ABOUT THE MORMONS.
The day upon which the Mormon Elder was to leave his missionary field
to return to his home in the mountains, was rapidly approaching. Mr.
Brown, the lawyer, had become so interested in the missionary and his
peculiar people that this gentleman determined to accompany him to
Utah, to see for himself what he had heard so much concerning.
On the evening before their departure, all the old friends were
gathered at the Marshall residence, or hotel, and quite naturally the
conversation turned to the contemplated trip to Utah, and from that to
the motives which led the Mormons to settle in that territory.
"What were the considerations that led to the settling of Utah by the
Mormons?" asked one of the members of the little company.
"Persecution by their enemies was the primary cause," said the Elder.
"After the death of the Prophet Joseph, they were driven from their
homes in Nauvoo, and hence sought a new abiding place in the West."
"How did the death of Joseph, the Prophet, occur?" asked Mr. Brown.
"He was murdered in cold blood by masked men. You understand that
all innovations on existing conditions have been opposed from time
immemorial. The gospel has particularly been combatted in all ages,
as its history amply illustrates. The people of their time did not
tolerate Christ and His apostles, and ceased not persecuting them as
long as they lived upon the earth. They were all at last put to death.
The truths which the Latter-day prophet taught were the same as were
expounded by the Savior and his followers, and opposition to these came
as naturally as that a similar cause produces a similar effect. The
prophet was finally martyred for the testimony which he bore. He had
been brought continually before the courts which, however, could prove
no guilt against him, for he was innocent of any other offense than
that of preaching the gospel of Christ, and bearing his testimony that
the God of heaven had again spoken to man. Some three days previous to
his assassination, he went to the city of Carthage, in Illinois, Nauvoo
being then the abiding place of the Saints, to deliver himself up to
the pretended requirements of the law. The governor of the state had
pledged his word, as the chief executive, that the prophet should be
protected, but no effort was made to fulfill this pledge, and so Joseph
and his brother Hyrum were shot in Carthage jail, on the 27th of June,
1844, by an armed mob, composed of about two hundred persons who had
painted themselves black."
"Did this murder of their prophet have the effect of discouraging the
Saints, or rather, did they feel disposed to abandon the cause for
which they had so far battled?"
"It is very natural that they felt discouraged and that some wavered
in their course, but the great majority were inclined to continue with
unfaltering zeal in the work, because they knew for themselves that
the true gospel had been restored, and that they were engaged in the
work of God. And here let me remark that the strength of the Church
consists in the personal knowledge and testimony of the members. The
Spirit of God fills each member with unfaltering faith, and he builds
his superstructure of religious belief on personal knowledge, imparted
to him, by the power of the Spirit, through revelation. This testimony
remains as long as the person lives uprightly and honorably before
the Lord, doing nothing to grieve it away. Instead of scattering and
abandoning the Church, leaving it to die, as was expected and desired
by its enemies, and which would doubtless have been the case if it
had not been divinely established, the people gathered strength and,
through the assistance of God, and the leadership of Apostle Brigham
Young, forsook their homes in their beloved Nauvoo, crossed the
trackless plains, scaled the mountains, and in the midst of a desolate
wilderness founded a commonwealth which has attracted the attention and
the admiration of the whole world."
"How did Brigham Young come to be the leader of the people?" asked Mr.
Sutherland.
"He was the president of the Twelve Apostles, the quorum next in
authority to the First Presidency, upon whom naturally rested the
keys of the kingdom, upon whom, in fact, was conferred the power or
authority that the prophet had received from on high. Sidney Rigdon and
others sought the honor of leading the Church, but the Lord, through
the manifestations of His Spirit, chose Brigham Young for the place,
as president of the Twelve Apostles, the people sustaining him by
their vote, at a meeting held in the grove near the temple at Nauvoo,
on the 8th of August, 1844. He was afterwards, December, 1847, chosen
president of the whole Church. He felt the power of his calling, and
made preparations for the great exodus of the people to the West, which
had been considered during the lifetime of the prophet, but which was
now made absolutely necessary by the persecution of the enemies of the
Church. In 1845, anti-Mormon delegates from nine counties of Illinois
met, at Carthage, and demanded the removal of the Saints. The Council
of Apostles agreed to their demands, knowing full well that there
was no alternative between exodus or extermination by massacre. In
February, 1846, the exodus began by the Saints crossing the Mississippi
River, the remnant following on September 17th of the same year, and
the movement triumphantly continued, with interruptions, under severest
difficulties and hardships, until the pioneers, on July 24th, 1847,
entered the valley of the Great Salt Lake. Something of the hardships
which they endured, and of the magnitude of their undertaking, the
historians have graphically pictured. Tullidge says:
"'The Mormons were setting out under their leader from the borders of
civilization, with their wives and their children, in broad daylight,
before the very eyes of ten thousand of their enemies, who would have
preferred their utter destruction to their 'flight,' notwithstanding
they had enforced it by treaties outrageous beyond description,
inasmuch as the exiles were nearly all American born, many of them
tracing their ancestors to the very founders of the nation. They had
to make a journey of fifteen hundred miles over trackless prairies,
sandy deserts and rocky mountains, through bands of war-like Indians,
who had been driven, exasperated, towards the West; and at last, to
seek out and build up their Zion in valleys then unfruitful, in a
solitary region where the foot of the white man had scarcely trodden.
These, too, were to be followed by the aged, the halt, the sick and the
blind, the poor, who were to be helped by their little less destitute
brethren, and the delicate young mother with her newborn babe at her
breast, and still worse, for they were not only threatened with the
extermination of the poor remnant at Nauvoo, but news had arrived that
the parent government designed to pursue their pioneers with troops,
take from them their arms, and scatter them, that they might perish by
the way, and leave their bones bleaching in the wilderness. * * * In
the centuries hence, when the passing events of this age shall have
taken their proper place, the historian will point back to that exodus
in the New World of the West, as one quite worthy to rank with the
immortal exodus of the children of Israel.'
"Bancroft says:
"'Of their long journey many painful incidents are recorded. Weakened
by fever or crippled by rheumatism, and with sluggish circulation,
many were severely frostbitten. Women were compelled to drive the
nearly worn-out teams, while tending on their knees, perhaps, their
sick children. The strength of the beasts was failing, as there were
intervals when they could be kept from starving only by the browse or
tender buds and branches of the cottonwood, felled for the purpose.
"'At one time no less than two thousand wagons could be counted, it was
said, along the three hundred miles of road that separated Nauvoo from
the Mormon encampments. Many families possessed no wagons, and in the
long processions might be seen vehicles of all descriptions, from the
lumbering cart, under whose awning lay stretched its fever-stricken
driver, to the veriest makeshifts of poverty, the wheel-barrow or the
two-wheeled trundle, in which was dragged along a bundle of clothing
and a sack of meal all of this world's goods that the owner possessed.
"'On arriving at the banks of the Missouri, the wagons were drawn up in
double lines and in the form of squares. Between the lines, tents were
pitched at intervals, space being left between each row for a passage
way, which was shaded with awnings or a latticework of branches, and
served as a promenade for convalescents and a playground for children.'
"But it would be too long a story, to follow the exiles in their
vicissitudes through the whole of their weary march across the
uninhabited wilderness that lay between them and their future home,
in the then wild valleys of the mountains, and to speak of their
struggles for existence after they arrived there. They passed through
many severe afflictions in building up the country and in settling the
territory. The crops were often destroyed by grass-hoppers, crickets,
untimely frosts, and drought, but in each difficulty, the Lord
overruled circumstances for good and prospered the people, providing
the necessaries of life. Settlements were established at various points
north and south of Salt Lake City, and the thrift of the people,
seasoned with the blessings of God, soon caused cities and villages to
spring up in all directions. President Young, himself, often went to
seek locations for these sites, and was very frequently present when a
city or town was founded."
"Truly, a wonderful people with a strange and fascinating history. I am
more enthusiastic than ever in my determination to see them and their
gathering place," said Mr. Brown.
The evening was far spent, and the company prepared to retire,
after the usual leave-taking on such occasions. They all wished the
missionary and Mr. Brown a pleasant journey. The parting was affecting,
for the people had learned to love the Elder, and he, in turn, had a
strong and living interest in them. Many missionaries can testify of
the binding influence such friends have upon their affections, and
people who have learned to love the Elders are frequently as loth
to part with them as with members of their own families. This case
was no exception. Durant thanked them all for their kindness to him,
and blessed them for their hospitality, expressing a desire to see
them gathered with the Saints, if God should open their hearts to an
adoption of the gospel truths.
Early on the following morning, the Elder and Mr. Brown set their faces
to the West, and with the present facilities for travel, expected soon
to be in the land of the Mormons. As they passed over the vast plains,
large rivers, rolling and rugged hills, and pleasant valleys, their
conversation was often directed to the great difference between travel
as the pioneers endured it, and as it is now enjoyed in the trains of
palace coaches.
On a pleasant Saturday evening, after a four days' journey, they
arrived in Salt Lake City, where Durant met his family all feeling
well. The meeting between husband and wife and children, after such a
long separation, was happy in the extreme, and it was with thankful
hearts that they kneeled by the family altar, praising God in fervent
prayer for His kind mercies in preserving them to meet once more.
During the afternoon of the next day, Sunday, they all attended
meeting, where an Elder delivered the following discourse, which Mr.
Brown listened to with marked attention:
"MY BRETHREN, SISTERS AND FRIENDS:
"I am thankful for the privilege of speaking to you a short time this
afternoon. I am anxious to explain, whenever opportunity affords, the
nature of our faith.
"In this free country, where we congratulate ourselves in enjoying and
allowing the greatest freedom to everybody, I presume we will, all of
us, speaker and congregation, exercise the privilege of explaining and
reflecting upon the things that may be said, so that our friends, I
trust, will leave us understanding a little more about the nature of
our religion than when they came to the meeting.
"Our visiting friends have, doubtless, heard about the Latter-day
Saints. They have had the opinions of men who have spoken in the
pulpits, and who have written books about the Mormons, and they, very
likely, have come here under certain impressions in regard to the
Mormons' faith.
"I am sorry to say that experience has taught me that the public
generally have been deceived. I am gratified sometimes in listening to
acknowledgements of this kind from those who have heard for themselves,
and have thus been able to judge intelligently as to whether the
reports which they have heard from our enemies are correct or not.
"It seems strange, but it is nevertheless true, that many people who
wish to know the faith of the Saints go to their enemies to learn
of them. I do not know whether our kind friends have thought of the
inconsistency and injustice of such a course as this. If I wished to
learn what the Roman Catholics believed in, I do not think at present
that I would go to the Protestant Church to learn it; or if I wished
to learn what any denomination of professing Christians believe, I do
not think it would be just for me to go to some other denomination to
ascertain it. In the first place, other churches might be led perhaps
unwittingly, perhaps intentionally to misrepresent the faith of their
neighbors, and I might be deceived through their misrepresentations.
On the other hand, there is no need of my going to any one church to
learn the faith of another people, because I can go just as easily to
their own church to listen to their explanations, and thus be sure
of getting information of their peculiar views, without trusting to
the misrepresentations of their neighbors. Now I submit that such a
course as this is right; it is just, and accords with our impressions
of a fair and just hearing and consideration from the parties most
interested, as to whether their faith be correct or not.
"Of course we have no disposition, as Latter-day Saints, even if we had
the power, to constrain any person to believe our doctrines. We have
not the power; we have not the disposition. We simply wish to explain
the nature of that religion of which we are ministers--laboring under a
feeling of anxiety to deliver the message with which we have been sent,
that our friends may have the privilege of receiving or rejecting it,
just as they think proper.
"I approach the examination of this subject, because I believe that
many of our kind, honest, well-wishing friends--those who desire to
serve God according to His will and pleasure--are under the impression
that there exists a confusion so general, and errors so prevalent, that
religion seems to be losing its hold upon the minds of the people.
And, of course, we who have faith in God and in His revealed word, as
contained in the Old and New Testaments, deplore a state of things that
indicates a departure from that respect and reverence which we wish
to see existing and manifested on the part of the people towards the
Supreme Being.
"What is the reason that people are becoming irreligious? What is the
reason that people talk of sacred things lightly? What is the reason
that men who have heretofore been respected as ministers of religion
are now little thought of? It is simply because the religions that
are taught are losing their hold upon the minds and affections of the
people; because the religions that are taught do not supply the want
that men and women feel; because the word preached by most ministers
carries with it no power to convince people as to the truthfulness of
the doctrines that are presented, or the sinful condition of the people
to whom they are taught.
"The present condition of the Christian world does not present that
union, that love, that we expect from the perpetuation of the doctrines
that Christ taught, and it is this fact, understood by many, that
increases their doubts and strengthens their objections to what is
called 'Christianity.' The New Testament teachings lead us to expect a
state of unity in the Christian Church. The admonitions of the Apostles
were to the effect that the Saints in early days should be united
together, that they should understand alike, that they should speak
the same things, that they should be of the same mind and of the same
judgment. Such are the words of the Apostle, to be found in I. Cor. i:
10.
"Now, my friends, does such a state of things exist around us in
connection with the Christian churches that we might expect from the
nature of a perfect religion, introduced by Christ? Does there exist,
at the present time, a state of things so perfect as to agree with the
expectations raised from the teachings of St. Paul in this scripture
that I have quoted? I think not. I am safe, I believe, in stating--and
I think our friends are prepared to agree with me--that there does
not exist amongst the Christian denominations that unity and that
oneness of faith, peace, kindness and love which, by reading the New
Testament, we might expect to appear amongst them as the true fruits of
Christianity. And it is upon this I wish to make a few remarks before
proceeding to explain to you, from the Bible, the nature of our faith.
"Of course the existence of a number of denominations called
'Christian' cannot be denied. But we are told that all the Christian
churches exhibit to us one church; that if one denomination does not
teach the whole perfect plan of religion revealed by the Lord Jesus
Christ, all the churches put together do; although there may be
divisions existing amongst the members of these denominations. Unless
we accept this view we must object to Christianity on the ground
that we cannot find which of all the Christian denominations teach
the truth. Here is one church called Christian that teaches certain
doctrines, another more or less in its teachings contradicts them, a
third teaches doctrines that are in conflict with the other two, and
so we might go through them all, and speak in like terms of those who
think honestly enough that they are serving God.
"Now, my friends, I will ask this question--First, Is it reasonable
to suppose that God would sustain two distinct religious churches as
His churches? Is it reasonable to suppose that God would set up two
distinct religious bodies, the ministers of which teach different
doctrines? After learning from the Bible so much indicating the anxiety
of God's inspired servants for a time of perfect unity, I say it is not
reasonable to suppose it. And just so long as two distinct religious
systems exist, teaching different doctrines and preaching different
principles, there exists a conflicting influence, divisions, feelings,
perhaps very strong, if the difference in doctrine is very decided. If
it is not reasonable, what are we to do? How can we account for such a
condition of things?
"This leads to the position we occupy. We want to know something more.
"Is it true that the bodies called 'Christian' at present represent
the Church of Christ? Or is it true that they have ignored some things
belonging to the perfect doctrine of Christ, and taken as their guide,
their own conclusions in regard to what is right, which leads to this
division of doctrine? How is it? But I will endeavor to show that it
is unscriptural, as well as unreasonable, for us to receive different
Christian bodies as the Church of Christ.
"I will direct your attention to a few passages from the word of God.
Jesus, when He sent the Apostles to preach in the first place, said
to them, 'Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every
creature.' Not _any_ system that might be termed a gospel. There
was no choice left to anybody. He spoke definitely in regard to the
gospel plan, which He, the Son of God, came to the earth to set up.
Paul, in the first chapter of Galatians, eighth verse, says, 'Though
we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.' Paul, one of
the Apostles, taught the gospel, the same gospel that Peter, James,
John and others taught. They all taught the same system. And Paul
said, in another place, that he went up, by revelation, to Jerusalem,
taking Barnabas and Titus with him, and communicated the gospel which
he preached among the Gentiles (Gal. ii: 1, 2), thus showing that he
taught the same thing everywhere. You see, Paul's words and practice
show that he did not admit of the least change or alteration from the
gospel as taught by Christ, and preached by the Apostles to the people.
In another place it is said, 'Whosoever transgresseth and abideth
not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the
doctrines of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son' (II. John
ix.), showing us that he taught strictly the necessity of abiding in
that form of doctrine which had at first been delivered. I quote these
passages to show you that the gospel which Christ and the Apostles
first taught was intended to be taught continually, without change, and
that none had a right, not even an angel from heaven, to preach any
other gospel than that which had been delivered at the first.
"Do you agree with this? Because I am about to examine, in detail some
of the doctrines that will readily show to you the difference between
the ministers of the true gospel and the ministers of the so-called
gospel that is preached at the present time. But are you prepared to
come to the conclusion, with me, that it is the old gospel, Christ's
gospel, the doctrines of the apostles that we ought to seek and follow,
if we expect eternal life? Or do you think you are safe in following
the teachings of men, who have made great changes from such ancient
gospel, with the following passage before you? "If there come any
unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house,
neither bid him God speed." (II. John 10th verse.) Do you think you can
obtain God's blessing by being members of a church or churches that
teach doctrines opposed to what Christ taught? How is this?
"'Well certainly,' says one--a Bible believer--'of course I wish to
have the religion of the Bible. I would like to have the religion
of Christ. I do not admit of any departure.' This is right. This is
consistent. Of course if there is a question as to whether God has
made any change in His primitive faith, revealed through Christ, we
shall consider it; for I am willing also to make a change if God has
authorized it. I am quite willing to accept any doctrine that God has
revealed from heaven for my salvation. I confess to you that I have no
disposition whatever to maintain private views or speculations which
may have been engendered on my own part through reflection. I wish the
doctrine of Christ, as Christ taught it, as the apostles taught it, and
I will not, with the light that I possess, depart one particle from the
letter and spirit of that ancient plan. And if there are any friends
here who have heard that the Elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints do not believe in the Bible, let them judge. There
are no practices pleasing to God, or likely to bring His blessings
upon the heads of the children of men, except those inculcated by Him,
through His servants by the power of revelation from heaven, so that
we will not depart from the book. We will not teach doctrines that are
opposed to this book, but we are prepared to show our friends, in the
spirit of kindness, that doctrines opposed to those contained in this
book are displeasing to God, and are not calculated to bring peace and
salvation to the children of men.
"'But,' says one, 'what matters it whether we go this road that you
point out or some other? You know if we can get to heaven one way,
is not that as good as another? We will try to illustrate this idea.
If a man wish to go to London, says the inquirer, may he not go the
road that leads towards the south, or a road that leads towards the
north, as the case may be; what matters it so that he gets to London?
It would not matter in the least. He might go the road that led to
the north or that which led to the south, and by making a shorter or
longer journey, as the case might be, he might get to London. But you
see there is no parallel between this figure and the facts in regard
to religion because there are not two ways to get to heaven. That is
the difference. There are two ways to get to London probably, perhaps
more, but you see there is only one way to get to heaven, so that when
we admit, as an illustration, a figure of this kind, we start with an
error and it leads us astray.
"The Bible speaks of one way. It speaks of two ways. It speaks of a
broad road that leads to destruction, and it speaks of a narrow way
that leads to eternal life. So you see there is only one way that leads
to heaven, and if any one persuades us that the wide road will lead us
there, he deceives us, for there is only one way, and it is narrow. The
Bible is very plain upon this, because the doctrines are steadfast and
sure, and the words are plain that there is but one way that leads to
life and glory. Now that is the way we want to find out.
"Jesus came, He said, to do His Father's will, not His own. He called
Apostles and ordained them, and He said, "As I have been sent, so
send I you. Go and preach the gospel to every creature." That was
their business. But He said, 'Tarry ye first in Jerusalem, until ye
are endowed with power from on high.' Jesus called the Apostles.
He ordained them Himself. He instructed them personally, and He
commissioned them to preach the gospel to every creature. But He wished
them to tarry at Jerusalem until they received power from on high;
a certain gift which God had promised that they might be qualified,
in every sense, to discharge the important duty devolving upon them,
of administering words of salvation to a fallen world. The Apostles
did this. They gathered in Jerusalem. They were there on the day of
Pentecost, and whilst there, in the upper room, the endowment of which
Jesus spoke was given unto them. The Holy Ghost came upon them, in the
upper room, as a mighty rushing wind, and it sat upon them as cloven
tongues of fire. And, whilst under that influence, the Apostles who
were sent to preach the gospel, stood up, at least Peter did, as the
mouth-piece of the rest, at that time to preach the gospel that Christ
sent them to declare. Now, what was it? Let us lay a good foundation as
we proceed.
"Were they qualified to preach it? I do not think any Christian will
doubt it. If they were not prepared to teach the gospel of the Son of
God, then I would have no hope, my friends, of hearing it in this life.
Never. Jesus Himself chose them. He ordained them; He instructed them,
and after all this, as you will find in the 2nd chapter of the Acts of
the Apostles, 1st, 2nd and 3rd verses, they assembled in Jerusalem, and
had fulfilled unto them the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ, receiving
the endowment of which I have been speaking.
"I think that all my friends here are certainly prepared to accept the
words that Peter spoke, and acknowledge them to be true. What did
Peter say? First, he preached Christ and Him crucified. You see the
people, who had gathered together on the day of Pentecost, were people,
who had no faith in Christ. They had rejected Him and His instructions.
They had been of those who persecuted Christ and the Apostles. They
were of those who had either personally or in their sympathies
sustained the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. Therefore, Peter, knowing
this, stood up and preached to them, first Christ and Him crucified,
and he was successful. Who can doubt it? Peter, a servant of God,
ordained by the Son of God. Peter, upon whom the Spirit of God rested
as tongues of fire, as the scriptures have it. This man stood up and
argued the point, and explained about Jesus. And who can doubt the
result? I am sure we would have been disappointed if we had been told
in the Bible that Peter was not successful. He was successful. Many
believed on him, and the result of their belief was that they said,
'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' (Acts ii: 37.) No wonder they
asked that question. People who had either helped to crucify the Lord,
or who had rejoiced when He was crucified, as many of them did, to be
convinced that that same Jesus whom they had assisted to crucify was
indeed the Lord, the Christ; and when they were convinced of this they
cried out, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?'
"Peter was prepared to tell them. He had the very instructions that
were needed, and the words of Peter are applicable today, my friends,
to you and to me, so far as we have not obeyed them.
"We are believers in Christ, I trust. We have fortunately made our
appearance in this life, in the midst of a people who at least believe
in the divinity of Christ, and we have received impressions favorable
to this end; therefore the words of Peter, spoken to those who believed
in the divinity of Christ, are applicable to us, and are the words of
salvation to us, if that ancient gospel is not changed. What were the
words? He says, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift
of the Holy Ghost.' (Acts ii: 38.)
"Was that the gospel? Yes, unless the Apostles disobeyed the
instruction of Christ, because they were sent to preach the gospel, and
they were endowed that they might preach it perfectly and represent
God, the Maker of heaven and earth, in the words and spirit by which
they presented it unto the people.
"Now, my friends, faith in Christ was the first principle of the
gospel; repentance of sins was the second principle; baptism for the
remission of sins was the third principle, and then the reception of
the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands, as taught by Peter on that
day in Jerusalem. Is there any objection to this? 'None at all,' says
one, 'that is scriptural; we cannot object to it.' A Bible believer
cannot object to it. But what is becoming of us if such doctrines are
not taught? 'Well,' says one, are they not taught?' No. 'Faith in
Christ is taught,' and 'repentance of sins is taught,' although by some
people the latter is taught first, before faith in Christ. Some teach
that we must repent of our sins before we can have faith in Christ.
This is a mistake. We cannot possibly repent of sin committed, unless
we are convinced that we have committed the sin. We cannot repent of
laws broken, which Christ has taught through His Apostles unless we
are first convinced that Jesus was divine, and had the authority to
teach them; so that faith in Christ and His divine mission must be
the foundation of our practice as Christians. And the first effect
that faith in Christ produces, is repentance of the sins which we
have committed. So repentance is the second principle of the gospel.
But we differ a little more about the third principle. Just read your
Bible, and you will find that Peter taught baptism for the remission
of sins (Acts ii: 38). Again, John the Baptist, who was the forerunner
of Christ, baptized for the remission of sins (Mark i: 4). 'John was
sent from God.' You will find this in the 1st chapter of the gospel
according to St. John, 6th verse. John himself said, in the 33rd verse
of the same chapter, 'He that sent me to baptize with water, the same
said unto me,' referring to the instruction he received from the Father
regarding Christ. Both passages assert this, that John the Baptist was
sent by God to baptize with water, and we are taught in the Bible that
he did teach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. That
is just what we might expect. John was God's servant. So was Peter.
They both taught the same doctrine. John taught baptism, and Peter
told the people to be baptized every one of them. You will remember
the servant of God who was sent to speak to Paul, to instruct him just
after his conversion. He went to him, and when the scales fell from
the eyes of Paul, or Saul, this man of God said to him: 'Why tarriest
thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon
the name of the Lord' (Acts xxii: 16). Be baptized and wash away his
sins? Yes. Now, that agrees exactly with the doctrine of Peter, and the
doctrine of John the Baptist. They were all three servants of God, and
they all taught the same doctrine, and those who heard and believed
that doctrine possessed the selfsame faith; so that so far as baptism
is concerned, the ancient Saints did teach and practice the selfsame
doctrine--baptism for the remission of sins.
"I want to talk a little about this. One says, 'Well, I have always
been taught that baptism was a doctrine of Christ anciently, but I have
been under the impression that it was not necessary to salvation.'
That may be, my friends, we have been taught a great many things, and
good Christian people have believed a great many things that Christian
people have rejected since. But that is no reason why we should change
the Bible doctrine. The thing is right here. 'Well,' says one, 'I
thought we were not able of ourselves to do anything to help to save
ourselves.' This requires proper understanding. If baptism brings the
remission of sins, and baptism is not attended to by us, we cannot
obtain the blessing. Certainly not. God gives us bread to eat, but He
does not present it to us. A man sows seed in the ground and he sees
to it and he harvests it and it is threshed and prepared and placed
before us in the shape of flour, but we have no disposition to deny
that it is the gift of God. If it were not for God's goodness we should
have no bread. If it were not for the gift of God we could not attend
to the ordinance that brings remission of sins. We have not power,
of ourselves, to bring within our reach a single saving principle
belonging to the plan of eternal life. It is all God's free gift. It is
all in consequence of His mercy, and His charity, and His goodness and
love, and pleasure manifested to us that we have any privilege at all
that will help to make us better, or that will bring us into His Church
and kingdom and give us a right to say that we are really His children.
The fact that He has laid down ordinances, through which a remission of
sins is brought to us does not warrant us in saying that we do it of
ourselves, and when people talk like this it is likely to deceive.
"Now, my friends, the Bible says, in the place I have quoted, that
baptism is for the remission of sins. Do we believe this? If we do, you
know, we must also come to the conclusion necessarily that we cannot
have a remission of sins without it. If God has placed the ordinance
of baptism in His Church, as part of His divine system for a certain
purpose, the object cannot be obtained without it. The means which
God reveals for certain purposes must be used. We cannot say, and it
would be unreasonable in us to say, that when God speaks from heaven
in regard to any particular thing, we can ignore His advice when we
please and accept something that suits us. It is wrong, and it is this
disposition that has led to the present deplorable state of things.
"'Well,' says one, 'I have thought that baptism was for an outward sign
of an inward grace, or of membership in the Church.' Another error, you
see! The Bible does not say anything about that. Of course the act of
a person embracing the principles of the gospel and becoming a member
of the Church, may be a sign, but baptism was not set in the Church
for that purpose. It was taught in the Church and administered for the
remission of sins and nothing else. And no man or woman can obtain a
place in God's kingdom, or enjoy His presence here or hereafter, unless
their sins are washed away in baptism, as Paul's were washed away when
he accepted the advice of the good and inspired man, Ananias, who
instructed him.
"When I think of the importance of this offer which God has made, my
heart is filled with thankfulness instead of a disposition to discard
what He has taught. It is strange, and we can only account for it
on the ground of the waywardness of men naturally, to think that we
would attempt to do things in opposition to the will of God. Is there
a more important blessing offered to mankind than the remission of
sins? Have we any hope of enjoying the glory of God in our present
sinful condition? Surely not, for nothing sinful or unholy can enter
the courts of glory. Then if God has so put in His Church an ordinance
for the purpose of enabling us, like Saul, to wash away our sins,
why not be prepared to receive it with joy instead of cultivating or
encouraging a disposition to ignore it?
"Baptism for the remission of sins is the third principle of the gospel
of Christ. Then comes the ordinance of the laying on of hands for the
gift of the Holy Ghost. Peter says, on the day of Pentecost, to which
we have directed your attention, 'And ye shall receive the gift of
the Holy Ghost.' What did that consist of? The gift of God's Spirit.
The reception of God's power, a portion of His power. The reception
of an influence which leads those who possess it near to God in their
feelings and in their faith. A feeling which produces not only that
inward consciousness of acceptance with God as His son or daughter, but
a power which gives outward manifestations of its divinity. Jesus did
promise to the apostles when he sent them out first, that 'These signs
shall follow them that believe.' Here are His words, 'Go ye into all
the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned,
_and these signs shall follow them that believe_.' The words of Christ,
in the last chapter of Mark, 15th and following verses.
"'Well,' says one, 'you know we do not believe in miracles now. These
signs were miracles, but we do not believe in them now.' That may be,
my friends. This is the very reason why we are here, because there is
such a great disbelief in the Bible; because there is a disposition to
ignore the Bible; because there is a disposition to ignore the promises
of Christ; and we wish to show you the things that are denied; we wish
to point out to you the doctrines our fathers have denied; that our
teachers have denied, and we wish to show you that they are in the
Bible, the word of God, in the book which some have gone so far as to
assert that we do not believe in. But is it true that the promises of
God were fulfilled anciently in regard to this matter? Yes! In the 19th
chapter and 7th verse of the Acts of the Apostles, you will find an
instance related of the Apostles laying their hands on some that had
been baptized, and they spake with tongues. This was one of the gifts
that was manifested, in consequence of their receiving that spirit
which produced them. See also Mark 16th and 20th.
You must not consider that, in teaching these doctrines, we are
advancing something of ourselves, something new. If we were teaching
new doctrine you would have a right to call us to account and ask us
for the proof. We are teaching old doctrine. We are teaching the New
Testament doctrines, instead of those of our Christian friends. We
have no spirit of enmity in the least degree, towards any living soul,
and when we refer to the faith of our Christian friends remember, it
is simply to make the difference between their views and ours more
distinct to you. I say instead of our friends calling us to account,
it is the Latter-day Saints who have the right to come out and say to
their Christian friends, 'See here, why do you deny signs which Christ
said should follow believers? What believers did Christ speak about?
Why believers in His gospel, He taught us that these signs should
follow believers. Well then, if our Christian friends deny that, we
have the right to call them to account. If Christ said that these
miracles manifestations of Almighty power should follow the believers,
I say what reason have you to deny it? The question is not now whether
the Latter-day Saints possess the power or not. The question at issue
at present is not whether the teachers of the Church of England have
the power or not. The question is, Does Christ promise that power
to believers in the gospel? I say He does, and I say that those who
deny that such powers should follow believers, teach that which is
contrary to the word of Christ and contrary to the facts that appeared
in connection with the teachings and administration of the doctrines
of Christ. So that it is not the Latter-day Saints that introduce a
new doctrine, and we say to our friends, Hear us, we beseech you. Hear
the message we have to deliver, for God has sent us to teach the old
religion, the religion of Jesus, the simple plan which was revealed
from heaven in ancient days, to save the children of men.
"Peter said, on the day of Pentecost, speaking of the gospel and its
attendant blessings, 'for this promise is unto you.' That is, to the
people who stood before him, 'to your children and unto all that are
afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call.'
"You see it was not confined to the members of the church in the first
place, as some would have us believe. The promise of the laying on of
hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost was made to the children of those
who heard Peter, and to all who were afar off, even as many as the Lord
our God should call. And if it be true that God is calling sinners to
repentance now, we should see the same power manifested today, that is,
if we have the true gospel. There can be no doubt of this.
"Which will you have, my friends, the doctrine of the Bible or the
doctrines of men? If you accept the doctrines of the Bible you will
have to become Latter-day Saints, and of course that would be out
of the question for a good many. But we cannot find these doctrines
anywhere else, and that is a perplexity. What shall we do about them?
When I am speaking to you I think of the position I occupied myself,
when I heard the Latter-day Saints first. I went to their meeting, not
expecting to hear anything that would interest me by any means, but I
heard the Bible doctrine taught. I could not deny it. I found I had
been mistaken. I did not incline in my heart to fight against God,
but considerations came up. If I become a Latter-day Saint, people
will call me a Mormon. If I embrace these doctrines, my friends will
point at me the finger of scorn. If I become a Latter-day Saint my
good neighbors will say I am deceived and led astray, and that I have
embraced a doctrine that is in opposition to the teachings of Christ.
Of course these things flashed through my mind when I considered and
read the Bible to ascertain positively whether these Mormons taught
the truth or not. I thought this--well! I have been religious for the
purpose of making my peace with God, but I have been mistaken and led
astray by men whom God had not sent to preach the gospel; but now I
have found the truth, the old promises relating to God's power, all
things as at the beginning, have been restored, and I have the promise
of obtaining a place with the righteous, according to the mind and will
of my Heavenly Father. Let friends say what they please, let them say
I am deceived, but I believe this Bible is true. Let them say whatever
they may in regard to my faith; no matter. I thought of the time of
Christ. They called Christ hard names; and of the Apostles they spake
a great deal of evil. In fact the Bible says they called them all
manner of evil, and although I expected my friends would denounce me,
still when I thought of what Christ had suffered, I was reconciled and
instead of fighting against God, I was willing to accept His doctrine,
in order to obtain His blessings.
"I state to you my friends that since the day I entered this Church I
have rejoiced exceedingly. I have found proofs upon proofs. I have had
reason to rejoice in consequence of the manifestations of God's power,
confirmatory of the doctrines, and I can say that the Church of Christ
is set up, its doctrines are taught, its practices are practiced, its
promises are fulfilled, and the evidences of its divine power are
manifested in the midst of this people.
"I would like to say a few words in regard to another point. I have
just said that I had been taught a religion by men whom God _had not
sent_. I would like to explain. You will excuse us if we seem to be
very extreme in our views. We have taken the liberty to teach you the
truth, just as we have it, and when we say something that comes in
contact with what you have received, excuse us. There is no bad feeling
at all, or unfriendliness in the least. But we believe in persons
being invested with the proper authority to preach the gospel. Paul
says, speaking of the authority of the Holy Priesthood, 'No man taketh
this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron.'
(Heb. v: 4.) 'Faith cometh by hearing, and how can we hear without a
preacher?' (Rom. x: 14-17. ) 'No man taketh this honor unto himself,
except he be called of God as was Aaron.' Now that is very plain,
and what does it mean? Simply what it says. That no man has a right
to administer in the ordinances of religion except he be sent of God
as was Aaron, for how can a man preach except he be sent? (Rom. x:
15.) If that be admitted, of course the next question of importance
is, How was Aaron sent? By turning to the history we have of God's
dealing with Moses, in reference to the gathering of the Israelites,
from Egpyt, you will find that God instructed Moses to call Aaron to
be his helper. (Ex. iv: 15, 16.) Here is the proof. No man can preach
the gospel simply because he feels inclined within himself to be a
preacher. No man can preach the gospel--that is with God's approval and
authority--unless God commission him. God commissioned every one of his
preachers in ancient times. He spoke from heaven. He directed those who
held this authority to call others. Christ called the Apostles as He
was called. His Father called Him; He called the Apostles, and He said,
'As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.' (St. John xx: 21). 'He
that receiveth you receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth Him
that sent me.' The authority was here, you see. God called Moses; He
instructed Moses to call Aaron; so that Aaron stood exactly in the same
relation to God as did the Apostles; the latter being called of God the
Father through Christ. That would be evident, because one whom God had
authorized to act as His servant was instructed by Him to call Aaron.
Now, you observe, no man has a right to exercise the authority of the
priesthood unless he is called of God as was Aaron.
"Are the preachers--those who commonly preach in connection with the
churches of the present day called of God as was Aaron? Or, in other
words, are they called by revelation from God? This is the question.
We do not doubt the propriety of their being called in this way,
because the Bible says they ought to be. Do our Protestant ministers,
at the present time, profess to be sent of God as was Aaron? Is there
a minister connected with the Christian denominations of the present
day who professes to be sent of God by direct revelation? Not one. It
does not require any argument at all. They do not profess that they
have heard from God. They say that God has not spoken since the last
book of the New Testament was written. They say it is a sin, and they
find fault with the Latter-day Saints because we believe that God does
speak; that He has a right to speak; and it is necessary we should have
His approval and commission in order to qualify us to attend to the
business of His Church. So that our present Christian teachers do not
profess to be called of God as was Aaron. They deny all revelation at
present, or since the Bible was written.
"You know the ministers, among their other errors, receive pay for
preaching. That is an innovation also. The ancient apostles, and
seventies, and bishops, and so on, were not paid for preaching. But
our present ministers are. The preachers of this Church, with whom I
am connected, are not paid for preaching. They preach without money,
without purse, and without scrip. Now the preachers of the present
churches make a business of preaching. They learn to be preachers.
They are brought up to be preachers in consequence of their parents
or guides finding in this way a place where they may make a living.
Such ministers sometimes acknowledge one kind of revelation. Not
that God tells the people about His will, or that He manifests His
power, but they sometimes tell us they have received a call from
one congregation to another. But there is one peculiarity about it,
viz: the congregation that calls them is a congregation that almost
invariably offers them more money than the congregation to which they
have been attached. This is the only instance of any kind of revelation
being acknowledged by our Christian teachers. God has not spoken,
say they, by inspired men, since the days of the ancient apostles.
He has not spoken directly to the church. He has not authorized a
single man to preach, but sometimes a call is given from less money to
more. And though they are feeling full of love and affection for the
congregation with which they have labored for years, yet they are sorry
and regret so much that that call must be heeded, which takes them from
among their old friends to a new congregation. But, you see, the new
congregation offers the most money, and that cannot be disregarded.
"My friends, these are a few of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. Are we displeased with anybody? No, not at
all. All are at liberty to believe what they please. But we are placed
under obligations to deliver the message which God has sent. We say we
are not solely dependent on the Bible, because God has sent the gospel.
We do not wish you to think that we regard the Bible lightly. Of course
you will have noticed, from our remarks, that this is not so. But we
say from the Bible alone we could not have discovered the true way of
life, any more than thousands of our friends have been able to do so.
Why millions of people have read the Bible but have not discovered some
of these doctrines. They have been lead to preach the things contained
therein, and if they had discovered the doctrine, this Bible cannot lay
on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. That part of the work that is
necessary for man's salvation must be done by one whom God authorizes.
Therefore the Bible alone is not sufficient. It contains the truth. It
is the word of God. It contains the instruction of the apostles. But it
does not contain the divine authority that is necessary to commission a
man to baptize or administer in any ordinance pertaining to the house
of God.
"Now, my friends, may God bless you. And my brethren and sisters, may
the Holy Spirit, which leads unto all truth, abide upon us, and may we
who have found the truth have a disposition to retain it. May we have
the moral courage to say, 'Let God be served. Let His truth be obeyed.'
Let the Almighty be honored, and if other people choose to follow their
own fancies, or the deceptions presented before them by men whom God
has not sent, as for us and our house, let us serve God.
"May God bless us, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen."