 |
| The
Church of the Latter Day Saints |
| Just
prior to the departure of the main body of men that would become known
as
Zion's Camp, a Conference of
Elders renames the Church of Christ to the Church of the Latter Day
Saints. The change is suggested by Sidney Rigdon, seconded by Newel K. Whitney,
and after some discussion, passes unanimously. Oliver Cowdery writes the following
editorial for The
Evening
and the Morning Star. |
| |
|
THE SAINTS |
|
EMS 2, no. 2 (May 1834): 158–159. |
| |
¶ |
UNDER the head Communicated
on the last page of this number, will be seen the Minutes of a Conference
held by the elders of The Church of the Latter Day Saints, in this
place on the 3rd of this month.
|
|
Minutes
of May 3, 1834 |
| Popularly
called Mormonite |
|
It is now more than
four years since this church was organized in these last days, and though
the conferences have always shown by their minutes, that they took no other
name than the name of Christ, the church has, particularly abroad, been
called "Mormonite." As the members of this church profess
a belief in the truth of the book of Mormon, the world, either out of contempt
and ridicule, or to distinguish us from others, have been very lavish in
bestowing the title of "Mormonite." |
|
|
| We
do not accept it |
|
Others may call themselves
by their own, or by other names, and have the privilege of wearing them
without our changing them or attempting so to do; but we do not accept
the above title, nor shall we wear it as our name, though it may
be lavished out upon us double to what it has heretofore been. |
|
|
| Stigma
will fade |
|
And when that bitterness
of feeling, now cherished in the bosoms of those who profess to be the followers
of Christ, against the church of the Latter Day Saints, shall cease to exist,
and when fabrications and desipient reports concerning this society are
no longer considered a virtue, it will take its rank, at least with others,
and these stigmas will forever sleep with their inventors. |
|
desipient:
Trifling; foolish; playful.—Webster, An American Dictionary,
1828. |
| If
one church is right, all others must be wrong |
¶ |
It is not our intention
to go into a lengthy investigation of names, in this article, nor shall
we examine, particularly, the claims of each party to the right of heirship
in the house of God. This thing is certain, however, if one is right, all
the others are wrong, and if they are all right the bible is not true; for
when the doctrine therein advocated is compared with this confused mass
of heathenism, mockery, and idolatry, the resemblance is so foreign, that
a candid mind would say at once, that if the same being was author of these,
and that book too, he must be possessed of as many different natures as
the "hydra" was of heads.
|
|
hydra:
A water serpent. In fabulous history, a serpent or monster … having
many heads, one of which, being cut off, was immediately succeeded by another,
unless the wound was cauterized. Hercules killed this monster by applying
firebrands to the wounds, as he cut off the heads. Hence we give the name
to a multitude of evils, or to a cause of multifarious evils.—Webster, An American Dictionary,
1828. |
| Denominations
inconsistent with Bible |
¶ |
Let the man who never
heard that there was a bible, or a religion professed by men, the merits
of which they said would waft them to perfection and glory, examine the
contents of that book and note its precepts, and then compare those precepts
with the religions of this age, and where would he find that exact uniformity
which would be necessary, for him to acknowledge that they were one, and
cause the proper conviction that a Superior Being was author of them both,
and cause him to embrace it with an unfeigned co[n]fidence that it came
from his Maker? He might find a list of other names, to be sure,
but as he was not taught by tradition that these names, or the wearers of
them, professed to be like that people represented in the bible, he could
not think that the one claimed any affinity to the other, without an abundance
of labor in manufacturing him over.
|
|
| Lack
of certainty |
¶ |
Should it be urged,
that those professing a belief in the bible, and not only professing a belief
but to be followers of the doctrine contained in the same, were certain
that they were right, we would ask for the example in that book which they
profess came from God, of these different names, and for samples of the
doctrine held forth by them to the world for others to follow, assuring
all eternal life who will yield an obedience to the same? If there is a
sect now extant, professing to follow the teachings of heaven, and cannot,
when they present their system to the consideration of the unbeliever, affirm,
upon the authority of heaven, that by obeying it he is sure of eternal salvation,
what can induce them to hold it out to the inspection of men, and teach
it as coming from God?
|
|
|
| Certainty
necessary |
|
Is the system of man's
salvation founded upon an uncertainty? and is it of that curious compound,
that there can be a thousand ways, and all mean the same thing, and at last
effect the same object? |
|
|
| Consistency
with ancient church necessary |
|
If it is urged that
the ancient Saints were a different people in worship, had different ordinances,
were partakers of other joys and privileges, and all this was necessary
for their salvation, might we not with propriety ask, why was all this necessary
for them, and is now unnecessary for those whose profession says that they
are heirs of the same kingdom, children of the same Parent, and are expecting
to be equal sharers with them in those joys which never fade, in that house
not made with hands? |
|
|
| Mere
belief in Bible not enough |
¶ |
If it shall be further
urged, that among all these are to be found the children of the kingdom
of God, because each profess to believe the bible, we again ask for a sample
in the sacred record where he ever took from Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes,
Herodians, Samaritans, and of the other different sects, and called them
the children of his kingdom?
|
|
|
| Must
be of same faith, body, and Lord—Saints |
|
We admit, that from each
of these, such as would repent and be baptized, were permitted
to enter his kingdom, and were then recognized as his children; but all
were one, professors of the same faith, members of the same body, and followers
of the same Lord. They had no distinction of sects, this was lost when they
obeyed the commandment, and were admitted into the church. They all followed
one form of teaching, and each observed the same ordinances; and if a difference
of opinion arose, the matter was decided by revelation. Thus they all walked
the same road, were members of the same family, partakers of the same joys,
and heirs to the same incorruptible inheritance—In short, they were
the church of God, they were his SAINTS. |
|
|
| Lord
required same order |
¶ |
Had the apostles found
the churches which they built up and organized, separating into different
parties, some observing one ordinance and neglecting another, another party
observing the ordinances which the first neglected, and neglecting the one
which another observed, in what manner would the apostles have written to
them on the subject? After reproofs and corrections, (for certainly, they
would have subjected themselves to rebukes,) if they still continued in
that course, what would have been the result?—Would the Lord have directed
his apostles to write in his name, and acknowledge them as his Saints?
And if the ancient churches were required to observe the same order, where
is the license for such as profess to be like them, to perform only a part
of those ordinances, and yet be equal with them in assurances of eternal
life?
|
|
|
| Same
ordinances, name |
|
When the fact is admitted
that the ancient saints were required to follow the same ordinances, and
that no distinction of names were suffered to exist, may it not be asked,
from whence all these different names, if from them all God is to take a
certain portion, and will ultimately save that portion in his everlasting
kingdom? |
|
|
No
universalism
Ordinances, system necessary |
|
Why not do away all
names except one, if God is to save all? Were the ordinances of the
gospel given for men to follow, or were they not? If the ancients were commanded
to walk by the same rule, and be obedient to the same system, will the Lord
make another people equal with them, whose names have been different, their
actions different, their ordinances different, their performances different
and their whole systems of faith and worship, as diverse from the former,
as the worship of the church at ancient Philadelphia, and the present Hindoos? |
|
|
| Only
Saints entitled |
¶ |
If none were entitled
to the name Saints, except such as kept all the commandments and observed
all the ordinances of heaven, and walked in that perfect manner that
all their actions corresponded, so that in truth they could be called
one family, it is no wonder, that those who have departed from the course
which the ancients were required to persue in order to make their election
sure, should now substitute other names, and that their names should
be as dissimilar as their forms of worship; for certainly, it would be
as inconsistant to suppose, by altering their names without reforming
their systems, that that would give them a greater assurance of eternal-life,
as it would to suppose, that by calling themselves by one, they would
yet all unite in ascribing glory to God for the plan of salvation, founded
upon that act, when none of them agreed in principle. And since they
have departed from the practices of the ancient saints, we do not see
why they should be required to call themselves after their names, thinking
to be benefited by it so long as they do not walk as they did. Their
systems being of their own forming, we know not why they are not at liberty
to name them, and if they choose, call them by their own names, as none
of them pretend that God has ever spoken to them, or given them a name
of any kind.—[Editor of the
Star.] |
|
|
|
|
Missouri 1834
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|