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: