Defense of the Faith and the Saints (Volume 2 of 2)

by B. H. Roberts

Right here, I wish to propose this question to these gentlemen: The document they have issued quotes very copiously from our published Church works. I want to ask them, on what books and utterances do they rely for this larger, fuller proclamation of "Mormonism?" I find quoted the Millennial Star, the Journal of Discourses, the Seer (by Orson Pratt), the Improvement Era, the Manuals of the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Associations, Orson Spencer's Letters, Epistles of the First Presidency of the Church, Talmage's Articles of Faith, and last, and of course least, some of my own works. Now where is the Millennial Star published? In Liverpool, England. Where were the Journals of Discourses published? In Liverpool, England. Where was the Seer published? In Washington, D.C. Does it not occur to you, gentlemen, since these are the works on which you chiefly rely for your larger view of "Mormon" doctrine, that we have published them elsewhere quite as fully as we have in Utah. The Improvement Era, of course, is published in Salt Lake City; but two thousand copies of it are sent free to our missionaries abroad to use as tracts and to scatter everywhere in the world. So with Orson Spencer's Letters: so with all our publications quoted by you, except the Seer, of which more presently. They are all sent broadcast, and our elders use them very freely, and you will find them in the hands of our friends abroad, and from them they learn the doctrines of "Mormonism." So that your practical charge that we preach one set of doctrines and principles in Utah, and quite another in the world, and that we are trying to play the double game of having one doctrine for home consumption and another for proclamation abroad, is as shallow as it is untrue.

One other thing. I find in this review ten lengthy quotations from the Seer which was published by Orson Pratt, yet the Seer by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work—the Seer—together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that document, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say:

"But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 * * * * contain doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or parts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed."

And yet these gentlemen, our reviewers, who, of course, we must believe, since they are ministers of the gospel, and hence they are ministers of the truth and believe in fair dealing, make ten long quotations from a repudiated work, and one quotation only from a work that is accepted as standard in the Church, viz., the Doctrine and Covenants! For a long time the Church has announced over and over again that her standard works in which the word of God is to be found, and for which alone she stands, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price. All else is commentary, and of a secondary character as to its authority, containing much that is good, much that illustrates the doctrines of the Church, and yet liable to have error in it for which the Church does not stand.

"Well," says one, "do you propose to repudiate the works of men holding your priesthood, and who are supposed to speak and act under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Do you not destroy the effectiveness of your Church ministry when you take this attitude?" Not at all. We merely make what is a proper distinction. It would be a glorious thing for a man to so live that his life would touch the very life and Spirit of God, so that his spirit would blend with God's Spirit, under which circumstances there would be no error in his life or in his utterances at all. That is a splendid thing to contemplate, but when you take into account human weaknesses, imperfection, prejudice, passion, bias, it is too much to hope for human nature that man will constantly thus walk linked with God. And so we make this distinction between a man speaking sometimes under the influence of prejudice and pre-conceived notions, and the utterances of a man who, in behalf of the Church of God, and having the requisite authority, and holding the requisite position, may, upon occasion, lay aside all prejudice, all pre-conception, and stand ready and anxious to receive the divine impression of God's Spirit that shall plead, "Father, thy will and thy word be made known now to thy people through the channel thou hast appointed." There is a wide difference between men coming with the word of God thus obtained, and their ordinary speech every day and on all kinds of occasions.

In thus insisting that only the word of God, spoken by inspiration, shall live and be binding upon the Church, we are but following the illustrious example of the ancient Church of Christ. You do not have today all the Christian documents of the first Christian centuries. These books that you have bound up, and that you call the word of God, Holy Bible, were sifted out by a consensus of opinion in the churches running through several hundred years. They endured the test of time. But the great bulk of that which was uttered and written, even by apostles and prominent servants of God in the primitive Christian Church, the Church rejected, and out of the mass of chaff preserved these Scriptures—the New Testament. The Christian world up to this time is not quite decided as to all that should be accepted and all that should be rejected. You Protestant gentlemen repudiate several books called Apocrypha which the Catholic church accepts as of equal authority with the rest of the books of the Old and New Testament. And so I say in this procedure of ours, in refusing to accept only that which time and the inspiration of God shall demonstrate to be absolutely true, we are but following the example of the ancient Church of Christ.

We move forward now in our investigation of this charge of yours. You say of us, that "Adding no spiritual truth to the aggregate of things already revealed * * * contributing nothing to reverence for God or to justice and mercy towards men, 'Mormonism' claims to be the only authorized church of Christ on earth, and sets up a wholly unbiblical test of salvation."

Gentlemen, you may not believe, of course, the claims of the "Mormon" Church, but you cannot in truth say that we apply an "unbiblical test of salvation." I pray you think of it for a moment. What is the claim made for Joseph Smith? That he was a prophet sent of God with a divine message, with a dispensation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, just for a moment, just for the sake of the argument, suppose that claim to be true, is the test we apply, at all, much less "wholly," unbiblical? May one reject God's message and stand uncondemned before God? Assuredly not. What was the example Jesus set? This: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." He was but proclaiming the message that God had given to him, and he laid down this principle as connected with the authority and commission he had bestowed upon the apostles when sending them into the world: "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." What do we do, when we proclaim the divine message with which the Prophet Joseph Smith was commissioned to the world but just apply this same principle? Nothing more than this, and of course we could do nothing less. As I remarked a moment ago, you may refuse, as you do, to believe this message and testimony, but you cannot say in truth that there is anything unbiblical in the principles on which we proceed to make this declaration to the world: and, by the way, don't you claim the same thing for your message? If you don't, what does your message amount to? Are you not ministers of Jesus Christ? Have you not come with the gospel of Jesus Christ? Can men reject you and your doctrine and your message and still be secure in the favor of God? Gentlemen, if you take that position, I brand you as false teachers, untrue servants—not representatives of the Master. You are weaker than water spilled upon the ground which one may not gather again, if you come with a message one may reject with impunity. You are talking an infinite deal of nonsense when you undertake criticism of this kind.

Now we are told that because of the claims of "Mormonism" it provokes searching investigation, for the reason that "it involves eternal reprobation of those who finally reject it." Gentlemen, have you not juggled here a little with words? And is it not just possible that a wrong impression may go out from your view of our Address, rather than from the Address itself? Is there such a thing in "Mormonism" as eternal reprobation as generally understood in the theological terminology of the world? With the single exception of those who come to know the truth and then so far sin against it that they have no power of repentance nor desire for forgiveness—the sons of perdition, which all our works teach will be comparatively few in number—does not "Mormonism," aside from these few, hold out a hope of salvation to all the children of men? But of this we shall have more to say presently; but the above in passing. Again, this searching investigation is "provoked" because the claim of the "Mormon" Church to being the only authorized Church of Christ, "involves the validity of all the Church ordinances and of all ministerial functions, including the right to solemnize marriages as administered by the Christian Church from the second to the nineteenth century." Here we are approaching solid ground of controversy. "Mormonism" does deny that divine authority exists in the churches of the world, the churches of men, miscalled Christian churches. We do not blanch from the position. We proclaim it; although we do not wish to do so in any offensive way, but we have to be witnesses for the truth. And God has revealed that to be the truth. "Mormonism" is in the world because their was a real necessity for its coming into the world. It did not come into existence through theological disputations, because of differences of views about baptism, or church government, or the nature of Deity, or any of these things; but there had been, and mark it, gentlemen, a complete apostasy from God's truth by the world. The Church of Christ as an organization, and the gospel as a system of truth had been displaced by the institutions and systems of men, consequently there was need of divine authority being again conferred upon man and a new dispensation of the gospel of Christ given to the world. It is our pride that "Mormonism" is this restored gospel and Church of Christ.

I notice among this body of men I am addressing, the members of this Ministerial association, the representative of the Episcopal church, a branch of the great English church. He ought not to complain of this attitude of the "Mormon" Church, for the reason that in one of the Homilies of his church; in the Homily on the Perils of Idolatry, it is expressly stated that "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 800 years and more." (Perils of Idolatry, p. 3). Certainly "Mormonism" does not proclaim the apostasy more harshly than that, nor do we declare its universality more emphatically, but I presume we are offensive to the representatives of this particular church, the Episcopal, because we include him and his organization as among those who are in the apostasy and who have not the gospel of Christ. Yet we are not harder on him or his church than he is upon the Catholic and all the rest of the Christian world previous to the establishment of the Church of England under the patronage of King Henry VIII of England, of unsavory memory, and we do have this advantage, viz.: