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

by B. H. Roberts

That if we proclaim a universal apostasy, we also proclaim the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the renewal of divine authority, the resumption of present-day and continuous revelation from God. So we are in an infinitely better position, as to the reasonableness of our attitude, than are those who proclaim this apostasy and yet are without a renewal of a dispensation of the gospel to the world.

There is one thing particularly offensive, in this ministerial review, a misrepresentation put in the most offensive form. Not only do the reviewers set forth that we deny the existence of divine authority in their churches, and the nonexistence of the church of Christ for centuries in the earth, but they say that our attitude involves the validity of all ministerial functions, including the right to solemnize marriages. They are not, I take it, responsible for the headlines of their review as they appeared in the public press, but in order to make the attitude of the "Mormon" Church as offensive as it could be made, the headline said, "Gentile Marriage Ordinances Illegal Before God." Now in justice to us I think this matter should have been put fairly, and the exact status of the matter given. It should have appeared that we regard marriage as a civil as well as a religious contract, and our attitude with reference to divine things nowhere involves us in a contradiction as to the validity of marriage as a civil contract, nor as a relationship wholly sanctioned and approved by the divine favor and blessing of God in this world. The extent to which we, in any way, in thought or word, invalidate marriage ordinances is in saying that marriage contracts formed in this world, either by civil authority or by the authority of sectarian churches, do not extend the marriage covenant beyond the period of this life. These gentlemen ought to have been a little more careful, if not a little more honest in stating our position upon this question. Allow me to do it for them.

Turning to the revelation on the subject of marriage, this is to be found:

"Verily I say unto you that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into, and sealed, by the holy spirit of promise of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power * * * are of no efficacy, virtue, or force, in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end, have an end when men are dead."

Again,

"And every thing that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me, or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.

"For whatsoever things remain, are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me, shall be shaken and destroyed. Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me, nor by my word; and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world, and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world."

So far as any denial of the validity of marriages is concerned, it relates only to denying their validity after the resurrection—not this side of it; and, gentlemen, you ought not to complain of this, because you yourselves, in performing the marriage ceremony, say, "I pronounce you man and wife until death does you part." I think you ought not to take offense at what we say on this subject—we say your marriage ceremonies are of no binding effect in and after the resurrection, you make no pretensions of marrying for eternity. The fact is, you scorn and ridicule it. Before leaving this group of propositions with which I am dealing, I desire to say respecting this question of universal apostasy from the Christian faith—we can sustain the truth of that declaration from Scripture, from history, from the condition of the religious world at the opening of the nineteenth century. We have no anxiety about it, but we have not time on this occasion to enter into an argument on the justification of our attitude.

But, gentlemen, Christian gentlemen, what in reality is the difference between your attitude and ours in respect of the world at large, and the existence of the gospel in the earth, and consequences growing out of those respective attitudes? You proclaim, do you not, that there is no other name given under heaven whereby men can be saved except the name of Jesus Christ? You insist, do you not, that there must be acceptance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and do you not hold that those who do not accept this gospel cannot receive the benefits of its salvation? Now then, after two thousand years of proselyting in the world, under the most favorable circumstances, what is the sum total of your achievements? Why, less than one-third of the inhabitants of the earth are even nominally Christians! and what is your attitude toward God's children whom you have not converted. Why, that they are lost. That is the inevitable result of your attitude and doctrine. Or else you must say that men can be saved without the gospel of Christ. Now the difference between your position and ours is simply this:

The proposition that you present to the world at large, we present to you as well as to the rest of mankind—and you don't like your own medicine—with this exception, and it is a grand exception, one that goes far towards establishing the divine origin of this great latter-day work; the exception is this: that whereas, your attitude and principles condemn the great bulk of the human family to everlasting perdition—and I am going to talk to you about perdition in a little while, and point out what you mean by it—while you consign to eternal perdition, I say, the great bulk of our Father's children, we proclaim an "everlasting gospel," one that shall not only walk beside men through this life but through all the ages that are to come. You say in your review that we "contribute nothing to reverence for God, or to justice or mercy toward men." Well, here is one little item that "Mormonism" adds to the idea of justice and mercy, that is, we hold that in any age, now or a thousand years hence, or five thousand or ten thousand years hence, or ten million years hence—we hold that when an intelligence, a man, shall learn that it profiteth nothing to violate the law of God, but that it profiteth everything to yield obedience to that law, and repentance takes hold of him, and he stretches out his hands toward God—through the gospel of Jesus Christ, the hand of God will find the man's hand and bring him unto salvation. That is the difference between us, and I leave you to judge which smacks most of the inspiration and truth of heaven.

We take up now another group of propositions: It is complained by you, gentlemen, that the "Mormon" Church denies that the Christian churches have been representing Christ for 1,700 years, notwithstanding Christian martyrdoms, organized charities, the reforms the churches have fostered, the progress of mankind which Christians have chiefly promoted. I wish to explain briefly the attitude of the Church, with reference to this interregnum between the apostasy and the restoration of that gospel in the nineteenth century, through our prophet.