of themselves men have
arisen speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them
(Acts xx: 28-30). The time came when men would no longer endure sound
doctrine, but after their own lusts heaped teachers to themselves
having itching ears, and those teachers have turned their ears away
from the truth unto fables (II Timothy iv). False teachers arose among
the people who privily brought in damnable heresies, even denying the
Lord that bought them, and many have followed their pernicious ways,
by reason of whom the way of truth has been evil spoken of (II Peter
ii). The great falling away predicted by the Apostle of the Gentiles
which was to precede the glorious coming of the Son of God in the
clouds of heaven with power and glory, has come to pass. That man of
sin, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all
that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth
in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God, (II Thess. ii)
has had and is having his rule and reign in the earth, and men have
been made to bow down to him and may continue to be compelled to bow
down to him until, as predicted in holy writ, the Lord shall destroy
him with the brightness of his coming. The New Testament scriptures
are replete with predictions of this great apostasy from the Christian
religion, and one may see in the facts of ecclesiastical history,
that the whole Christian world, "laity and clergy," to use again the
language of the Church of England, "learned and unlearned, all ages
and sects and degrees have been drowned in abominable idolatry, most
detested by God and damnable to man." The actual changes, also, wrought
in the Christian religion by the additions to and corruption of its
ordinances make it clear that men have transgressed the laws, changed
the ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant of the religion of
Jesus Christ.
Under these circumstances the only way that divine authority can be
restored to the earth is by God re-opening the heavens and giving
a new dispensation of the gospel to the children of men, including
as it would divine authority to preach its doctrines and administer
its ordinances. Great and urgent as the necessity for such a new
dispensation of the gospel is, men need not look to either the
Catholic church or the Protestant sects for such a proclamation.
The former, in addition to claiming that there has been an unbroken
line of divine authority through its priesthood, rejects the idea of
revelation subsequent to the alleged closing of the New Testament canon
of scripture. The latter, though declaring the apostate condition of
mediaeval Christendom, not only make no claim that the gospel of Jesus
Christ, including divine authority, was restored by revelation to the
leaders of the sixteenth century "Reformation," but also spurn the idea
that there has been or can be any revelation subsequent to what they
term the closing of the New Testament canon of scripture.
Out of all the religious teachers of modern times there is but one who
has had the boldness to claim the restoration of divine authority and a
dispensation of the gospel by means of a new revelation from God; and
that is the first Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, Joseph Smith. He claimed to have received revelation from God;
the visitation of angels, who conferred upon him a holy Priesthood, a
divine commission, by virtue of which he was appointed to preach the
Gospel and re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ on earth. If this
man's pretensions to such divine appointment are scoffed at, it is no
more than was accorded the pretensions of Apostles and Prophets of
God in former dispensations. If he is derided for his humble origin,
and the lowly station from which he was called to the work of God,
so, too, were the ancient Apostles and Prophets, and even the Son of
God himself. If this message has been very generally rejected and he
himself was despised of men, persecuted, hated, and at last slain for
the word of God and the testimony of Jesus, what is all this but the
same treatment that has been accorded to the accredited servants of
God in nearly all ages of the world? If his followers have suffered
ridicule, oppression and persecution, what is this but the same fate
that has overtaken the Saints of God in nearly all ages of the world?
All this will not affect the truth or untruth of his statements any
more than like treatment affected the truth or untruth of the claims of
other inspired servants of God. The truth is that the claims of Joseph
Smith, in view of the great Christian controversy that has been going
on for centuries, and just now emphasized by the recent decision of
Pope Leo XIII, respecting Anglican Orders, and the discussion it has
provoked, are more consistent than the claims of any of the Protestant
reformers. For the great apostate condition of Christendom in mediaeval
times being a reality, the only way there could be a restoration of
that which was lost by that apostasy would be by a new dispensation of
the gospel being committed to men by means of a new revelation; and
herein is the strength of the position of Joseph Smith, and the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which, under God's direction he
organized.
III.
Reformation or Revolution? [A]
[Footnote A: A discourse delivered at Payson, Utah, July 8, 1894]
_A study of the great sixteenth century movement led by Martin Luther
and others._
The theme announced deals with a period of-history and with events
great in their importance to modern civilization. The reason why I am
called to discuss this great movement of the sixteenth century, called
the "Reformation," grows out of what I have published upon the subject
in the "Outlines of Ecclesiastical History." That great movement
which many historians call the "Reformation," and which is generally
accepted, at least by Protestant Christendom, as such, I have called
in the work named a "revolution," and I am asked to state the reasons
I have for considering that movement a revolution, rather than a
reformation. I wish to say, however, that my affirmation that it was a
"revolution" was carefully qualified. This is my statement:
"It is absurd to say that the revolution of the sixteenth century
was a reformation, if by that it is meant that it re-established
the primitive doctrines of Christianity, purified the morals of the
people, or gave birth to a better ecclesiastical government, it did
no such thing."
That is my statement, but it is sufficiently direct, notwithstanding
the qualification, to make it come in direct antagonism with what the
friends of, the sixteenth century movement claim for it.
Milner, the great writer of church history, says:
"The Reformation is a work which well deserves its name, because it
builded up as well as pulled down, and presented the church with a
new fabric as well as demolished the old."
As a matter of fact, it did not do what Dr. Milner here claims for
it. It is quite evident that it did not destroy "the old fabric," by
which he means the Roman Catholic church, for that church is still
in existence today. It stands foursquare to all the winds that blow
upon it, and today has a wider influence than it possessed when the
"Reformers" first assailed it; for what it lost in northern Europe it
certainly has regained in the New World.
Dr. D'Aubigne says:
"The Reformation was quite the opposite of a revolt, it was the
establishment of the principles of primitive Christianity; it is
a regenerative movement with respect to all that was destined to
revive a conservative movement as regards all that will exist
forever."
It was this claim made for the "Reformation" that led me into that
investigation of the subject which resulted in the conclusion that the
"Reformation," so-called, did not re-establish primitive Christianity.
M. Guizot, in his History of Civilization, says:
"The friends and partisans of the Reformation have endeavored to
account for it by the desire of effectually reforming the abuses
of the church. They have represented it as a redress of religious
grievances, as an enterprise conceived and executed with the sole
design of re-constituting the church in its primitive purity."
M. Guizot does not allow that claim.
It seems to me a problem easy of solution as to whether this revolution
of the sixteenth century restored primitive Christianity or not;
and the method by which that solution can be attained would be by
comparing the doctrines of Protestant Christendom with the doctrines
of primitive Christianity. Protestants, you must understand, claim
that in consequence of gross abuses which entered the church in
the early centuries of its existence, the spirit of the gospel was
departed from, the church government was corrupted, and by engrafting
upon Christianity pagan rites, pagan ceremonies and pagan philosophy,
the fair face of Christianity was defaced by these innovations. It
is claimed by Protestants that the movement led by Martin Luther,
Melancthon and Zwingle, and after them by Calvin, Knox and others, got
rid of the pagan rites and ceremonies fastened upon Christianity and
restored it to its primitive forms and to its primitive simplicity and
purity. The way to prove whether that be true or false is to compare
the teachings of Protestantism with primitive Christianity.
I shall not take occasion to enter into a consideration of primitive
Christianity in any great detail for, I take it, that this audience is
well informed upon that subject, and only a general and brief review of
the leading features of primitive Christianity will be necessary for
the comparison I propose.
Primitive Christianity taught first, faith in God, as all wise, all
powerful, all merciful; who by the power of his intelligence created
the earth and the heavens. It taught faith in Jesus Christ, as the
son of God who became the Savior of mankind; in whom was embodied
all the attributes of his father, who possessed the same power
with his Father, in whom the fulness of the godhead dwelt bodily,
and who was the express image and likeness of his Father--in other
words was "God manifested in the flesh," that men might approach him
and become acquainted with Deity by becoming acquainted with him.
Primitive Christianity taught also the existence of the Holy Ghost,
and that these three constituted one grand presidency or God-head, to
whom all shall submit in humble reverence, as the great governing,
controlling power of our world. Primitive Christianity taught that man
by disobedience to the commandments of God, became fallen, lost; and
that to vindicate the transgressed law of almighty God, an infinite
sacrifice must be made; by which the law of God would be vindicated and
mercy have claim upon those who live under the transgression of the
law. Primitive Christianity taught that Jesus Christ made this infinite
atonement, and that by him and through him life and immortality was
brought to light, and that men were released from the consequences of
Adam's transgression through the atonement of Jesus Christ; that, "as
in Adam, all die, so in Christ should all be made alive," the atonement
being as broad as the transgression which brought death into the world.
Primitive Christianity taught also that in consequence of this
redemption wrought out by Jesus Christ, he became the "law-giver"
to the children of men; and that in order to have applied to them
the atonement of Jesus Christ, so that it results, not only in a
redemption from the transgression of Adam, but also in a pardon for
their individual sins. It makes perfect and absolute obedience to Jesus
Christ the condition of this salvation. That this obedience is demanded
by the gospel is evident from the whole tenor of the New Testament.
When Jesus Christ was closing that beautiful discourse to his disciples
on the mount, he said:
"Whosoever heareth these saying of mine and doeth them not, is
like unto a man that builds his house upon the sands, and when the
floods come and the winds beat upon that house, it fails, and great
is the fall thereof. But whosoever heareth these sayings of mine,
and doeth them, is like unto the man who builds his house upon a
rock; then when the rains descend and the winds beat upon that
house, it falls not, because it is founded on the rock."
Paul, in speaking of this subject, says that "Jesus being made perfect,
became the author of eternal salvation to those who obey him." When
Jesus himself commissioned his Apostles to go and preach the gospel,
he commanded them to go into all the world, preach the gospel to
every creature, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever he had
commanded them.
From all these Scriptures, then, I gather this one great truth, that
"The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to all those who believe
and obey it."
It is equally clear that the conditions of salvation, as outlined
in the gospel, are that men must have faith in God, faith in Jesus
Christ, faith in the Holy Ghost, faith in the gospel. Not because God
has arbitrarily fixed faith as one of the conditions of salvation, but
because from the very nature of things, faith is the first principle
of the gospel, because it is the incentive to all action and the
foundation of all righteousness. If men possess no faith in the gospel,
it follows as the night follows the day, that they will not obey it.
Why is it that the atheists or the infidels do not obey the gospel?
Simply for the reason that they do not believe in God; they do not
believe in Christ; they do not believe the gospel, hence they refuse
to repent or do any other act that is required in the gospel. It is,
therefore, because of the nature of things that faith is one of the
conditions of salvation. And hence the Apostle said: "He that cometh to
God must believe that he is," that is, that he exists.
Repentance also is one of the conditions of salvation. This principle
of primitive Christianity has been more or less misunderstood by being
interpreted to mean "do penance," imitating, to some extent at least,
the barbarians who imagined that by inflicting wounds upon themselves,
by cutting and slashing themselves with knives or by submitting to
other tortures, they might propitiate the anger of Deity, as if God
could have delight in the physical suffering or the mental anguish of
his children! The beautiful gospel of Jesus Christ required not this;
but it did require heartfelt sorrow for sin accompanied by a fixed
determination and an actual amendment of conduct--turning away from
transgression. The spirit of repentance was embodied in this remark:
"Let him that stole steal no more."
Primitive Christianity taught also that men, by baptism, could receive
a remission of their sins, their past transgressions could be blotted
out, the record made clean. It taught baptism for the remission of
sins, but recognizing that man, by his own strength, is unequal to
the task of subduing himself and bringing his will into subjection
to the righteous will of God, it brought to him the strength of the
Almighty in the gift of the Holy Ghost; that man, through the strength
of God, being added to his own strength, might, "overcome the flesh,
the world and the devil." This power he received through the ordinance
of laying on of hands. The Christian was thus equipped for the battle
for righteousness. The warfare was not over with obedience to these
ordinances, it was just begun. By obedience to the ordinances I have
named men did not become full grown men in Christ Jesus. They were
then only "born" into the church, they were but babes, and now must
grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth, learning "line upon
line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little," going on
"from faith to faith, until the perfect day;" "adding to their faith,
virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge temperance, to temperance
patience, to patience godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and
to brotherly kindness charity." And thus by these steps Christianity in
its primitive forms led men towards God.
In order to promulgate this gospel, the church was organized. It was
organized with Apostles, with Prophets, with Seventies and Bishops,
with Pastors, Teachers and Deacons. This organization was given to
edify the Saints, to bring about a unity of faith and a knowledge of
the Son of God. It was designed to continue until the Saints were
perfected in their faith, and had arrived "unto the measure of the
stature of the fulness of Christ."
I should also say that primitive Christianity brought to those who
received it many precious and outward manifestations of the Holy Ghost.
When occasion required, they were able to speak in tongues, exercise
the gift of prophecy, receive revelation, have inspired dreams,
interpret tongues, heal the sick. Through it they enjoyed the gift of
the discernment of spirits, wisdom, knowledge, faith. These are the
gifts, these the powers, these the graces which attended upon primitive
Christianity.
And now the question before us is, Did the revolution of the sixteenth
century which brought into existence Protestant Christianity restore
to the children of men this primitive Christianity, as it is
described in the New Testament? It would be a task requiring too much
time to consider the whole twenty-eight articles of the Augsburgh
Confession--the formal expression of what Protestant Christianity
was in the days of its first founders. Nor indeed is it necessary in
order to arrive at a just conclusion upon the question proposed. The
consideration of a few leading items will be sufficient to establish
the fact beyond the power of successful contradiction, that the
sixteenth century revolution did not restore primitive Christianity.
In regard to the teachings of Protestant Christendom in respect of God,
it is sufficient to say it accepts the Nicene creed, instead of the
doctrine of the New Testament. It is written in the scripture that man
was created in God's likeness; and if man was created in God's likeness
then God must be in the form of man. Instead of coming to the world
with that primitive Christian truth, emphasized as it was in primitive
Christianity by the fact that Jesus Christ was pointed to as being the
express image of his Father's person, Protestant Christendom clings
to the old error of the Catholic church, that God is an incorporeal,
that is an immaterial substance; a being without body--i. e., without
materiality--without parts, without passions--accepting rather the
theory of pagan philosophers than the plain statements of primitive
Christianity.[A] Instead of teaching that the Father was a personage,
the Son another personage, and the Holy Ghost another, each as distinct
as any three personages on earth, and one only in moral and spiritual
attributes, in power--constituting one Presidency or Godhead--they came
with the doctrine that these three personages are merged into but one
personage, and yet they remain three distinct personages!
[Footnote A: See the writer's "Mormon Doctrine of Deity," Chapter iv.]
Instead of teaching that man must be absolutely obedient to the gospel
in order to obtain salvation, Protestants taught that faith alone
without works, is sufficient for salvation. And this was the chief
corner stone of Protestant theology; the point at which the Roman
Catholic church and the Protestant church was most widely separated.
The Catholic church, recognizing the operation of God's grace upon man,
and also the power of will in man, came to the reasonable conclusion
that man had it within their power to be obedient to the commandments
of God, and that obedience united with the grace of God was the means
of obtaining salvation; that man worked out his salvation both by
faith and works. Protestants, however, regarding only those spiritual
influences which operate upon man, came to the conclusion that the
grace of God alone saved man, and that without any act on his part.
That I may convince you that I am not mistaken in what I say I will
read to you some of the sayings of Luther upon this subject. "The
excellent, invaluable and sole preparation for grace is the eternal
election and predestination of God." This doctrine stands in marked
contrast with the teaching of primitive Christianity. I hold that the
New Testament scriptures teach in great plainness that God would have
all the children of men to be saved, and is willing that none should be
lost. But according to the teachings of Martin Luther, and the great
body of Protestant Christendom, they would have us believe that there
is a part of the great family of God predestined to eternal damnation;
and, do what they will, they cannot be saved. Their die is cast, their
doom is sealed. They are reprobate, cast out from the affections and
love of God. They stand not within the pale of salvation. But the
gospel of primitive Christianity was a voice of glad tidings to all
men, saying that they could be saved through faith and obedience. I
read again from the words of Luther: "On the side of man there is
nothing that goes before grace, unless it be impotency, and even
rebellion. We do not become righteous by doing what is righteous; but
having become righteous, we do what is righteous." "Since the fall of
man free will is but an idle word, and every man does walk, and still
sins mortally." "A man who imagines to arrive at grace by doing all
that he is able to do, adds sin to sin, and is doubly guilty." "That
man is not justified who performs many works, but he who without works
has much faith in Christ." "What gives peace to our conscience is
this--By faith our sins are no longer ours but Christ's, on whom God
has laid them all; and on the other hand, all Christ's righteousness
belongs to us, to whom God has given it." D'Aubigne says: "The point
which the reformer has most at heart (referring to Luther) in all his
labors, contests and dangers was the doctrine of justification by faith
alone." This is the great Protestant doctrine, that by the act of faith
all the righteousness of Jesus Christ is set down to our credit, and
all our transgressions, all our sins, are placed upon the shoulders of
Jesus Christ, who carries them triumphantly away; and when we shall
stand before the bar of God, we shall be judged, not according to the
works we have done in this life, not according to the "deeds done in
the body," as primitive Christianity taught, but we shall be judged by
the righteousness of Jesus Christ, all of which will be credited to us
by our act of faith. I could almost wish it were true, this doctrine!
Salvation would seem so much more sure. But it is repulsive to reason,
absurd to the understanding, and contrary to the teachings of primitive
Christianity.
In these doctrinal respects, then, the Protestant movement did not
bring back Christianity. Did it bring it back in any other respect?
Did it restore the spiritual gifts so characteristic of primitive
Christianity? Did it bring back the gift of prophecy, and of
revelation; of speaking in tongues, and interpreting them? Did it bring
back the power to heal the sick by the laying on of hands and the
anointing with oil? Did it bring back the gift of faith, of knowledge,
of wisdom, of discernment of spirits? No, it made no claim to these
powers, but sought out excuses for the absence of them, and pleaded
that they were no longer needed; that they were given in the beginning
merely for the purpose of giving Christianity a start in the world and
attesting its divine origin by the manifestation of miraculous gifts
among its followers. No, the revolution of the sixteenth century did
not bring back these gifts and graces of primitive Christianity.
Did it restore the primitive organization of the church? Did it give
to the church Prophets, Seventies, Bishops, Priests, Teachers and
Deacons, with the divine gifts and graces attendant upon these offices
in the church in primitive times, including divine inspiration? Did
they make of the church a means, a channel of divine communication
between the church and her Lord? No. On the contrary, Protestant
Christianity has taught from the days of Luther till now, that Prophets
and Apostles were no longer needed in the Church of Christ. It did
not restore the primitive Christian church organization; nor did it
even restore the plain, simple first principles of the gospel, faith
in the true God, repentance from sin, and the laying on of hands for
the reception of the Holy Ghost. It did not restore the principle of
revelation--Christianity's vital breath--the working force of the
primitive Christian church--the link that united her with God and made
it possible for her to exist in actual spiritual life. On all these
matters the utmost confusion exists among Protestants, but in no sect
can these simple principles of primitive Christianity be found in their
fulness and in the order in which they are taught in the New Testament.
Even from this imperfect and rather hasty consideration of the question
I think you will find no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that
the sixteenth century movement did not restore primitive Christianity,
and hence was not a reformation in that sense.
What the movement in the sixteenth century really was may be best
learned by considering what it did. And now you must indulge me while I
take a brief retrospect of history.
When that stupendous fabric, the western division of the Roman empire,
crumbled to pieces, in the later part of the fifth century, a reign of
darkness followed its downfall. The barbarian hosts from the north,
like the successive waves of the ocean, beating upon some decaying
cliff, repeatedly rushed upon the old Roman civilization, until by
sheer force of persistence in attack, they destroyed the great fabric
of government which fills so large a space in the world's history. And
when it fell, the enlightenment and civilization it had sustained in
western Europe went with it. In the centuries that followed there arose
that great spiritual hierarchy, known as the Roman Catholic Church,
the head of which was recognized in the pope of Rome. The barbarian
tribes which overthrew western Rome, in the days of their paganism,
had given unwonted veneration to their Druid priests and to the chief
Druid they had accorded the power of a god. Hence it was easy for them
to accept the idea that the chief bishop of the Christian church was
God's vicegerent on earth, and to honor him as they would honor God
was equally free from difficulty. The Roman pontiffs were not the men
to refuse to take advantage of that superstition. They fostered it,
and drew to themselves all the honor which before time the pagans had
accorded to the chief priests in paganism. Hence it happens that the
popes of Rome were able to draw to themselves all the power that was
needed to rule the nations with a rod of iron, and with impunity they
planted their feet upon the necks of temporal monarchs.
When the eastern division of the great empire fell before the repeated
attacks of the Turks; and that part of the old Roman political fabric
went to pieces, instead of darkness following its fall, it was an
event which brought light at least to western Europe; for when the
eastern Romans fled before their successful enemies, and came to
western Europe, they brought in their hands the literature of ancient
Greece, and the works of the ancient masters were translated into the
European languages. About that time, too, the art of printing had been
invented, so that this rich treasury of knowledge, locked up hitherto
in the Greek language, was translated into the European languages, and
through this marvelous invention of printing was brought within the
reach of the people. The influence of that literature upon western
minds was marvelous. They not only admired the beauty and the grace of
the diction, and enjoyed the legends and stories that were translated
for them, but they, too, began to feel aspirations to reach the same
high intellectual development that the Greeks themselves had enjoyed;
and wherever there is a love for intellectual development, the key is
turned to the progress of a people. It proved to be so in this case.
Not only did the influence of ancient Greek literature operate to bring
about the enlightenment of Europe, but other things co-operated to stir
the stagnant life of western nations. Vasco de Gama had discovered
a new route to India by way of the Cape of Good Hope. Christopher
Columbus had plowed his way through the western sea, and had discovered
America. These two great events had a marvelous effect upon the life of
Europe. Commerce was immediately enlarged. The comforts of life were
multiplied and became more common. They were placed within the reach
of the common people. A general restlessness took possession of the
people. These two great events that I have named were preceded by other
influences that were calculated to enlarge the liberties of the people
of Europe. In the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, occurred
those remarkable movements in Europe called the Crusades--religious
war, waged for the purpose of recovering the holy land from the hands
of the infidels as the Turks were called. It was a movement which
originated in the fact that Christian pilgrims going to visit the
birthplace of Messiah, and the sepulchre where he was supposed to have
lain, were insulted and abused by the Turks, and this so incensed some
of the Christians that an agitation started against the "barbarians"
in the holy land. A religious fanatic, Peter the Hermit, a Catholic
monk, went through Europe preaching the crusade, and aroused the people
against Turkish abuse of the Christians. The agitation attracted the
attention and at last enlisted the sympathy of the pope and a number
of the crowned heads of Europe, and everywhere the cry was heard "God
wills it," and the people of Europe sprang to arms to invade the east,
and rescue the holy sepulchre from the infidels. It was a marvelous
undertaking. Wave after wave of an invading host from Europe surged
upon the east without avail, especially so long as the invaders were
but mobs of men, women and children, illy prepared to undertake a
campaign against so brave and hardy a people as the Saracens. Finally,
however, these movements became great military undertakings, and the
east and the west met in sharp and deadly conflict.
One of the many results of the crusades was to enlarge the liberty of
the common people of Europe. You must understand that a very peculiar
state of society existed in those times a state of society growing
out of a preceding era of conquests. When barbarian kings invaded a
country and conquered it, they held to the opinion that the title to
all the land that was subdued inhered in the sovereign who had made
the conquest. He became the proprietor of the land won by the valor of
his armies, and claimed the right to parcel it out as he saw proper
to his followers. The larger divisions were called baronies, and they
were subdivided by the barons to their subordinates and so on down
to the common people. But those to whom the lands were thus parceled
out held them upon the condition that they would contribute a certain
number of men for military service, for a given time each year, and
also a certain amount of means annually. Thus grew up the feudal
tenure of land, as it was called. It finally degenerated almost into
a system of slavery, at least for the common people who cultivated
the lands. The barons held in complete subjugation their vassals; and
in turn the barons themselves were oppressed by the kings. But when
the kings and barons undertook the fitting out of expeditions for
the holy land, they had to dispose of some of their lands for that
purpose. In some instances lands were sold outright to their vassals.
The king also began to accord to cities and towns certain political
privileges, on the condition that they would furnish means for carrying
on the crusades; and by these political privileges the liberties of
the inhabitants of cities became enlarged. Thus, all Europe was in a
state of fermentation; a restless activity had taken possession of
all classes of society; and where activity abounds liberty is either
enjoyed or is not far off. Rolling water cannot long remain impure, nor
can an active people long remain in a state of slavery.
In the meantime kings as well as scholars had become weary of the
domination of the old spiritual authority of the church. Scholars
longed to settle matters of history and the facts of science by means
of investigation and reason rather than by the voice of ecclesiastical
authority as ignorant as it was deceptive; and kings became tired
of holding barren scepters in their hands--and such their scepters
were so long as the spiritual authority of the priests was looked
upon as superior to that of the king, and the popes, under a variety
of pretenses, could invade their realms and tax their people. There
was, therefore, at least in the northern nations of Europe, a very
general desire for a change of some kind, and consequently when Martin
Luther began preaching against the indulgences issued by Pope Leo X,
and hawked about the country by John Tetzel,--when there was a spirit
bold enough to say to the pope, "Thou doest wrong," there were found
multitudes to applaud the act. Martin Luther, in the commencement of
his work, did not by any means contemplate the overthrow of the Roman
Catholic church. He thought to eliminate some few of its abuses. He
himself remarked that he was astonished when he found that the pope was
not with him in his contention against Tetzel. But the agitation once
set on foot, other differences arose on points of doctrine, especially
upon the question of grace already considered. The breach grew wider
and wider until at last it was too broad to be bridged over.
When the theological discussion had reached the acute stage, there were
princes that were only too glad to take advantage of the agitation
to wrest from their own necks the yoke of bondage that had been
placed there by the Roman pontiffs. In that agitation they saw their
opportunity to be kings indeed, as well as kings in name; and hence
Luther and his associates found themselves assisted by the princes and
kings of northern Europe.
In order to show you that I am not mistaken in these views, I will read
to you one or two extracts from works on that subject. My first is from
Schiller's "Thirty Years' War in Germany." On page 7 he says:
"The Reformation is undoubtedly owing in a great measure to the
invincible power of truth, or of opinions which were held as
such. The abuses in the old church, the absurdity of many of
its doctrines, the extravagance of its inquisition, necessarily
revolted the tempers of men already half-won with the promise
of a better light, and favorably disposed them towards the new
doctrines. The charm of independence, the rich plunder of monastic
institutions, made the Reformation attractive to the eyes of
princes, and tended not a little to strengthen their inward
convictions. Nothing but political considerations would have
driven them to espouse it. Had not Charles V, in the intoxication
of success, made an attempt on the independence of the German
states, a Protestant league would scarcely have rushed to arms in
defense of freedom of belief. * * * Princes fought in self-defense
or for aggrandizement, while religious enthusiasm recruited their
armies and opened to them the treasures of their subjects. Of the
multitude who flocked to their standards, such as were not lured
by the hope of plunder, imagined they were fighting for the truth,
while in fact they were shedding their blood for the personal
objects of their princes."
The Protestant historian, Moshiem, with whom David Hume agrees, admits
that several of the principal agents in this revolution were actuated
more by the impulse of passion and views of interest than by a zeal for
true religion (Maclaine's Moshiem, vol. iv, page 135). He had before
that acknowledged that King Gustavus introduced Lutheranism into Sweden
in opposition to the clergy and bishops, not only as agreeable to the
genius and spirit of the gospel, but also as favorable to the temporal
state and political constitution of the Swedish dominions. He adds that
Christian, who introduced the reformation into Denmark, was animated by
no other motives than those of ambition and avarice. Grotius, another
Protestant, testifies that it was sedition and violence which gave
birth to the "Reformation" in his own country--Holland. The same was
the case in France, Geneva and Scotland.
M. Guizot says:
"In my opinion the reformation neither was an accident, the result
of some casual circumstances, or some personal interests, nor
arose from unmingled views of religious improvement, the fruit of
Utopian humanity and truth. It had a more powerful cause than all
these; a general cause to which all the others were subordinate. It
was a vast effort made by the human mind to achieve its freedom;
it was a new-born desire which it felt to think and judge, freely
and independently, of facts and opinions which, till then, Europe
received, or was considered bound to receive from the hands of
authority. It was a great endeavor to emancipate human reason, and
to call things by their right names; it was an insurrection of the
human mind against the absolute power of spiritual order. Such, in
my opinion, was the true character and leading principle of the
reformation. * * * Not only was this the result of the reformation,
but it was content with this result. Whenever this was obtained no
other was sought for; so entirely was it the very foundation of
the event, its primitive and fundamental character! * * * I repeat
it; whenever the reformation attained this object, it accommodated
itself to every form of government and to every situation." (Hist.
Civilization, pp. 224-8.)
Webster defines a revolution to be the act of renouncing the authority
of a government; a revolt successfully or completely accomplished,
a fundamental change in political organization, or, I will add, in
religious organization; and in the light of the facts I have brought to
your attention I think this most nearly describes that great movement
of the sixteenth century led by Luther and the German princes. But
while I do not concede to it the dignity of a reformation, I would
not have you think therefore that I look upon the revolution as
unimportant. Indeed, I regard it as one of the greatest events that has
happened since the founding of Christianity itself; and the results
accomplished by it are far reaching and of vast importance to us.
The struggle began at first in an effort to obtain intellectual
freedom. It next included within the objects it designed to accomplish
religious freedom, and finally added to these two, civil liberty.
A struggle for intellectual, religious and civil liberty must ever
be a grand thing, and this was what the revolution of the sixteenth
century contended for. Not all at once. It came to it by degrees. Not
obtaining all it demanded at the first, but working gradually towards
it; and finally it was successful. Not always because of its efforts,
but sometimes in spite of its efforts. For there is no sadder truth
in all history than this, that those who nobly struggled against the
oppression of the Catholic church, and demanded religious liberty for
themselves, fell into the error of being intolerant, and were not
willing to accord to others the very liberty that they demanded. Hence
you have a few sad pages of history filled with accounts of persecution
for opinion's sake on the part of the reformers themselves. This is
sad, but the principle of liberty was afoot, and neither the mistakes
of its friends nor the opposition of its foes could long successfully
oppose it. It went on from victory to victory, until it grew and
blossomed into the present religious, intellectual and civil freedom
that the nations of Europe and America enjoy. This great movement led
by brave men was the dawn before the coming of a greater day. You
have seen the dawn break over our eastern mountains. You know how the
blackness gradually turns to grey, and how the grey brightens before
the approaching sun, until the whole heavens become golden; and you
know how still richer becomes that light when the sun in its fulness
is seen above the mountain tops. So it was with this struggle in the
sixteenth century. God then began a great work. The first grey streaks
were appearing above the hill-tops. The Lord was about to inaugurate a
great work, "a marvelous work and a wonder." He was about to bring full
and complete religious liberty to the children of men, and not only
full and complete religious liberty, but a fulness of religious truth,
even the fulness of the everlasting gospel. He began that work, the
great dispensation of the last days in that struggle of the sixteenth
century, and the light has been constantly growing brighter, until
now the sun has fully risen in the restoration of the gospel of Jesus
Christ in the new dispensation of it revealed to that great modern
Prophet Joseph Smith. We who accept the new dispensation, strike hands
with the noble revolutionists of the sixteenth century, and acknowledge
them as brethren in the same great cause.
IV.
Revelation and Inspiration.[A]
[Footnote A: A discourse delivered before the Young Men's and Young
Ladies' Mutual Improvement Associations, in the Granite Stake
Tabernacle, Sunday afternoon, Jan. 15, 1905.]
_A correction of some misapprehensions that arose concerning Mormon
views on the subject of Revelation and Inspiration during the hearings
had in the "Smoot Case" before the United States Committee on
Privileges and Elections, 1903-1907._
My brethren and sisters, Plato, in his Timaeus, represents the
philosopher Socrates as urging one about to begin a discourse on the
nature and origin of the universe to invoke the favor of the gods,
to which Critias, who is the one selected to deliver the discourse,
replies that all men who are right minded always seek the favor of the
gods upon their enterprises, and then he proceeds to pray that his
efforts may be agreeable to the gods and intelligible to those who are
to listen.
On this present occasion it is not my purpose to undertake the
discussion of a subject either so lofty or so difficult as that which
the Greek had proposed to himself, and yet as I stand before you for
the purpose of addressing you, involuntarily, I am happy to say, my
heart is uplifted to God in prayer that what I have to present on this
occasion shall meet with the favor of God, and at the same time be
intelligible and faith-promoting.
I presume that all of us are more or less conscious of the fact that
the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
have been undergoing a very crucial test of late. Many principles
fundamental to our faith have been the subject of investigation by
one of the leading committees of the senate of the United States--the
committee on privileges and elections--a committee than which I
doubt if there is another superior to it in point of ability within
the whole range of the senate committees. It is composed of men who
frequently have to determine questions of law as well as of fact,
and in consequence of that its members are chosen from among the
most distinguished lawyers of the senate; they are men of learning
and wide experience, adroit in questions of logic, and capable of
pursuing to ultimate analysis any question that may be presented for
their consideration. It is such a body of men before whom many of the
doctrines of Christ have been presented, discussed and thoroughly
analyzed.[A]
[Footnote A: The committee alluded to consisted of Julius C. Burrows,
of Michigan; Edmund W. Pettus of Alabama; James B Frazier, of
Tennessee; Fred T. Dubois, of Idaho; Chauncey M. Depew, of New York;
Lee S. Overman, of North Carolina. The above senators signed the
Committee's Report to the effect that Reed Smoot was not entitled to a
seat in the Senate as a senator from the State of Utah.
The following senators, members of the committee, dissented from
the conclusion of the above majority members of the committee, and
published their views:
Joseph B. Foraker, of Ohio; Albert J. Beveridge, of Indiana; William
P. Dillingham, of Vermont; A. J. Hopkins, of Illinois; P. C. Knox of
Pennsylvania.
Happily the Senate refused to accept the conclusion of the majority of
the committee to the effect that Reed Smoot, Senator from Utah, was not
entitled to a seat in the Senate of the United States.]
This the character of the committee conducting the investigation. The
Elders of the Church who have been called upon to state some of the
principles of our faith and place interpretations upon them before
the committee, have been taken somewhat at a disadvantage. They
have been called upon to answer on the spur of the moment, without
having opportunity to prepare their replies or weigh their words.
Their answers have been purely extemporaneous. Many of the questions
have been sprung upon them in the way of surprise; and those adroit
inquisitors (I do not use that term in its evil sense), the senate
committee, have purposely led them through a labyrinth of questions in
the hope finally of surprising them into some inconsistency. Yet on the
whole I think the Church has reason to congratulate herself upon the
presentation of her doctrines even under these circumstances; and it
is not difficult to believe that the brethren were sustained in their
answers by a spirit beyond their wisdom; that God blessed them in the
trial through which they passed.
It would be surprising, however, if in the course of so long an
investigation, taken part in by so many, if the opposition did not at
times gain some seeming advantage; if by some quip or quirk they did
not make inconsistencies appear in the answers of the brethren. I want
to illustrate this and call the attention of the young people to some
of these circumstances, for I have discovered, incidentally, that some
of the catch-phrases that have been coined during this investigation
are having more or less influence on the minds of our youth.
For example, during the investigation referred to, the question of our
belief in revelation was brought up. It is a matter of common knowledge
among you, of course, that we believe in revelation from God to man.
We believe that the Lord has revealed himself in the day in which we
live; that a dispensation of the gospel has been given unto prophets in
this age of the world; that divine communication between the earth and
the heavens has been restored; that a channel of communication has been
permanently established by and through which the mind and the will of
God may be made known to men. This truth, so commonplace with us, seems
a matter of seven days' wonder to the senate committee in question. In
the course of investigating this subject of revelation the idea was
developed that a law revealed from God, before it became binding upon
the Church, was submitted to the people in conference and they voted to
accept or reject it. Then this question was asked:
"Suppose a revelation is given to the Church, and the Church in
conference assembled rejects it by vote, what remains? Does it go
for nothing?"
To which answer was made, in substance, that if the people rejected it,
it would go for nothing for them--that is, so far as the people were
concerned.
Then the questioning continues:
_"Senator_--Then according to your faith the Lord submits his
decrees to the judgment of the people, and does not desire them to
be obeyed by anybody unless the people approve?
_"Elder_--He desires them to be obeyed by everybody, but he lets
everybody do just as they please. * * * * *
_"Senator_--You would, then, as I understand you, please to follow
the people, and not the Lord, under those circumstances. Is that
true?
_"Elder_--The Lord has so ordered that when he appoints men, as
he did do in the revelations here [the revelations that had been
under discussion], and named the Apostles and the other general
authorities of the Church, he commanded that they be presented to
the Church and sustained or rejected, and whenever the Church has
rejected any man he has stepped aside.
_"Senator_--A sort of veto power over the Lord! (Laughter)."
This last remark is one of the catchy phrases which some of the youth
of Israel are permitting themselves to be pleased with. "A veto power
on God!" We want to investigate that presently, and I think we will be
able to discover that it is smart rather than profound.
Again, when the subject of the Manifesto (meaning that instrument
through which plural marriages were discontinued in the Church) was
under discussion, one of the brethren chanced to remark that he
assisted in framing the document for publication; whereupon this
colloquy took place:
_"Senator_--I understand this Manifesto was inspired.
_"Elder_--Yes.
_"Senator_--That is your understanding of it?
_"Elder_--My answer was that it was inspired.
_"Senator_--And when it was handed to you it was an inspiration, as
you understand, from on high, was it not?
_"Elder_--Yes.
_"Senator_--What business had you to change it?
_"Elder_--We did not change the meaning.
_"Senator_--You have just stated you changed it.
_"Elder_--Not the sense, sir. I did not say we changed the sense.
_"Senator_--But you changed the phraseology?
_"Elder_--We simply put it in shape for publication, corrected
possibly the grammar, and wrote it so that--
_"Senator_--You mean to say that in an inspired communication from
the Almighty the grammar was bad, was it? You corrected the grammar
of the Almighty, did you?"
Another "smart" saying which apparently appeals to the humor of some of
our youth; and here and there you may hear now and then something said,
in an irreverent manner, too, about the absurdity of correcting the
Almighty's grammar.
One other item: One of the Elders, pursued in the investigation by
one of the most adroit of the senators, finds it necessary to make a
correction of one of his statements, whereupon this follows:
_"Senator_--Have you had any revelation or commandment in regard to
the testimony you should give in this case?
_"Elder_--No, sir.
_"Senator_--There is no inspiration of that or any part of it?
_"Elder_--As to the testimony I should give here?
_"Senator_--As to the testimony you have given or are to give.
_"Elder_--No; I do not know that I have, particularly--I came here
to answer the questions of the committee.
_"Senator_--But I want to know whether you are answering them under
the direction of the Lord, according to your belief, or merely in
your human and uninspired capacity?
_"Elder_--I believe I shall answer the questions that are asked me
here as the Spirit of the Lord directs me, and truthfully.
_"Senator_--Do you mean to say that the Spirit of the Lord directs
you in your answers here?
_"Elder_--I believe so.
_"Senator_--You believe so?
_"Elder_--Yes, sir.
_"Senator_--Then in your belief, did the Spirit of the Lord direct
you to make the answer which you just took back and said was a
mistake?
"(A pause and silence.) Well, if you cannot answer it I will not
press it."
Previously this senator had said to the Elder: "Do you not think that
in this hearing it behooves you to be a little careful of your answers
so that in so important a matter you do not have to take back in two or
three minutes what you have said?"
This is spoken of, according to reports that reach me, as a severe
reproof administered by a "worldling" to one who believed himself to
be an inspired man, and more or less of comment is made upon this
circumstance, as upon the others I have named.
Now, this brings before you, not all that is said, but some few things
that are said with reference to the investigation before the senate
committee; and I think they touch questions of considerable interest on
the subject of revelation. It is this subject I propose to consider,
especially the effect these several incidents of the investigation have
upon the subject of revelation. Let us now return and consider these
questions one by one.
To begin with, let us have an understanding about revelation itself.
As I understand it, "revelation is the name of that act by which God
makes communication to men. Inspiration in the name of that influence,
that divine influence, which operates upon the minds of men under which
they may be said to receive divine guidance." The inspiration may be
strong or it may be weak. It may be so overpowering in its character
that the person for the time being loses largely his own individuality
and becomes the mouthpiece of God, the organ through which the Divine
speaks to the children of men. There exists all degrees of inspiration,
from human intelligence and wisdom slightly influenced up to that
fulness of inspiration of which I have spoken. Revelations may be made
from God to man in various ways. They may be made by God in his own
proper person, speaking for himself. On such occasions I take it that
the revelation would be most perfect. I know of no more beautiful or
complete illustration of such a perfect revelation than that great
revelation with which the dispensation of the fulness of times began,
when God the Father and Jesus the Christ, stood revealed in the
presence of Joseph Smith, when every veil was removed, and the glory
of God extended throughout the forest in which the Prophet had prayed;
when he heard the Father speak to him as one friend speaks to another,
saying: "Joseph, this is my beloved Son; hear him." Then followed a
conversation with this second divine personage, to whom he was thus so
perfectly introduced, and from whom he received the light and knowledge
that laid the foundations of this great latter-day work. There was
no imperfection whatsoever in that revelation; it was complete,
overwhelming, and one of the most remarkable revelations that God
has deigned to give to the children of men. Revelations may be made,
and have been made, by the visitation of angels, such as when Moroni
came and revealed the existence of the Nephite record, the American
volume of scripture, the Book of Mormon; and who afterwards from time
to time, met with the Prophet of the last dispensation and gave him
knowledge and information as to the manner in which the Church should
be organized, and how its affairs should be conducted. Then again,
revelations may come through the operations of the Holy Spirit upon the
mind of man as when the Prophet Joseph took Urim and Thummim and with
them, and by their aid, under the influence of Holy Spirit, translated
the Book of Mormon into the English language. In a similar manner the
Lord influences the minds of his servants when preaching the gospel,
and thus delivers his word to the Church and to the world.
Through all these various means God speaks, and it is our good fortune
to be his witnesses, that he speaks in these various ways as well today
as in ancient times.
After giving many manifestations, and communicating much of his mind
and will to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Lord said to him, finally, with
reference to the organization of the Church, that he must call together
in a meeting several persons who had been baptized and submit the
question to them as to whether or not they were willing that he and
Oliver Cowdery should proceed to organize the Church of Christ, and if
they would accept them as their spiritual leaders and teachers in the
things of God.
I marvel at the condescension of God in this, and well may the world
marvel at his condescension in thus submitting a question of this
character to those who were to participate in it. But when I come to
analyze it and to comprehend it, I understand that God here recognizes
a great truth; recognizes also the dignity of his children, and gives
recognition to their rights and liberties in the premises. Mark you,
when it comes to bestowing his power upon men, when he was selecting
his prophets, he chose whom he would. That was a matter between himself
and them. Hence he gave the apostleship to Joseph Smith, to Oliver
Cowdery, and to David Whitmer, independently of anyone. But when
these men were to effect an organization and exercise that power and
authority upon others, then it must be with the consent of the others
concerned, and not otherwise. This is the great principle that the Lord
respected in the very inception of the great latter-day work, and which
he still recognizes in the government of his Church--the principle of
common consent.
In this connection allow me for a moment to call your attention to
the very beautiful title of our Church, "The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints," it is called. Some might think the first half
of the title, "The Church of Jesus Christ," would be sufficient. So,
indeed, it is, in a way. It is the Christ's Church--his by the price
of his sacrifice. It is his as the depository of his truth. It is the
institution he has called into existence, and unto which he has given
the mission of proclaiming the truth, and, in addition to that the
mission of perfecting the lives of those who accept the truth. But it
is not only "The Church of Jesus Christ;" it is "The Church of the
Latter-day Saints," also. It is _our_ Church, because we accept it,
because we enter it of our own volition; it is therefore the Church
of our choice. God has conferred upon his Church and our Church the
right of being governed by common consent of the members thereof. It
is this that astonishes our friends in Washington. They have been
led to believe, by misrepresentation, that this organization called
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is an ironclad
institution, a powerful tyranny, to whose authority there are no metes
or bounds; in which there are no checks or balances of authority;
an ecclesiastical hierarchy that dominates the people and destroys
individual liberty. Suddenly they are confronted with the fact that,
so far from being a tyrannical institution, not only the officers but
the very revelations of God are submitted to the people for their
acceptance! They then turn upon us and say: Then you presume to have a
"Veto power on God!"
Now, let us consider this matter for a few moments. But before doing
so I call your attention to an utterance made in our own midst, less
excusable than the "smart" utterances of these astute senators, because
they doubtless are prompted in their remarks by ignorance of the
subject; but what I am about to read to you is not the utterance of an
ignorant mind, but rather that of a perverted one, because the writer
knows better. Listen to this from a local daily paper:
"According to the testimony given by high ecclesiastics at
Washington, a revelation from God is not binding upon humanity
until after it is voted upon and accepted by the Mormon people
in conference. What an astounding complexity, and what a narrow
bigotry are here presented! As taught by Mormon theology, there is
but one man on the earth at a time who is authorized to receive
and pronounce the will of God. That man is the president of the
Mormon Church. He receives a revelation containing commands,
to the children of men, obedience to which commands entitles
the individuals to celestial glory, and disobedience to which
commands consigns the individual to the loss of glory in the
hereafter. That revelation, however, is not in force until some
ten or twelve thousand people in the big Tabernacle at Salt Lake
City have voted affirmatively upon it, and then it becomes a law
for the fifteen hundred millions of human being upon the face
of the earth. In other words, sacrilegious as it seems, this
doctrine assumes that God don't know his own mind; in still other
words, his determinations are subject to revision by ten thousand
human creatures, who constitute a kind of supreme court, whose
conclusions are binding not only upon themselves, but upon hundreds
of millions of human beings who never heard of the man through whom
the law was promulgated, nor of the supreme court that sustained
it, nor of the law itself. If the Mormon conference approves God's
words, the one billion five hundred million other human creatures
are saved by it or damned by it, as the case may be; and if the
Mormon conference rejects it, the one billion five hundred millions
of other human creatures are not subject to it in any way, as it is
not a valid command from God Almighty. It is not God then who holds
the power of condemnation or of salvation; but it is the Mormon
conference which saves or damns the world of humanity at the whim
of that conference. Could absurdity go farther?"
I think not! Absurdity can scarcely go beyond that representation of
the matter. It is scarcely necessary for me to say to you that this
presentation of the subject is not true. And yet I have positive
knowledge that such a vain utterance as this has its influence among
some of the youth of the Church! No; the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints arrogates to herself no such powers as are here
charged. On the contrary, the following appears in the Book of Mormon,
with reference to God's course in making known his mind and will to the
children of men:
"I [the Lord] command all men, both in the east and in the west,
and in the north, and in the south, and in all the islands of the
sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for
out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world,
every man according to his works, according to that which is
written. For behold, I will speak unto the Jews, and they shall
write it; and I will also speak unto the other tribes of the house
of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I
will also speak unto all nations of the earth, and they shall write
it."
Then the Lord proceeds to tell how in the dispensation of the fulness
of times he will bring together and unite in testimony the words that
he has spoken to these various peoples and nations.
Again, it is written in the same book:
"Behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation
and tongue, to teach his word; yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth
fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth
counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true."
This is the Mormon theory of God's revelation to the children of men.
While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established
for the instruction of men; and is one of God's instrumentalities for
making known the truth yet he is not limited to that institution for
such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and
prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own
tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can
comprehend; not always giving a fulness of truth such as may be found
in the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that
measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive. Mormonism
holds, then, that all the great teachers are servants of God; among all
nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct
God's children according to the conditions in the midst of which he
finds them. Hence it is not obnoxious to Mormonism to regard Confucius,
the great Chinese philosopher and moralist, as a servant of God,
inspired to a certain degree by him to teach those great moral maxims
which have governed those millions of God's children for lo! these
many centuries. It is willing to regard Gautama, Buddha as an inspired
servant of God, teaching a measure of the truth, at least giving to
these people that twilight of truth by which they may somewhat see
their way. So with the Arabian prophet, that wild spirit that turned
the Arabians from worshiping idols to a conception of the Creator of
heaven and earth that was more excellent than their previous conception
of Deity. And so the sages of Greece and of Rome. So the reformers
of early Protestant times. Wherever God finds a soul sufficiently
enlightened and pure; one with whom his Spirit can communicate, lo!
he makes of him a teacher of men. While the path of sensuality and
darkness may be that which most men tread, a few, to paraphrase the
words of a moral philosopher of high standing, have been led along the
upward path; a few in all countries and generations have been wisdom
seekers, or seekers of God. They have been so because the Divine Word
of Wisdom has looked upon them, choosing them for the knowledge and
service of himself.
In the presence of such a magnificent conception of God's hand dealings
with his children in the matter of imparting divine truth to them as
this, is it not infamous for a man--one who poses, too, as knowing
something of Mormonism--to represent the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints as being so narrow and bigoted as to believe that
they legislate in their conferences in all spiritual matters for
the whole world; that all mankind must wait upon their action for a
revelation of God's truth; that God's word is given or withheld from
mankind by their vote; that they have constituted themselves a sort
of supreme court to determine what is or what is not God's word for
the one thousand five hundred millions of souls inhabiting the earth!
In concluding his utterance the editorial writer in question closed
the passage I quoted with the question, "Could absurdity go further?"
I will close mine with the question, Can infamy go farther than his
misrepresentation of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints in respect to revelation?
While it is held by the Church, nay, taught by the very revelations of
God themselves, that there is but one man at a time who is entitled to
receive revelations for the government and guidance of the Church--and
this in order to prevent confusion and conflict--still it is nowhere
held that this man is the only instrumentality through which God
may communicate his mind and will to the world. It is merely a law
operative within the Church itself and does not at all concern the
world outside the Church organization.
When the Church votes upon the acceptance of any revelation, whether
it is one respecting doctrine or the appointment of officers, it acts
for itself alone. Its vote in no way concerns, either for their praise
or their censure, the people outside of the Church. It is merely the
exercise of a right conferred upon the Church in the very inception of
its organization; for it is part of the law itself, that no rule or
law shall be binding on the Church, and no officer shall hold position
in the Church, but upon its own free consent. This is no new doctrine.
It is in strict harmony with God's moral government of the world. What
moral law may not men in their individual capacity reject? From the
beginning God's law stood. "Thou shalt not kill." Yet Cain killed Abel
and from that day to the present many men have violated this, God's
law. And so with every law, whether given directly of God, or through
his servants the prophets. Man is by the nature of him a free moral
agent; and that agency of his involves the liberty of violating the
laws of God as well as the liberty of respecting them. He is free to
accept righteousness and attain heaven. He is equally free to follow
after wickedness and go to hell if he so elects, though he must not
complain if he finds not there the joys and comforts of heaven. Agency
or freedom that would mean less than this would mean nothing. It would
be neither freedom nor agency. What men may do in their individual
capacity the Church may do in its organized capacity with, of course,
similar results to the institution; for if the time should come that
the Church in the exercise of those rights and that freedom which God
in the beginning bestowed upon her should persistently reject his word
and his servants until she became corrupted, God would repudiate and
disown her as his Church, just as he would reject and condemn a wicked
man. Thank God, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so
far, has received those revelations and those doctrines proposed to her
as divine law by the Prophet of God; and also, in the main, those men
whom a divine inspiration has suggested as her officers.
An incident in the history of ancient Israel illustrates this doctrine
of liberty enjoyed by the people of, God in their corporate capacity.
From Moses to Samuel the children of Israel had been governed by a
succession of judges, inspired men, appointed of God to be rulers or
rather public servants in Israel, which government of inspired men
appointed of God constituted a divine order of government, so that it
may be said that the people were governed of God. Finally, however,
during the administration of government by the judge, the prophet
Samuel, the people grew weary of this form of government and clamored
for a king. They were ambitious of being like other people by whom they
were surrounded. They longed for the worldly pomp and circumstance and
glamor of a kingdom. Samuel, the stern old prophet, zealous for his
God, withstood their demands, until at last the Lord spoke and said to
him: "Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto
thee; for they have not rejected thee but they have rejected me, that
I should not reign over them..... Now, therefore, hearken unto their
voice; howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them and show them the manner
of the king that shall reign over them." (Samuel viii.) Samuel followed
the directions of the Lord, and pointed out to the people the disasters
which would befall them if they adhered to their insistence for a king.
All to no purpose, however, a king they would have. God respected their
right to have the kind of government they desired, though it involved
a rejection of himself--"a veto upon God!" Had not the grave and fair
minded senator of Massachusetts--now unhappily departed this life since
coining the phrase here criticised--momentarily forgotten this very
celebrated incident in the history of ancient Israel, or if he had
taken time to think one moment upon the great principles underlying
God's moral government of the world, I feel reasonably satisfied that
he would never have fashioned that irreverent phrase, "veto power on
God," certainly not to win the laughter and applause of those who were
present at its birth, or of those who, ape-like, repeat his unhappy
phrase.
But I must not overlook another point involved in that part of the
testimony here being considered. Suppose a law is promulgated before
the Latter-day Saints--a revealed principle of truth is submitted for
their acceptance--and then, in the exercise of that liberty, which God
has conferred upon his Church, they reject it. The question is then
asked, "What remains?"
Why, the truth remains! The action of the Church has not affected that
in the least. It is just as true as if the Church had accepted it.
Our acceptance or rejection does not make or mar the truth; it simply
determines our own relationship to that truth. If we reject the truth,
the truth still remains. And, moreover, it is my own faith that a
people who would reject the truth revealed of God to them would make no
progress until they repented and accepted the rejected truth. The truth
remains--that is the answer to the senator's question. Human conduct
does not affect the truth. As one of our own poets has said:
"Though the heavens depart, and the earth's fountains burst,
Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,
Eternal, unchanged, evermore!"
Taking up now the other question--that of correcting the Almighty's
grammar.
In defining what I understand revelation to be, and the manner in
which it may be communicated, I have already stated that when we
have a communication made directly from the Lord himself there is no
imperfection whatever in that revelation. But when the Almighty uses
a man as an instrument through whom to communicate divine wisdom,
the manner in which that revelation is imparted to men may receive
a certain human coloring from the prophet through whom it comes. We
know this to be true, because we have the words of different prophets
before us by which we may test the matter. We know, for instance, that
the message delivered to Israel through the Prophet Isaiah possesses
different characteristics from the message delivered through Jeremiah,
or through Ezekiel, or through Amos. It seems that the inspiration of
the Lord need not necessarily destroy the personal characteristics of
the man making the communication to his fellowmen.
To illustrate what I mean: I remember one of my old teachers calling
the attention of our class to the fact, and demonstrating it, that
a ray of white light was not so simple a thing as we might think it
to be. When you see a white ray of sunlight streaming through some
window or other aperture into a dark room, you might think that the
bar of white light consists simply of one white ray. But the teacher
referred to took a prism and caused such a ray of light to fall upon
that prism, and upon a dark screen opposite we discovered that the
rays of light composing the white ray were separated into various
colors--blue, orange, red, green and the various other colors of the
several rays that entered into and made the white ray; and as he went
on using one prism after another for this illustration, I discovered
that the sharpness and clearness with which the separation of these
several rays were made depended somewhat upon the clearness and purity
of the prism through which the light passed. And so in after years it
occurred to me that this might be used to illustrate how the white ray
of God's inspiration falling upon different men would receive different
expressions through them, according to the characteristics of those
men. So it is that Isaiah preserves his identity, Amos his, Ezekiel
his, and so on with the prophets of our own day. I suppose if the Lord
had revealed the existence of the Book of Mormon to a man who had a
perfect knowledge of the English language, a grammarian, and perfect
in literary attainments, then no doubt we would have had a translation
of the Book of Mormon without fault or blemish so far as the grammar
is concerned; but it pleased God in his wisdom to appoint that mission
to one who was not learned in the English language, whose use of the
English language was ungrammatical, through failing of opportunity to
obtain the necessary instruction in his youthful days, and consequently
we find errors in grammar in the translation of the Book of Mormon,
such as this: "Whoredoms _is_ an abomination to the Lord." Marvelous,
is it not? Ungrammatical--a plural subject and a singular verb! But
what of the truth? You are not in doubt about that, are you? Does it
make the truth any more real or forcible to use grammatical terms
in which to express it? Whoredoms _are_ an abomination to the Lord?
Well, what is the essential thing in a revelation? The essential
thing is the truth that it conveys; and it matters not whether you
say whoredoms _is_ an abomination or whoredoms _are_ an abomination
to the Lord. The truth remains that whoredoms are abhorrent to God,
and that is the main thing. Again, in the Doctrine and Covenants you
find this language: "The Spirit and the body is the soul of man, and
the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul." Again a
plural subject and a singular verb. But what boots it? The great thing
that mankind is concerned to know is the truth conveyed, that the soul
of man is composed of spirit and body, and that it is the purpose of
the redemption to save and unite spirit and body in one individual,
to exist through time and through all eternity. To still further
illustrate, and to show you the flimsiness of this "smart" saying to
which we are coming in a moment: Old Baron Swedenborg was regarded
as a mystic. He was a learned man, but his lips were not attuned to
the perfect pronunciation of the English language. Occasionally he
spoke in English, but it was always broken. He delighted apparently
to contemplate the prophets of old Israel and the prophets of the
New Testament. In speaking of them the old man used to say in most
solemn earnestness, "De vurld vas not worty of dem," and the audience
sometimes laughed; but neither the laughter of the audience, nor the
imperfection of pronunciation of the English words detracted from the
solemn truth that the old man uttered. And so any imperfection in mere
utterance of a truth amounts to little or nothing. "He that hath my
word," saith the Lord, "let him speak my word faithfully. For what is
the chaff to the wheat?"
Now, would it do any harm to take Swedenborg's broken English and make
it smooth by pronouncing it with perfect accent. "They were prophets
of whom the world was not worthy?" It does not hurt the truth, to so
change the expression of it, does it? Would it hurt the truth, the
expression of it, to say "the spirit and the body _are_ the soul of
man?" Or "whoredoms _are_ an abomination to the Lord?" Why, no. So
in this Manifesto issued by President Woodruff. What if there were
imperfect, or ungrammatical sentences in it? What does the world
care about that in the last analysis of it? The great thing in the
instrument was, and the great truth that the Lord made known to the
soul of Wilford Woodruff was that it was necessary for the preservation
of the Church, and the uninterrupted progress of her work that plural
marriages should be discontinued. Now, any expression containing that
truth was all that was necessary. And so there is nothing of weight in
the phrase "correcting the grammar of the Almighty." We do not correct
his grammar. Perhaps the brethren made slight corrections in the
grammar of Wilford Woodruff. The grammar may be the prophet's the idea,
the truth, is God's.
Now, the third point; the one about men being constantly under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit; so constantly under his inspiration
that all they say or do is an inspiration of God, that all their
answers to questions are in the nature of revelation.
Is there anything in the Mormon doctrine that makes it necessary to
believe that of men, even of high officials in the Church? No, there is
not. We know that they do not always speak under the direct inspiration
of the Holy Spirit; for some men high in authority, aye Apostles, have
preached discourses for which they were finally excommunicated from the
Church. They were not inspired in those instances, were they? Evidently
not. When you come to think of human weaknesses and imperfections, and
how difficult it is for men living under the effects of the Fall, and
borne down with inherited tendencies also--when you think how extremely
difficult it is for even the best of men to rise above these things
and walk in the sunlight of God's inspiration, in the fellowship of
the Holy Ghost, I think it is expecting too much to claim that every
utterance is a divine inspiration. Men are exercised by a variety of
emotions. Passions, selfish interests, prejudices, traditions, bear in
upon the souls of men and tend to break up and mar the inspiration of
the Spirit of God in them. Blessed is the man who can rise above the
human weaknesses and imperfections once in a while and commune with
God; and blessed are the people among whom he dwells; because if he can
do that he will return to them from such communing so strengthened and
helped that he will be an inspiration to all who touch the sphere of
his influence. I say happy is the man who once in awhile can ascend to
these spiritual heights and commune with God. It is about as much as
you can expect of men. But some of you perhaps will be calling to mind
a certain revelation in which this passage occurs:
"Behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who are
ordained unto this Priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them
to go forth;
"And this is an ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they
are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.
"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost
shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the
mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice
of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."
True, every word of it; and the word of these men, _when_ spoken under
the influence of the Holy Ghost, is indeed the word of God. But oh!
how frequently it is the case that men fail to connect with the divine
influence and are unable to call it down into their souls to speak
forth the words of life! I have already drawn your attention to the
fact that the servants of God who minister to us are not always equal
to this task; but there are times when you and I have listened to the
words of the servants of God, when the white light of God's inspiration
rested upon them, and we needed no man to tell us that they spoke by
the power and influence of the Holy Ghost, that we were being taught of
God. But that is not always the case with respect of the preaching we
hear.
The Lord has revealed this truth also:
"Verily I say unto you, men should be anxiously engaged in a good
cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to
pass much righteousness; for the power is in them wherein they are
agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in
nowise lose their reward."
Speaking broadly, we may say there are three classes of intelligences
that should be recognized. First of all, the Divine Intelligence, that
which comes directly or indirectly from the presence of God through
his Spirit. Then there is in every man an intelligent entity, the
"Ego," our scientists call it, I think; an entity without beginning and
without end, according to the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith;
a self-existent entity that has intelligence, self-consciousness,
will, and other forces, in and of itself. You need not doubt that; it
is a self-evident truth. Look inward, investigate your own spirit,
and you shall find it true. I need not call your attention in the
way of argument to the fact that even wicked men possess this human
intelligence. We know they do, and it is sometimes very perverse; also
very cunning, and not infrequently very powerful; and yet we know that
such wicked persons are so far removed in their walk and conversation
from God that the Spirit of the Lord is not with them. Then whence the
source of their power and their intelligence? It is native to them; and
is self-existent, indestructible. Then again, there is the influence
of the adversary of men's souls, he who seeks the destruction of men;
he who would pull men down to his level in rebellion against God. He
has influence in the world, and men are sometimes dominated by his
thoughts, his motives, and are led into darkness and sin through his
power. When Lucifer rebelled against the King of kings in heaven, he
lost not existence; his intelligence was not destroyed; neither indeed
could it or he be annihilated; he remains to this day, and is still
pursuing his evil course.
These are the intelligences with whom we come in contact, with whom
we have to deal; and I take it to be one of the most important
considerations that we make ourselves competent to distinguish between
the promptings of our own human intelligence, to know when it is the
Spirit of the Lord that prompts, and when it is the adversary of men's
souls who approaches us and whispers his counsels in our ears.
Meantime we should recognize the fact that we do many things of our
own uninspired intelligence for the issues of which we ourselves are
responsible.
Moreover, we ourselves should seek to do good things; for the power is
in us to do good, if we will but set about it, even as the Lord has
indicated in this revelation I have read on that subject. Many of our
actions--shall I say nearly all our ordinary actions?--are prompted
by this native intelligence. We take account of this and of that,
and from the data before us we make up our judgment and act upon the
probabilities involved. That is the ordinary work-a-day guide by which
we walk. Then, of course, for the performance of extraordinary duties,
for the accomplishment of high purposes, the soul, conscious of its own
limitations, reaches out for help; deep calls to deep; the infinite
in man seeks union with the infinite in God, and, on occasion, and
when necessary for the achievement of God's purposes, we have reason
to believe that the Lord deigns to communicate his mind and will unto
men. But the Lord evidently proposes that man shall act here largely
upon his own intelligence, exercise his own agency, and develop the
powers, intelligent and moral, that are within him. That is why men
are here in this earth-probation. While I believe the Lord will help
men at need, I think it improper to assign every word and every act
of theirs to an inspiration from the Lord; for if that were true, we
would have to acknowledge ourselves as being wholly taken possession of
by the Lord, and not permitted to go to the right or to the left, but
as he guided us. Needless to say that in that event there would be no
error in judgment, no blunders made. Where would human agency or human
intelligence exist in the one case or be developed in the other under
such circumstances? They would not exist. Hence I think it a reasonable
conclusion to say that constant, never-varying inspiration is not a
factor in the administration of the affairs even of the Church; not
even good men, no, not though they be prophets or other high officials
of the Church, are at all times and in all things inspired of God. It
is only occasionally and at need that God comes to their aid.
Upon this subject I want to read what I think was a very wise admission
once made by Hyrum Smith, brother of the Prophet, and father of
President Joseph F. Smith. After the Prophet Joseph was compelled to
flee from his enemies in Kirtland, Ohio, to Far West, Missouri, the
word of the Lord was given to the effect that the honest in heart in
Kirtland should gather at Far West; whereupon a number of expedients
were suggested, or means by which the Saints should make the journey.
The High Council and Brother Hyrum Smith conceived the plan of moving
the Saints by the water course, by the Ohio, the Missouri and Grand
rivers, since those streams were navigable; but the plan proposed by
them failed. Then the Seventies took up the matter--the First Council
of Seventies--and their proposition was to organize a company that
should go overland to Missouri, by team and on foot. They developed
their plans, and Hyrum Smith in the course of some remarks made at one
of their meetings, is represented as having said that:
"What he had done in reference to chartering a steamboat for the
purpose of removing the Church as a body, he had done according to
his own judgment, without reference to the testimony of the Spirit
of God; that he had recommended that course and had advised the
High Council and High Priests to adopt that measure, acting solely
upon his own wisdom; for it has seemed to him that the whole body
of the Church in Kirtland could be removed with less expense in the
way he had proposed than in any other. He said further that the
Saints had to act oftentimes upon their own responsibility, without
any reference to the testimony of the Spirit of God, in relation
to temporal affairs; that he had so acted that the plan of going
by water was approved by him, and that the failure of the scheme
was evidence in his mind that God did not approve of it." (The
foregoing is from the minutes of the said meeting.)
I think this utterance of the Patriarch-Prophet of the Church gives
voice to the common sense view of inspiration, its operations upon
me, and affairs of the Church. It is vain for men to claim divine
inspiration for every move that is made in Church affairs. God makes
no mistakes. He never errs in judgment. Whatever he does is done in
perfect wisdom, and the final result either of a single act or a series
of acts is always his vindication. So that whatsoever of unwisdom
appears in the policy of his Church; whatsoever of defect appears in
the administration of her affairs, are not assignable to God, nor are
they the result of the operation of his inspiration upon the minds
of men. Such unwisdom in policy, such defects in administration are
referable alone to men, whose knowledge is limited, whose foresight,
when unhelped by divine inspiration, is imperfect, whose wisdom when
backed by no other intelligence than that native to their own spirits
is halting, and whose judgment is burdened with many a defect. Men are
responsible for such blundering as may take place in the management of
this divine institution we call the Church of Christ.
That there have been unwise things done in the Church by good men,
men susceptible at times to the inspiration of the Spirit of God, we
may not question. Many instances in the history of the Church through
three quarters of a century prove it, and it would be a solecism to
say that God was the author of those unwise, not to say positively
foolish, things that have been done. For these things men must stand
responsible, not God.
It is well nigh as dangerous to claim too much for the inspiration of
God in the affairs of men as it is to claim too little. By the first
men are led into superstition, and into blasphemously accrediting
their own imperfect actions, their blunders, and possibly even their
sins to God; and by the second they are apt to altogether eliminate
the influence of God from human affairs; I pause in doubt as to which
extreme would be the worse.
After these remarks I can hear some in their hearts ask, "How, then,
shall we attain to certainty? How are we to know when men speak and
act under divine inspiration, and when by their own unaided human
intelligence? When God gave the world inspired apostles and prophets
and had established a divine institution for the instruction and
guidance of men, we had fondly hoped that at last doubt and uncertainty
had been driven out of the minds of those who placed themselves under
the tutorship of such instructors and such a divine institution as
the Church of Christ; and that now we were placed in a position where
an unerring finality might be attained on all questions involving
human affairs and human conduct." So indeed, good friends, you have,
in the Church of Christ, a means of attaining finality in regard to
all those questions that concern your salvation. There is and can be
no questioning or doubting concerning the essential principles of the
gospel of Christ taught by his Church. Here we stand on the solid rock,
not on shifting sands. We can and do know the truth with reference to
the matters that concern our salvation; and God in the dispensation
of the fulness of times, wherein he has decreed the completion of his
work with reference to the salvation of men and the redemption of the
earth will never permit man's imperfections and unwisdom to thwart
the accomplishment of his great purposes. In these things we stand
absolutely secure. But with reference to matters involving merely
questions of administration and policy in the Church; matters that do
not involve the great and central truths of the gospel--these afford a
margin wherein all the human imperfections and limitations of man, even
of prophets and apostles, may be displayed; that they, in common with
the membership of the Church, may exercise their freedom and agency,
and, of course, stand responsible, blamable or praiseable, according as
they acquit themselves well or ill in discharging those duties which
devolve upon them. In this connection let me say that it should not be
matter of surprise to any one that unwise things have been both said
and done by some of the best men in the Church. On the contrary, it is
matter of congratulation to the Church that so little unwisdom has been
manifested by our brethren upon whom God has laid the heavy burdens of
so great a work.
As to the matter of attaining certainty in human affairs, that is not
to be expected. Is it indeed desirable? "Know ye not that we walk by
faith and not by sight?" is the language of Paul to the Saints in his
day. By which token I infer that we are placed in this earth-probation
to pass through just such experiences as those to which we seem born
heirs. Is it not in part the meaning of life that we are here under
just such conditions as prevail in order that we may learn the value of
better things? Is not this very doubt of ours concerning the finality
of things--finality which ever seems to elude our grasp--the means of
our education? What mere automatons would we become if we found truth
machine-made and limited, that is to say, finite, instead of being
as we now find it, infinite and elusive, and attainable only as we
beat it out on the anvil of our own experiences? Yet so far as men
may be furnished with the means of attaining to certainty concerning
the class of things of which we are speaking, the Saints of God are
supplied with that means. Their obedience to the gospel brings to
them the possession of the Holy Ghost, and it is Mormon doctrine that
"by the power of the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things."
(Moroni.) This Spirit takes of the things of God and makes them known
to men. By his testimony we may know that the Lord is God, that Jesus
is the Christ, that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. By
him bearing witness to our spirits we can recognize the truth, and
know when men speak of themselves and when they speak as moved upon by
the Holy Spirit. But even with the possession of this Spirit to guide
us into all truth, I pray you, nevertheless, not to look for finality
in things, for you will look in vain. Intelligence, purity, truth,
will always remain with us relative terms and also relative qualities.
Ascend to what heights you may, ever beyond you will be other heights
in respect of these things, and ever as you ascend more heights will
appear, and it is doubtful if we shall ever attain the absolute in
respect of these qualities.[A] Our joy will be the joy of approximating
them, of attaining unto ever increasing excellence, without attaining
the absolute. It will be the joy of eternal progress. Something too
much of this. Let me hasten to a word in conclusion.
[Footnote A: Since the above discourse was delivered I have read the
following in the "Hibbert Journal" for April, 1907; and I feel that the
though is too well expressed to omit the quotation of it here:
"A certain orientation is a necessary condition of fruitful
research: we must be sure of the direction even if we cannot see
the goal. Thus, as Laberthonniere says, there is a sense in which
those only can truly seek who have already found. "Let us, then
seek as they seek who have to find, and let us find as they find
who still have to seek; for it is said: 'The man who has arrived
at the goal is but at the beginning.'" [St. Augustine] He then
who thus conceives of religion will rid himself of that fallacy
of finality, and all that narrowness of vision and pettiness of
mind aptly described by the French writer as the tradition of the
little books that make God little, which vitiates popular religious
belief in the eyes of those who know enough to know how little
can be known. * * * Because the subject matter of religion is
Infinite we must look for no finality in religious ideas. Sure of
the direction, let us not delude ourselves by fancying we can see
the goal; our goal is but a beginning, as we find but to seek the
more."]
I would like to come very near to you, if you will permit it, in
a heart to heart talk. I would like to stand in the relationship
of an elder brother to you young men and young women of Israel for
a few moments; as a brother whose opportunities in the matter of
investigating Mormonism have been rather exceptional, on account of
the lines of work I have followed. The books I have written have led
me into a very close investigation of original documents respecting
Mormonism. Very much of the private correspondence between President
Brigham Young and President John Taylor happened to pass through my
hands, while engaged in writing the biography of the latter. I have had
the opportunity of consulting the private journals kept by these and
other leading brethren of the Church, in which I have read utterances
they never expected to see daylight. Documents wherein they recorded
the secret things of their hearts, and their convictions concerning
the work of God. I gathered much comfort, and have been strengthened
in my own faith by finding these men perfectly honest in thought and
word respecting the work of God. Their most private utterances were in
perfect harmony with the things which they proclaimed publicly. In this
respect I have found them pure gold. I speak of this not to boast, but
in order that I may remind you of the simple fact that I have had these
exceptional opportunities of investigating Mormonism, not from public
utterances alone, but from behind the scenes, so to speak, where the
skeletons would have appeared if there were skeletons in existence.
And now, in the presence of these facts, and this opportunity afforded
me, I want to say to you, my young brethren and sisters, that God has
spoken in this age in which we live. He has revealed himself to the
children of men, and has communicated a message to the world in what
is called Mormonism. The book of Mormon is true. The great revelations
that underlie this latter day work are true. The revelations concerning
the nature of God and man, in the Doctrine and Covenants, the
revelations out of which has grown this organization which we call the
Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints, are verities.
Now, following this testimony, I want to warn you against speaking
lightly or slightingly of sacred things, or of the servants of God.
In nothing, perhaps, can you more offend God or grieve his Spirit.
Have nothing to do, I pray you, with "smart" quips against the truth,
however respectable their origin, or however popular or catchy their
phraseology. I pray you give them no lodgment in your hearts. Remember
we live under the law of God.--Speak no evil of mine anointed; do my
prophets no harm. And remember always that whatever the weaknesses and
the imperfections of men may be, whatever weaknesses they may have
manifested before the Church in the past, or may manifest before it in
the future (for the end is not yet), their weaknesses and imperfections
affect not the truth that God has revealed. The Lord will vindicate his
truth, and at the last it will be found that
"'Tis no avail to bargain, sneer, and nod,
And shrug the shoulder for reply to God."
Remember also that ridicule is not argument; that a sneer, though it
may not be susceptible of an answer, is no refutation of the truth;
that though profane ribaldry may provoke a passing merriment, the
profaner's "laugh is a poor exchange for Deity offended." I therefore
admonish you, as a friend and brother, to stand aloof from all these
things. Hold as sacred the truths of God; and hold in highest esteem,
as indeed you may, those whom God has appointed to be his prophets,
apostles and servants.
[THE END.]
Transcriber's Note
Some apparent printer's errors have been silently corrected as seemed
reasonable.