FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Messenger and Advocate/2/9
Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate: Volume 2, Number 9
Summary:Source document in Mormon Publications: 19th and 20th Centuries online archive: Messenger and Advocate Vol. 2
|Number 8||Number 10|
Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate: Volume 2, Number 9
|LATTER DAY SAINTS'|
|MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE|
|Volume II. No. 9.]||KIRTLAND, OHIO, JUNE, 1836.||[Whole No. 21.|
Dear Sir, As the investigation in which you are now participating, first commenced with my brother Eebnezer [Ebenezer], I consider it proper to state to you the origin of this controversy; that you may see the nature and design of the remarks, and hence the better understand them. What gave rise to my remarks on revelation and miracles, was, my brother charged me of "utterly denying that plan of salvation founded on revelation, miracles," &c. To convince him of his mistake, I affirmed to be a believer in both, and attempted to show him the design of both revelation and miracles. I attempted to show him that we were dependent on revelation for the knowledge of God, and the plan of salvation that the design of miracles was to confirm revelation—and that the plan of salvation (or gospel) having been fully revealed, confirmed by miracles, and recorded in the New Testament; we were to expect no more revelation, and consequently needed no more miracles.
I have attentively examined your communication, and as I do not wish to multiply words, I have endeavored to mark only the prominent features of difference; and shall now, candidly examine them.
The principal points of difference are, 1. The design of revelation. 2. The design of miracles. 3. In reference to what the gospel is. And 4. Relation to the necessity of revelation and miracles at the present day.
In my letter to my brother I stated, the design of revelation was, first, "to make known the being of God. 2. To make known his will. 3. To make known the consequences of doing, or not doing his will." To those propositions you make no objections, excepting to the first. To that you say you "must object," because, "revelations from God were the result of the faith of those who received them." To sustain which, you quote, "For without faith it is impossible to please him." [God.] I think, sir, you can but discover that this text is altogether irrelevant, and utterly fails to prove your position. It does not say, "without faith it is impossible to get revelation; but impossible to please him."
Again you say, "That Adam had the most perfect knowledge of his [God's] existence." True, he had, but how did he obtain this knowledge? Did his "standing in the presence of God" give him this information? Or his seeing his face tell him, it was God in whose presence he stood—and whose face he beheld? No! surely you will say no!! He might know indeed that he saw some being—But how could he have faith that that being was his God? There is but one answer to this question, and that is "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Now if hearing comes by the word of God, God must have spoken before Adam heard; and if faith comes by hearing, Adam must have heard before he he had faith, consequently, God must have revealed himself as God to Adam, or he had not believed it. Admit "the apostolic maxim," "that faith comes by hearing," and you must admit that revelation was necessary, in order to faith in God.
You seem to admire consistency, come then and look at your own. You say, "it is impossible for one man to be dependent on another for his knowledge of the way of salvation;" and yet you make us dependent on the "tradition of men for the idea or knowledge of God. Why object with so much feeling, to our dependence on the veracity of men for our knowledge of the way of salvation—and yet make us dependent on tradition for our knowledge of the author of salvation? Is not revelation as necessary to make known the author, as the way of salvation?—But to conclude this point, we must reject the "Apostolic maxim," or admit that faith in the being of God, came by hearing; and hearing by God's work, or revelation. "For how can we believe on him of whom we have not heard?" Impossible!!
One idea more before we pass. After making mankind dependent on the tradition for his ideas of God. You say, "some of them sought unto God by rea-
son of the faith they had in the being of God, and obtained the revelation of his will." My dear sir, I should have thought your good sense would have caused "every feeling of your heart to object" to such an idea. What! a moral Governor of infinite wisdom, goodness and mercy hold his creatures his subjects accountable, and subject to an awful penalty, for the non-performance of his will; and yet not reveal that will to them—till some of his subjects through "tradition, had got faith in his being"—and by reason of that faith, sought unto him and obtained a revelation of his will! This, sir, involves us in the conclusion, that, had not some men have sought unto the Lord, for to obtain a revelation of his will, that he never would have revealed it! My views of the moral Governor, sir, are very different from those. Very different indeed, are the views given of him in the bible. That holy book represents Adam as the first man. But it does not leave him ignorant of the divine will, till as a suppliant he inquires what he must do. No! But as is reasonable to suppose he makes himself known unto Adam, (undoubtedly as his God) then fixes for him his residence, and commands him what to do, and makes known the penalty of disobedience.
Noah did not seek unto God for a revelation of his will, but was warned of God to prepare an ark. Abraham was called of God to go out. Nor did Moses seek to God for a revelation of his will concerning Israel; but god appeared unto him, and declared it unto him. This, sir, is as we should expect from a wise and good Governor; and I think, sir, if you were duly to consider this subject, you would acknowledge that the design of revelation was, 1. To make known the being of God, 2. To make known his will, and, 3. The consequences of doing or not doing it. I think, sir, your good sense will enable you to see, that God must first have declared himself as God, or Adam had not believed it, "for faith comes by hearing"—and that as a wise Governor, he would not leave him destitute of a knowledge of his will; but declare it to him, as the rule of his life.
The next point of difference I shall notice, is, the design of miracles. That Moses, and the prophets, Christ, and the apostles, wrought miracles, is evident; and that these miracles are ascribed to God is evident. But what design had God in the working of these miracles is now the inquiry.
To point out the purpose for which miracles were wrought, we must suppose the Lord had some important purpose to answer, in thus controlling the laws of nature from their ordinary course. And if we look into the bible, we shall find that the great design was to attest the divine mission of those whom he authorized to bear his messages to mankind. Then, "to the law and to the testimony," and let us see if a "greater mistake than this cannot exist in the mind of any man." Or let us see if it be a mistake at all.
From the force of bible testimony which I shall now adduce, I hope to make the design of miracles manifest, even to the most sceptical. Notice. The design of miracles was expressly declared, at the time they were wrought.
When God sent Moses to the Hebrews, to tell them that God had sent him to deliver them, Moses said, Ex. iv.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, "They will not believe me—for they will say the Lord hath not appeared unto thee." Now, God told him to "cast his rod upon the ground; and he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent." And the Lord said unto Moses, put forth thy hand and take it by the tail, (and he put forth his hand and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand,) that they may believe that the Lord God of their fathers hath appeared unto thee." V. 8. "If they will not believe thee, neither hearken unto the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign." Nothing can be more explicit than this avowal of the design of those miracles. And to convince you that they accomplished their design, read v. 39: "And Aaron spake all the words which the Lord had spoken unto Moses, and did all the signs, and the people believed." Can you read those explicit declarations, sir, and say, that the design of those miracles was not to confirm the mission of Moses and Aaron? Once more and I have done with Moses. When God appeared unto Israel on Sinai in the fire and cloud, he said unto Moses, "I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee forever." Ex. 19:9. There the avowed object of this sublime mir-
acle is to confirm the mission of Moses. Some of the prophets wrought miracles to confirm their mission; or God wrought miracles by them for that purpose. While we find the avowed object of miracles to be, to confirm the testimony of God's messengers, and also that the miracles of some of the prophets are recorded, I think we have no just reason to suppose that they did not all work miracles for the same purpose. Elijah was answered in his request, when he prayed that it might not rain—again when he prayed for rain—He continued the oil and the meal of the widow of Zarephath—he raised the widow's son—he brought down fire on the fifties who came to take him, that it might be known he was a man of God—he brought fire to consume the sacrifice—the wood—the water and the altar, that the people might know that the Lord was God.—Elisha caused the iron to swim—raised the dead child, and cleansed the leper; and from attending circumstances, there is no doubt but the prophets were all in the habit of working miracles.—The captive maid said, she would to God Naman was with the prophet of Israel, for he would heal him. And when Naman came to the king of Israel to be healed, Elisha said, send him to me, "and he shall know there is a prophet in Israel." Thus plainly intimating that a prophet was known by his miracles.
But in reference to Isaiah and others you seem to be elated with your imaginary triumph, and enquire when the prophecies of Isaiah and others were confirmed by miracles, and then say, "I think sir you would be difficulted to find it, indeed there is no such thing written." Hold! my good sir, not quite so fast, do not say it is not written that Isaiah wrought a miracle "to give credence" to his testimony, See 2, Kings 20, 9, and Isaiah said, "this sign shalt thou have of the Lord," "that the Lord will do the things he hath spoken," v. 11, and he brought the shadow [of the sun] ten degrees backward." It is not convenient sir, for me to find language to express my astonishment, that a teacher in Israel" should make statements so opposite to bible truth, as you have made, sire, in this case, and in some others. Indeed I hardly expected to be under the necessity of saying to you, "ye do err not knowing the scriptures."
I do not pretend that we have positive testimony that each one of the prophets wrought miracles, but we have positive evidence that many did, and circumstantial in favor of all.—Neither have I said that miracles was the only testimony. But I have said and proved, that Moses and some of the prophets wrought miracles, and that to attest their mission.
That Christ and the apostles wrought miracles, I need not prove, because you do not deny; but you deny the design to be, to attest their mission, once more then I must call your attention to the bible, where you will find the Son of God appealing to his miracles to prove the propriety of his claims. He says, "if I do not the works of my father believe me not, but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works;" again, "believe me for the very works sake." Once more he vindicates his divine authority by an appeal to the testimony of John, and then to his miracles, "But I have great witness than that of John, for the works which the father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me." "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this Book, but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God."—Can you say sir in view of all this testimony, and more too, that the design of miracles was not to confirm the mission of God's messengers?
In reference to the Apostles you make this wonderful remark, "mark then dear sir, particularly, that these signs were not to follow the apostles themselves. Bear with me sir, while I call your attention once more to the bible, which you have the misfortune to differ so much from. Paul appeals again, and again to his miracles as the infallible evidence of his apostleship.—To the Romans, he appeals to the "mighty signs and wonders" which Christ wrought by him. To the Corinthians he says, "truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you, what were the signs of an apostle? Paul says "they were signs & wonders and mighty deeds," the same followed all the apostles. "God also bearing
them witness both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles." But what were the signs which were to follow the apostles? Look at the commission, "these signs shall follow them [apostles] who believe, in my name shall they cast out devils" &c; and this they did, the devils bear witness, saying "Paul we know" &c. I hardly know what to think of you sir, for almost every step I advance, I find your remarks clashing with the bible. But I am inclined to think it is because you have not "duly considered the subject." You say these signs "shall not follow the apostles." The bible says they shall, and says they did.—You say again, "these signs should follow them who believed the apostles, word, both men & women, no exception. But Paul says "are all workers of miracles?" Paul denies that all had this power of miracles. When speaking of the spiritual gifts, where he says is given by the same spirit, to one the word of wisdom, to another knowledge, to another miracles, thus affirming that all had not this gift, making very particular "exceptions."
Having thus shown beyond all successful controversy, that Moses and the prophets, Christ and the apostles all wrought miracles, and that to attest their mission, I shall notice one idea more and then pass to, what is the gospel?
You say, "that there can be no churches of Christ, unless they can prove themselves so by miracles". I think then sir, that you are prepared to say, Christ has no church; nor ever had: if to be his church every member, "men and women" "without exception" must work miracles; For surely you "would be difficulted" to find one in the apostles days, every member of which "without exception" wrought miracles. Indeed we have no record of such a Church. I should not deviate from the truth, to say, there is no such church among all the sects of the present day. And you sir, will not be so presuming, I think, as to say you belong with such a church. If you should, I can prove to the contrary by more than 500 witnesses.
The third point of difference I shall notice, is, What the gospel is. That Christ & his apostles preached the gospel, and the whole gospel, we both agree, and that the "world has departed from the gospel," I shall not deny; but believe it has been made void by the traditions of men," and is in some measure to this day; not excepting yourself sir.
You say, "this then, is what I contend for, that the gospel as preached by the Savior and his apostles, and as written in the new testament has disappeared"
This question will be determined by ascertaining what the gospel is.
I have asked you, "is that which is now written in the New Testament the gospel." You say the gospel is the power of God. Well, what is the power of God? You say it is "God's scheme of saving men." What then is God's scheme of saving men? You say "it is putting men into possession of the power of God." Now look at it. The gospel is the power! The power is the scheme!! and the scheme is the putting men into possession of the power!!! This is like the boy's answer to his father, when he asked him, where is the chain, he said the chain is with the plow. Where is the plow? He said, it is with the drag. Now when the father can find out where the drag is, he can find where the chain is also: So with me, when I can learn the last, I shall know the first.
But sir, leaving your vague and indefinite answer; in receiving your whole communication, I conclude that what you call the gospel is that power by which the sick are healed miracles wrought &c. And that this power to work miracles—confer the Holy Spirit, speak with tongues &c. has disappeared, I agree with you. But sir, I hope to show you that that power is one thing, and the gospel another.
The gospel then, is the glad tidings of a Savior, and of salvation to all nations. This is the gospel which was "Preached before unto Abraham, saying in thee shall all nations be blessed," see Gal. iii:8. This gospel is called "the word of truth" Eph. i:13. "ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation." When Christ says, "go ye into all the world and preach the gospel," he means the same as, "go teach all nations and in teaching (or preaching) the gospel they were to "preach the word," "the word which God sent by Jesus Christ," this word is called the New Testament, or gospel, and is written in the Bible. This
is the gospel which Paul preached—which "he received by revelation of Jesus Christ," hence every man that has got a Bible, has got the gospel, and the whole gospel. Hence the gospel has not disappeared.
He then, who preaches that word which is written in the New Testament, preaches the gospel; and I can but say sir, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed unto another gospel," "which is not another."
One of two conclusions sir, you must come to. You must say that what is written in the New Testament is not the gospel, or the whole gospel; or you must say that your visions, revelations and prophecies are no part of the gospel. If the whole gospel was revealed by Christ and his apostles—and that gospel is written in the New Testament, then sir, no after revelation can be any part of the gospel; and if you, or I, or an "angel from heaven, preach any other gospel," than that the primitive saints received, Paul says, "let him be accursed." If you preach what Christ and the apostles preached, you preach the gospel, or you preach "another gospel." And if you preach only what they did, you reveal nothing, you only proclaim what was before revealed.
But perhaps you will wish to plead, that, as the gospel is "power," that the word is not the gospel; but sir, "where the word of a king is power." "The word of God is quick and powerful." "The scriptures are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith." But "the word did not profit, when not mixed with faith. See 1. Thes. ii.13. "The word of God which effectually worketh also in you that believe." thus you see, "the gospel (or word) is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth."
You say "the gospel is only of use to men, when there is somebody to administer it to them." To this sir, "I must object with every feeling of my heart:" for to all intents it makes us dependent on men for salvation. I pity the world if they are dependent on the caprice of men for their salvation. I think sir, there would be "but few saved."
This is not the gospel the apostle taught; he said, "it should come to pass that whosoever called on the name of the Lord should be saved."
I think I have proved to the satisfaction of the candid, that the whole gospel has been revealed, and is now recorded in the New Testament; hence not lost, but in our possession. It follows then, that if we have got the gospel, there is no need of further revelation. We do not want another gospel. If the gospel was in the apostles' day able to save sinners, it now is. If it was then a sufficient rule of life, it now is. If it was then perfect, it is now. And if the primitive disciples needed no more to make them wise unto salvation; neither do we. Why then dear sir, do we need more revelations?—Surely we do not: then we need not expect it.
As I have abundantly shown that miracles were to attest the mission of God's messengers—and that their mission has been thus abundantly tested; it follows then, that as we need no more revelations, neither do we need any more miracles: and this is the reason why we do not have them.
Now sir, if you say the gospel is now written in the New Testament, then you must say it has not disappeared. But if the gospel has disappeared, then that which is now written is not the gospel—and if not the gospel, what is it?
While I thus plead that we have the gospel, I admit that the sects, (not excepting your own) have departed from its order. You ask, "if the world has departed from the gospel, how is it to be restored but by revelation?" I answer, the gospel does not need to be restored to the world. Let the world return back to the gospel, and its order, and all will be well.
I will now conclude this letter, by requesting you to reflect what further light you can on this subject.
And subscribe myself
Yours in Christian kindness.
PRESIDENT S. RIGDON,
Conneaut, May 24th, 1836.
P. S. As you have published our correspondence thus far, I shall expect you will publish this also, and entire.
Kirtland, June, 1836.
Mr. O. BARR:
Sir—I have received your last, and I think that it will not be strange to you, that I should be surprized at receiving such a production from your pen.
When a gentleman, gratuitously, gives a challenge to a whole society, and any one of them sees proper to accept it, and replies to him in a respectful manner, it will surely be expected that he will be treated with common courtesy. This, sir, was my expectation; but you must know if it were, that in reading your letter I must have been greatly disappointed; for surely you know, that so far from its being respectful, it is scurrilous. Your plow and drag story, savors of any thing but christian propriety and decorum; but perhaps you designed it to be as the shade in the picture, to make the other parts of your letter appear more brilliant. If this were the case, I think you acted wisely; for it would certainly require the very dregs of vulgarity to have that effect upon your letter.
You, sir, have certainly forgotten that you had written a letter, previously, or if you had not forgotten it, you neglected to read it before you wrote your last; otherwise you never would have written as you have; for you seem to have written about almost every thing, but the subject which you introduced in your first letter, and to which I replied.
Let me invite you to go back and look a little at your first letter. In the second paragraph I read as follows: "How can we know that their communication is a revelation from God? Will their bare assertion satisfy us that God speaks by them? I say no. We must have evidence or we cannot believe. But what evidence will satisfy? Nothing short of a miracle—[mark this last sentence particularly]—If a person should say that he had a communication from God, and then to convince us that God did speak by him—should say to a dead man arise—and he should rise up. Or he should command the elements, and they should obey him—the winds should cease to blow, and the waters to flow; these miracles done, would be sufficient evidence that God spoke by him. But these miracles would need to be done publicly, in the presence of friends and foes, that there might be no ground for cavil. And these miracles would need to be continued until the revelation was completed, and no longer."—This is sufficiently plain to show that you make the entire design of miracles to be for the purpose of establishing revelations.
But if there is need of any more proof as to the light in which your first letter presents the subject of miracles, it is found in the following expression. "And if no new revelation is to be made, why should miracles be continued?"
The foregoing leaves the subject without doubt, and it amounts to this: That nothing is to be received as a revelation but what is confirmed by miracles; and those miracles must continue all the time the revelation is giving; and that the design of miracles was to establish revelations and nothing else; for when you say "And if no new revelation is to be given, why should miracles be continued?" You virtually say, that miracles had this alone for its object. To this then in our letter to you, we objected, and said "that a greater mistake could not exist in the mind of man." We say so still; and if we needed any thing to convince us of it, your last letter is sufficient to do it, most effectually.
These assertions of yours we met with fair argument and scripture facts, and we conclude from your last letter that our arguments were unanswerable; seeing you have not been able to touch them.
The first argument was, that God sent messengers into the world who gave revelations to mankind, and by whom God spake, that never confirmed their mission, nor their revelations by miracles. And the second was, that persons wrought miracles who never gave revelations to the world. These facts being established, your whole theory vanishes; for if there were revelations given, and the persons who gave them never established their revelations, nor yet their own mission by miracles, the question is forever settled, that your theory is false. And if there are persons mentioned in the scriptures, who wrought miracles that never gave revelations to the world; then it is a question never to be controverted by honest men, that miracles had some other object besides establish-
ing revelations; even if it could be proved, that in some instances they were wrought expressly for the purpose of establishing revelations. This is all we ever tried to prove or wanted to prove; for this done, it was enough for our purpose; for it left your theory forever worse than a bubble; either the result of the most consummate ignorance, or foulest corruption.
Now, Sir, you may labor and labor, again and again; you may bring up all the persons mentioned in the bible from Genesis to Revelations, who wrought miracles; and though you should prove that a hundred, or a thousand of them wrought miracles to prove that they were messengers sent of God, and that the revelations which they gave were from God, and when you have done, your theory at last, is as false as satan; and that for the best of all reasons, because there were other messengers sent of God who gave revelations to men, and through whom God spake to the world, who never wrought miracles for any purpose of which we have any account; and a theory which requires us to believe that they did, when we have no such account, is founded upon false principles, and is without foundation in truth.
This, sir, you seemed to be apprized of, and thought to obviate the difficulty by drawing an inference that they all did so. This you did in defiance of the bible, and with an affrontery surely peculiar to yourself; because it is positively said of John the Baptist that he wrought no miracle; see John's gospel, chap. 10, ver. 41; and yet he was a prophet, yea, more than a prophet, and God spake through him, and he was the messenger of the Most High, and yet he wrought no miracle to prove that he was a messenger of God, and that God spake through him; and yet, sir, in the face of this positive declaration you have had the affrontery to say in your letter (drawing your conclusion from premises which you had laid down) that all the messengers of God did work miracles to prove their mission; and their revelations to be of God. And why, I ask, was this foul inference drawn? Because, sir, you saw that unless you could establish it to be so, your whole theory fell to the ground; and rather sir, than renounce a false system after all your pretentions to honesty, you would endeavor in a sly and shameful manner to establish it by drawing an inference in open defiance of the plainest declarations of the bible.
But, sir, this is not all the foul attempt made in your last letter; there is another of equally as bad, if not worse character. I allude to the attempt to make it appear, that the Savior when he said to his apostles, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned: and these signs shall follow them that believe." That the them in that instance, alluded to the apostles themselves. In this attempt, you have put at defiance all grammatical rules, and surely made common sense ashamed. The schoolboy of ten years old can detect you in this senseless attempt. And yet you are an honest man willing to learn the truth!!! O tempora! O mores!! Here we need battalions of exclamation points and interjections without number.
Did you think, sir, that any gentleman who regarded the laws of righteousness and the rules of propriety, would ever condescend to investigate any subject with a man who could descend to such shameful means to support any cause. If you did, sir, you have as little acquaintance with human nature, as you have with the rules of propriety.
Once more upon this subject. You speak of my being elated with my imaginary triumph. This is as foolish and as wicked as some other attempts in your letter. Was there any such appearance in my letter as my being elated with anything? I say there is not the appearance of such a thing; it is an attempt on your part to misrepresent as shamefully as you have done in other cases; no sir, so far from this, you confess in your second letter that mine to you was written in a kind spirit. Who of common sense does not know that there is a great difference between writing in a kind spirit and being elated with an imaginary triumph. But now to the case of Isaiah, about which you made the above false assertion.
You knew most assuredly, if you read my letter with any degree of attention, that I had before me when I wrote, your theory, which required that revelations had to be established by miracles which were wrought in the presence of both friends and foes,
and that these miracles must continue until the revelation was closed.
Now, sir, I say hold—not quite so fast, sir. How is your theory established by the case of Isaiah? Isaiah commenced prophesying in the reign of Uzziah, and terminated in the reign of Hezekiah—a space occupying a little over an hundred years.
You have shown that in the days of Hezekiah, the sun went back on his dial fifteen degrees; but, sir, where is your theory in all this, that the miracles must needs continue all the time the revelation is given. Was this the case with Isaiah, judge ye? And here let me remark, that it is you, sir, who have been elated with an imaginary triumph; and imaginary one, sure enough.
As I said in my first to you, so say I again: Where is it written that the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos, Malachi, and others, were confirmed, as you say I say, sir, there is no such thing written; and if you believed your own theory, you would deny that those writings were revelations from God. But, sir, your conduct manifests clearly that you do not believe your own theory.
Now, sir, all that you have said and quoted, or can say and quote, about the messengers of God working miracles to prove their mission, or revelations, or both to be of God, leaves your theory to be one of the most senseless things that was ever put on paper by a rational being.
As I have had a peep into your grammar, I will look a little into your logic. I find the following sayings in your letter.
Again: "You seem to admire consistency, come then and look at your own. You say "it is impossible for one man to be dependent on another for his knowledge of the way of salvation," and yet you make us dependent on the tradition of men for the idea or knowledge of God." Now sir, this is about on a par with the rest of your letter. I am now looking on the first paper, where I ever saw it written by the pen of a man who pretended to be a man of letters, that our first idea, and our knowledge of a thing was the same thing.
Did I make any person dependent on tradition for his knowledge of God? Most assuredly, sir, I did not. I said we were dependent on man for the first idea we had of the way of salvation and of the existence of a God; but our knowledge was a very different thing, and I must confess that I am no little surprised at you. Is it possible, sir, that you came forward with such great boldness to challenge a whole society to an investigation of the subject of religion, and yet you do not know the difference between a man's first ideas and his actual knowledge of a thing? How do you think, sir, a man is to reason with such a being?
Your ideas of God as a moral governor are about on a par with the rest of your letter, the direct opposite of the bible. What does a man pray for but to obtain the will of God. "Seek and you shall find. Ask and you shall receive. Knock and it shall be opened unto you. If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God who giveth liberally to all men, and upbraideth not."—What! a moral governor thus requiring his subjects to seek after his will, and more particularly, when he wants them to serve and obey him; how strange this is! Why not have told them without asking, and have commanded them to obey? Strange or not strange, however, God is just such a moral governor, it matters not how much any person may differ from it.
Once more and I am done—you take quite exceptions at the apostles definition of the gospel: that it is the power of God unto salvation; but I am not to be accountable for this; for after all you have said it still stands written that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, to all them that believe.—The apostle did not say that it was the power of God to them who did not believe; and this is the reason why it is not the power of God unto your salvation; you do not believe, and the fate of the unbeliever is plainly told by the sacred writers, your works are sufficient evidence that you do not believe. Those who believed what the apostles taught, received the power of God unto salvation. Those who did not believe did not receive that power, and was of course damned.
And seeing you have declared that you are among the number of unbelievers. I warn you in the name of Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood conferred on me by the revelation of Jesus Christ, to repent of your sins, and be baptized for the
remission of them, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit by laying on of the hands of those who are ordained in these last days unto that power, or you shall be damned; for your great ignorance of the things of God, clearly manifests that you are in the gall of bitterness, and bonds of iniquity, and an entire stranger of the gospel of Christ: having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof, from such my master commands me to turn away, as I do from you; believing that if I were to indulge you in writing any more to be published in the papers in this place, I should offend the readers thereof. Seeing that the least discerning cannot help but see, that you are capable of any violation of the rules of investigation and of the most unwarrantable affrontery; and that the fear of God is not before your eyes, for if it were, you would not put at defiance all scripture, all reason, all language, all common sense; for surely your letter is shocking to all.
Before you ever present yourself again as a braggadocio challenging with a high hand, people to investigate with you the subject of religion, I would seriously recommend to you to get some Yankee school master to give you some lessons on english grammar, that you may know that them apostles is not quite according to the rules of grammar, and also get some country girl to give you a few lessons on logic, so that you may be enabled to tell the difference between a man's first ideas and his knowledge.
By way of conclusion I say sir that I feel myself insulted by being brought into contact with such a man and the correspondence between you and I closes. Farewell
DIED—In this place, on the 15th inst. NAOMI HARMON; aged 11 was a member of the church of the Latter Day Saints, and died in the triumph of faith, often saying to her parents, and to her brothers and sisters, not to weep for her; or in other words, not to feel bad, for she said that it was better for her to go than to stay! for she knew that she should be happy, she wanted to go and be with Christ and her brothers that had died and gone before her.
Messenger and Advocate
Kirtland, Ohio, June, 1836.
The undersigned inform all whom it may concern, that the firm of F. G. Williams & Co., is this day, by mutual consent, dissolved; and that all debts due the said firm must be paid immediately to Mr. Cowdery, who has purchased the entire establishment, and will be responsible for all debts due from the same.
F. G. WILLIAMS,
Kirtland, Ohio, June 7, 1836.
N. B. Printing, in its various branches will be executed by the subscriber, at the late stand of F. G. Williams & Co. on short notice and reasonable terms.
June 7, 1836.
In consequence of the dissolution, noticed above, the entire charge, responsibility and burden of an infant, yet expensive establishment, rests for its future operations, on one individual. A portion of our time, our talents, and our temporal means, have heretofore been devoted to the building of the house of the Lord, that the Elders might be endowed, the saints be edified and the church of God be built up according to his commandment. Therefore, of necessity pecuniary embarrassments are pressing upon us like a fatal incubus and we say that remittances must be made; for they are indispensable to the continuance of our own business.
Our friends and patrons are fully sensible, that all temporal business, however intimately it may be connected with eternal things, requires temporal means to prosecute that business.
Our terms for the Messenger and Advocate have been one dollar a year payable in advance. Many have received our paper almost, or quite, from its commencement, and are yet in arrears. We wish it now to be distinct-
ly understood, that all our subscribers, who shall not have paid us our dues and manifested their wish to continue, on or before the first of Oct. next will be stricken from our subscription list, except at our discretion.
We here take occasion to remark, that a goodly number of our friends and brethren have been prompt in payment, and a few have been liberal in forwarding us money. To all such, we tender our heartfelt gratitude, and pray the Lord to bless them abundantly.
Our readers at a distance may not exactly relish the acerbity of some articles that we have admitted into our columns in this month's paper. If so, we refer them for some of our reasons, to our editorial article in the May number of the Advocate where a few of them, at least, are briefly stated. We now say it is as unpleasant to us to be under the necessity of making such severe strictures on the character and conduct of any of our fellow mortals, as it can be revolting to their feelings to read them. But when men say all manner of evil of us falsely, and we tamely submit, when we may lawfully repel their wicked assaults: we tacitly admit the justice of their course. Therefore, in our own defence we are sometimes, reluctantly compelled to answer fools according to their own folly.
FROM OUR ELDERS ABROAD.
Doubtless our patrons, and more particularly the brethren, will marvel that they through our columns, hear no more from our travelling Elders this season; we say, in answer to such an inquiry, should one arise, that we have two re[a]sons to offer, on our part; and first. Our elders have not been as free as usual in their communications to us; those few that have been out on short missions and returned, and those who have favored us, with but a short sketch of their travels and labors, give us to understand that their most sanguine expectations, have been realized, and in some instances more than realized. 2d. We have had a press of other matter that we deemed necessary to insert, therefore, that subject has been deferred.
We have now determined to select and lay before our readers a few items from the accounts we have, both oral and epistolary.
Elder Luke Johnson writes from Sackets harbor May 24th as follows—I have labored about two weeks in this county, and the Lord has blessed my labors. There is the most calls for preaching that I have ever known. I have baptized nine, and there are more who calculate to come forward when I return. I am now going to Orange county, and calculate to return in about a week.
The Lord has blessed me beyond any thing that I had realized before.—I can say like one of old, the half has not been told me.
Elders A. Lyman and N. Tanner write us from Portage, N. Y. under date of May 10th, that between that time and April 7th, they had travelled three hundred and fifty miles, held twenty meetings, and baptized six; we use their expression when we say the "sick are healed, and the promises of the Lord are fulfilled unto us."
Br. John Harvey writes us from Canada, under date of May 30th, stating that Eld. O. Pratt had been preaching in Branford, Mount Pleasant, and Mallahide, Upper Canada, and that he had baptized six in the former place, and two in Mallahide. He further adds, that there were many more believing. We knew Elder Pratt had not at that time been long in that place, for he had been but a little time absent from this.
Elder Leonard Rich states to us verbally, that he left Kirtland about the 12th of April, travelled into the county of Niagara, in the state of New York, preached seven discourses and bapti-
zed 9. The Elder assures us that he had full congregations of attentive hearers; some who had formerly been bitter opposers to him and the doctrine he inculcated, yielded to the force of truth and reason, and to all human view, became his friends. The elder, from a previous agreement, felt under an obligation to his family and friends at home, to return in a short time. He therefore, feels deeply to regret, being under the necessity of leaving a field of useful labor so soon. May the good seed which he has sown, take root downward and bear fruit upward, to the glory of God the Father.
Elders Granger and Millet left Kirtland in May, travelled south as far as Richland county in this State, held eleven public meetings and baptized 29 in that county and two in Portage county on their return home. It will not, we trust, be improper here to remark, that these elders were absent from here but 8 days, and in one of the most busy seasons of the year, yet under all circumstances, say they, many followed us from place to place, and listened attentively while we held forth the words of life and salvation. A goodly number, as we have seen, were convinced of the truth and willing to obey the commandments of the Lord. So "grows the word of God and multiplies."
The venerable Patriarch of our church Joseph Smith, sen. and Elder John Smith set out on a mission from this place, May 10th, to visit some of the branches of the church south of this, to regulate them and set in order the things that were wanting; they returned again on the 18th, being absent but eight days, during which time they either baptized, or witnessed the baptism of 16, and 95 received their patriarchal blessing. Although their stay was necessarily short, yet the Lord of the harvest appeared to crown their labors with abundant success, and a number, from a thorough conviction of the error of their former ways, followed them home and were baptized in this place, on the next Sabbath after their return. Thus we see, that when men. (and they are but men) go forth clothed with authority from on high, and the ancient order of things is being established according to the word of God, the honest in heart see it, and know it, and prejudice and error give way before the light of truth and reason. While we are penning this article, these aged fathers are about to set out on a mission to the East. We most devoutly pray the Lord to be with them and bless them. We also entreat our brethren in the Eastern churches to receive them cordially, entertain them hospitably, and above all, to appreciate their instructions. The Lord, for his Son's sake preserve them in health and strength and return them to the bosom of their families and the church in this place in peace.
For the Messenger and Advocate.
At a conference convened at the house of br. S. Utley, Chalk-level, Benton county, Tennessee, agreeably to previous notice, on the 28th and 29th days of May, 1836: the congregation being called to order, Elder D. W. Patton was called to the Chair, and Elder Warren Parrish appointed Secretary; the conference was then opened by singing and prayer and proceeded to business.
The chairman arose and made some preliminary remarks touching the object and order of the meeting; and called upon the official members to inform the conference of the manner in which they had taught; also their present faith in the fulness of the gospel as contained in the bible, book of Mormon and book of doctrine and covenants.
Elder W. Woodruff arose and expressed his feelings upon the subject, to our entire satisfaction. The chairman then called upon all the official members present to rise if they concurred in the sentiments which Elder Woodruff expressed: the vote was unanimous; also the church gave their assent to the same by raising their hands.
Benj. L. Clapp, priest, was then called upon to represent the Taropen branch, which consists of 28 members in good standing.
Daniel S. Thomas, priest, represented the Clark river branch consisting of 10 members in good standing.
Elder Abraham O. Smoot represented the Blood river branch consisting of 10 members in good standing.
Elder Woodruff represented the Academy branch consisting of 10 mem-
bers in good standing, with the exception of their not observing altogether the word of wisdom.
Deacon A. B. Willson represented the Chalk-level branch, consisting of 27 members in good standing with the exception of some few who have been shaken of late, in consequence of the ungodly conduct and teaching of J. Jackson. teacher.
Elder Woodruff represented the Eagle creek branch, consisting of 15 members in good standing. He also represented Cyprus branch consisting of 10 members, 3 of whom had apostatized, 3 are disaffected, and 4 in good standing; this branch has been under the care of John Jackson, teacher, who has apostatized—but are not without any official member. Eld. Woodruff also represented 7 members scattered abroad not recognized with any branch.
Elder Benj. F. Boydston, preferred a charge against John Jackson, teacher, in Cyprus branch, for unchristian conduct and heresy in denying the book of Mormon and revelations on God, and using his influence to disaffect others, by saying that he believed them to be a deception, and tyrannical in their nature. He manifested much anger.
Said Jackson was notified to attend this conference and answer to the charges preferred against him! he did not appear, the charges were sustained by many witnes[s]es and we cut him off, by raising our hands against him. Sister Jackson was also dropped, and a brother by the name of Howard H. Williams, was also cut off.
Mr. Jackson held a license as a Teacher: he did not attend our conference and from the disposition which he has manifested we conclude that we could not obtain his credentials if we were to call on him.
By the unanimous voice of the Chalk-Level branch, Deacon A. B. Willson was ordained a priest. By the recommendation of the same branch of the church, Br. Albert Petty Esq. received the ordination of a Teacher.
Mr. Jesse Tarpin was recommended as a fit subject, to receive an ordination as the spirit should dictate, which was that of a priest.
Those who ordained by orders of the chairman, under the hands of Elder W. Parrish.
A charge having been preferred against Elder Daniel Cathcart, for unchristian conduct and erroneous teaching, we convened a council of Elders on the evening of the same day, and took his case into consideration. The charges were sustained by many witnesses; Elder Cathcart was then called upon; he frankly confessed and heartily repented of his sins and was restored to full fellowship.
D. W. PATTEN,
To the Editor of the Messenger and Advocate.
DEAR SIR—For the purpose of making a few remarks on the following extract from a paper published at Liberty, Missouri, I ask the indulgence of your columns.
"Independence, Mo. }
May 3d, 1836. }
"Letters from Kirtland Ohio have been received here by the last mail from persons of undoubted veracity giving information that the Mormons in that place and its vicinity, to the number of 1500, or 2000 are arming and coming on to the upper Missouri. This information is confirmed by our merchants returning, and other travelers coming from the East, who say that every boat ascending the River contains more or less of them; some 20, and one as high as 205. Those who did not shew guns openly, had boxes of the size usually made to contain guns. At the last advices from Kirtland all the County Officers were filled with Latter day saints. H. C."
The whole of the above extract, I pronounce to be a base and wicked fabrication; one that is known to be so, by every man that has had any opportunity of viewing for himself the conduct and character of the church of Latter Day Saints, in this town. Instead of boats being crowded with passengers to the number of 205, or even 20, from this place, within the last year, there has not over twenty persons, in all, gone from Kirtland to Missouri, by water, within a twelve month, to my own certain knowledge. The writer's statement in regard to all the officers in this county being filled with Latter Day Saints, is too barefaced to
need any comment. Nor should the extract have been noticed at all, but for the purpose of exhibiting to a candid public, the means resorted to by the enemies of religious freedom, to injure a people whose only crime, if so they choose to call it, is a desire to enjoy the privileges guaranteed to them by the constitution of the United States, and a willingness that all others should have the same, to the utmost, of whatever persuasion or name, religious or political.
No respectable man has ever yet, to my knowledge, pretended to say that the Latter Day Saints, as a society, have been guilty of any infringement of the laws of their country; or that they have refused to comply with any of the requisitions of the government under which they live. On the contrary, they are admitted, by all men of candor, to be peaceable, upright and honest in their dealings with the world; kind, benevolent and charitable to the poor and distressed in every situation, whether of their own belief or not; molesting none others in their mode of worship; and in fact, in all things, doing to others as they would wish to be done by.
Then why all this hue and cry against them? Not only are their characters vilified and slandered by every little two penny filthy sheet from Maine to Georgia, opposed to the rights of conscience, and especially by those (and with sorrow and mortification do I say it,) who profess to be followers of the Savior of the world, though their actions bespeak them to be perfect antipodes to every characteristic that should mark the conduct of christians—but time and again, are they perplexed and harassed with suits at law, brought by their enemies on trivial pretences, and often for no cause at all; men dragged or driven from their homes at the point of the bayonet; their wives and children cast headlong into the pitiless storm, to endure all the privations of hunger and cold, without a shelter, or yet scarcely clothing sufficient to cover them from the insults of an infuriated mob; while their goods are destroyed at sight, or thrown to the four-winds, to be left to the mercy of men as regardless of honor or humane feelings as the mobbers themselves. At other times, members of the society, against whose characters not a shade of suspicion has ever yet been brought, are dragged from their slumbers at the hour of midnight by beings who wear the forms, yet deserving of any other than the appellation of MEN, and treated in a manner, to think of which, would cause the most ruthless savage of the forest to blush.
And all this, too, in our boasted land of liberty; under a government where freedom of conscience, of speech, and of the press, are considered to be among the most exalted privileges enjoyed—and for which our fathers left the shores of Europe, and afterwards freely shed their blood in its maintenance on proud Columbia's soil.
Have the Latter Day Saints infringed any of the provisions of the constitution in the exercise of their religious belief? I say they have not.—For that constitution itself says, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercised thereof." From which it must be inferred, that the framers of that instrument did not consider themselves clothed with the right to make any regulations in regard to this matter; nor yet of granting such power to the Congress of the nation.
What does the constitution of Ohio say on the same subject, (to which, if I recollect right, that of Missouri, is nearly similar in regard to religion.)—
It says, "That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of conscience; that no human authority can in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place or worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious society or mode of worship, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or trust or profit."
This extract from the constitution of Ohio, is made for the special benefit of those who have been, and are yet, foremost in persecuting the saints, in this section of country; and it should, I think, be taken as a text-book by those of the different sects in our own neighborhood, between whose professions and works, on the subject of religious liberty, there is so great a contrast—
Justice, however, requires me to say that honorable exceptions have been found among men of every denomination; men whose consciences are not bound by the chains of priestcraft; who are not compelled to bow their heads at the beck and call of every man who arrogates to himself the sole right and title to the patent of saving or damning souls, at his own good will and pleasure; and who will exercise their own opinions, regardless of the friendship or enmity of this crooked and perverse generation: and to those my remarks are not intended to apply. But these exceptions are few, and seldom to be found. I wish to be understood as speaking to that class, who, to save their own craft, and to gratify a bigoted and malignant heart, do not hesitate, in their opposition to the saints, to go beyond the bounds of truth and common decency. And as all men will have to give an account, at the bar of God, for their deeds, I would advise those who make, as well as those who publish falsehoods against the church of Christ, to beware, lest in endeavoring to injure an innocent society, they heap up to themselves everlasting condemnation; for the scriptures say that without CHARITY all else is vain; and if the abuse and persecution of the saints evinces a charitable feeling, then I must confess that I am entirely ignorant of the true definition of the term.
Having said thus much, I now ask, in candor and in the soberness of truth, the honorable portion of my fellow citizens, why the church of Latter Day Saints should be deprived of a privilege which the constitution of Ohio says "no human authority can in any case whatever, control or interfere with." For if the principle is good in regard to one society, it must be so to all, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. If this society is to be persecuted and mobbed on every occasion that may suit the fancy or interests of men who disregard all law, human and divine, the same may be done to others in like circumstances—and where, I ask, would it be likely to end? To contemplate the consequences of such a course, is enough to chill the blood of every patriot and christian in our land. If this spirit of intolerance is not discountenanced and frowned at by every virtuous man in community, but a few more suns may shine upon the heads of this generation, till we may say farewell to our boasted liberty; till every man's hand will be raised against his brother; till the measure of unrighteousness will be filled up, when God, in his wrath, will come forth from his hiding place, to cut the wicked from the face of the earth, and cast them as stubble, into unquenchable fire; and the righteous be gathered to that haven of rest, even the mount Zion, where the weary will find rest, and the wicked cease from troubling.
I have but a word to say to the author and publisher of the extract in question, that is to repent, speedily, and turn from their service of satan, lest vengeance as a whirlwind overtake them; for the Lord has said that all liars shall have their part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone!
Br. O. COWDERY:
Sir—I have just received the desperate information, that Simons Rider, in consequence of the notice which I have taken of him, is going to prosecute me; and I greatly desire, through the medium of your paper, to plead with him for quarters. For O! I do not want to be sued for the terrible crime of telling the truth about a man.
I know that the truth is a tight fit upon Simons, and I think it is likely that it hurts him some too; as no chastisement for the present is joyous but grievo[u]s, nevertheless afterward it yields the peaceable fruits of righteousness to them who are exercised therewith. And could Simons avoid sueing me, for a little season, perhaps it might have that effect upon him. O Simons! do not sue me if you can any way avoid it!
But if Simons cannot in his patience possess his soul, I think I can put him on a better scheme to ally his feelings, and I think gratify them perhaps more.
I have an old uncle in the state of Maryland, that was never married, and
he possesses a large property. I would say to him, get his brother Adamson Bentley (for he is an animal of his own kidney) and go there; he is now about eighty years of age, & of course it is will-making time, and about the right age for Bentley to prevail on him to make a will that will disinherit a monstrous heretic. I think it is probable there will be no difficulty in engaging Bentley in his service; seeing he has been so successful in his former attempt with old Mr. Brooks, my wife's father, and got his own wife so—well fattened on other people's property.—He can, no doubt, be engaged again for the same service. Be sure my uncle is not a Campbellite in religion, but a regular Baptist; but that will not make any difference; for Bentley can become all things to all men, that he may gain some.
This course I think may satisfy Simons until his chastisement works out the peaceable fruits of righteousness, and I will escape being sued; and if my family should lose a few thousand dollars, if Bentley's wife only gets it, it is as well; it is all in the family.
Simons would do well also to say to his brother Darwin Atwater, as he has a great deal of labor to carry about and read Howe's book, that he can be favored with the history of old Clapp, his wife's father, to carry with him; so that he can shew the people Campbellism unveiled also.
Yours in great haste, and you may well think, not without some anxiety too.
We are requested by our Elders now in Tennessee and Kentucky, to notify our brethren and friends, that a conference of elders and brethren of the church of Latter Day Saints will be held on the first Friday, Saturday, and Sabbath, in September next, at Daymons creek, Calloway co. Kentucky.
Kirtland, Ohio, June 3, 1836.
The following is a List containing the name of Ministers of the Gospel, belonging to the church of the Latter Day Saints, whose Licenses were recorded, the preceding Quarter, in the License Records, in Kirtland, Ohio.
First, names of the Elders:
Milo Andrus, Arvin A Avery
Elijah Abel, Sampson Avard
Hazen Aldrick, Martin C Allred
Stephen Burnet, Loren Babbit
Elias Benner, William Bosley
Henry Benner, Nathan B Baldwin
Hiram Blackman, Francis G Bishop
Joseph B Bosworth, Israel Barlow
George W Brooks, Albert Brown
Alva Beman, Peter Buchanan
Reuben Barton, Josiah Butterfield
James Braden, Thomas Burdick
Benjamin Brown, George Burket
George Boosinger, John F Boynton
James Burnham, Lorenzo Booth
Seymour Brunson, John P Barnard
Lorenzo Barnes, Michael Barkdull
Harrison Burgess, Peletih Brown
Almon Babbit, Aldon Burdick
Oliver Cowdery, Jared Carter
Simeon Carter, William O Clark
Jacob K Chapman, Lyman Curtis
William Carpenter, Alpheus Cutler
John Carrill, Anthony Cooper
Lebbeus T Coons, David Clough
Elijah Cheney, Reynolds Cahoon
Zebedee Coltrin, William F Cahoon
Warren A Cowdery, Perry Durfee
Osmyn M Deuel, Jabez Durfree
Moses Daily, Edmond Durfee
Peter Dustin, Isaac Decker
James Daily, Israel Duty
Chapman Duncan, George W Cunham
Solomon W Denton, William Draper
Sen Hiram Dayton, David Evans
James Emett, David Elliot
Frazier Eaton, Solon Foster
King Follet, Rufus Fisher
Noah M Faunce, Hezekiah Fisk
Elijah Fordham, James Foster
Edmond Fisher, William A Fry
Elisha H Groves, Alpheus Gifford
William Gould, Jedediah M Grant
John Gould, Sherman Gilbert
Michael Griffith, Hervey Green
Moses I Gardner, John P Greene
Salmon Gee, John Galord
Selah J Griffin, Levi Gifford
Thomas Grover, Oliver Granger
Thomas Gorden, Jonathan H Holmes
Joshua S Holman, Levi W Hancock
Elias Higbee, Solomon Hancock
Joel Haskins, Milton Holmes
Nelson Higgins, Reuben Hadlook
Elias Hutchings, Orson Hyde
Jesse Huntsman, John Herret
Richard Howard, William Harris
George M Hinkle, Heman Hyde
Samuel James, John Johnson
Henry Jacobs, Truman Jackson
Michael Jacobs, Luke Johnson
Daniel S Jackson, Lyman Johnson
Joel H Johnson, Levi Jackman
Vinson Knight, Heber C Kimball
Newel Knight, Joseph Keeler
Joseph A Kelting, Joseph C Kingsbury
Ashbel A Lathrop, Lyman Leonard
Benjamin Lewis, Aaron C Lyon
Amasa Lyman, Nelson Lyon
Moses Lindsley, Isaac Morely
Thomas B Marsh, Artemus Millet
Reuben McBride, George Morey
John Murdock, John Mackley
William E McLellin, Samuel Miles
Moses Martin, Jeremiah Mackley
Joel McWethey, William Marks
Joseph B Noble, William Parkes
Levi S Nickerson, Uriah B Powell
E F Nickerson, William Perry
Samuel Newcomb, Edward Partridge
Roger Orton, Stephen Post
Gideon Ormsby, John E Page
Amos R Orton, David W Patten
W W Phelps, Parley P Pratt
Orson Pratt, Ambrose Palmer er
Warren Parrish, Dexter Palmer
Morris Phelps, Noah Packard
Sidney Rigdon, Lewish Robbins
Robert Rathbun, Shadrach Roundy
George Rose, Charles C Rich
Harlow Redfield, Burr Riggs
Leonard Rich, George Robinson
David H Redfield, Ebenezar Robinson
Joseph Rose, Sylvester Smith
Joseph Smith Jun, Jonathan Stevens
Joseph Smith Sen, Uzziah Stevens
A Jackson Squiers, Henry G Sherwood
Ezra Strong, Erastus Snow
Almon W Sherman, Samuel H Smith
Cyrus Smalling, Stephen Starks
Zerubbable Snow, Don C Smith
Jaazaniah B Smith, William Smith
Hyrum Smith, John Smith
Dexter Stillman, Milton Stow
Hiram Stratton, Peter Shirts
Lyman Stevens, John Tanner
William Tenny Jr, Samuel Thompson
Nathan Tanner, James L Thompson
Charles Thompson, Julius Thompson
Ezra Thornton, Jonathan Taylor
F G Williams, Coerge Willson
Peter Whitmer, Stephen Winchester
Michael B Welton, Benjamin Winchester
Lorenzo Wells, Henry Willcox
Harvey G Whitlock, Willford Woodruff
John Whitmer, Daniel Wood
David Whitmer, Levi Way
Edward M Webb, William Wightman
Chancey G Webb, Alexander Whiteside
James Webb, Hiram Winter
Brigham Young, Joseph Young
Lorenzo Young, Phineas H Young
Secondly, names of the Priests
Ira Ames, Julian Moses
William Cowdery, Uriah Roundy
Joseph Cooper, John Robinson
John Daily, Samuel Rolfe
William Draper Jr, Daniel Tyler
Thirdly, names of the Teachers
Hail Bronson, Ransom Vanleaven
Fourthly, names of the Deacons
William Burgess, Andrews Tyler
Robert W Bidwell, Diderick Westfall
Agreeable to the decision of the High Council of Kirtland, held March 8th, 1836: wherein Cornelius P. Lott and others were put on suspense; this is to all whom it may concern, that I confess the decision of the Council to be just and righteous; and that we were in a wrong spirit and were led to say many things that were wrong concerning brother Cyrus Smalling and the church, for which I ask the forgiveness of those who, in so doing, I have injured; and I will endeavor to live hereafter by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.
CORNELIUS P. LOTT.
Kirtland, May 23d, 1836.
Died in this town on the 27th ultimo. Miss MARY SMITH, in the 35th year of her age. The deceased was a member of the Church of the Latter Day Saints and died in the triumphs of faith.
The ruthless hand of the destroyer is among the works of God. This afflictive stroke of God's providence speaks to all in terms too plainly to be misunderstood, "be ye also ready."
Let us all profit by this dispensation, realizing, that it is truly "better to go the house of mourning than to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men, and the living will lay it to his heart.
——In this town, on the 27th ult. Mrs. MARY SMITH, widow of Asahel Smith, aged 93 years.
|THE LATTER DAY SAINTS'|
|Messenger and Advocate,|
|Is printed and published every month at Kirtland, Geauga Co. Ohio, by|
|EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR,|
|All $1, per an. in advance. Every person procuring ten new subscribers, and forwarding $10, current money, shall be entitled to a paper and year, gratis.|
|All letters to the Editor, must be|
|—> POST PAID. <—|
|No subscription will be received for a less term than one year, and no paper discontinued till all arrearages are paid, except at the option of the publisher.|