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.