Open Facsimile 1 |
Previous | 1 of 6 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
Subset |
Oliver Barr to Sidney Rigdon. Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland,
Ohio) 2, no. 9 (June 1836): 321–25.
PRESIDENT RIGDON:
Dear Sir, As the investigation in which you are now participating, first
commenced with my brother Eebnezer, 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 dependant 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 word, 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 tradition for
his ideas of God. You say, “some of them sought unto God by rea- [321] son of the faith
they had in the being of God, and obtained the revelation of his will.”
Object Description
| Rating | |
| Author | Barr, Oliver, d. 1853 |
| Title | [President Rigdon:] |
| Edition | Electronic reproduction |
| Abstract | Letter from Oliver Barr to Sidney Rigdon. Barr discusses several points of doctrine on which he and Rigdon disagree. |
| Publisher Original | F. G. Williams and Co. |
| Date Original | 1836-06 |
| Digital Publisher | Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University |
| Date Digital | 2009-06 |
| Owning Institution | Brigham Young University |
| Subject | Book of Mormon--History; |
| Geographic Place Name | Kirtland (Ohio); |
| Genre | Newspapers; Letters; |
| Keywords | continuing revelation; Bible; miracles; |
| Source | Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland, Ohio) 2, no. 9 (June 1836) : 321-25. |
| Related Works | See HBLL Digital Collections, http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/NCMP1820-1846,7257. This is part of an exchange that continued over several years: Oliver Barr to his brother, Ebenezer, Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland, Ohio) 2, no. 5 (February 1836) : 257-58; Sidney Rigdon to Oliver Barr, Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland, Ohio) 2, no. 5 (February 1836) : 258-63; Oliver Barr to Sidney Rigdon, Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland, Ohio) 2, no. 6 (March 1836) : 273; Sidney Rigdon to Oliver Barr, Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland Ohio) 2, no. 6 (March 1836) : 273-74; Oliver Barr to Sidney Rigdon, Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland, Ohio) 2, no. 9 (June 1836) : 321-25; Sidney Rigdon to Oliver Barr, Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland, Ohio) 2, no. 9 (June 1836) : 326-29; Oliver Barr, “What is Truth?” [Mormonism--No. 1] Christian Palladium (Union Mills, New York) 5, no. 15 (1 December 1836) : 227-28; Oliver Barr, “This wisdom descendeth not from above.” [Mormonism--No. 2] Christian Palladium (Union Mills, New York) 5, no. 16 (15 December 1836) : 241-43; Oliver Barr, “Mormonism No. iii.” Christian Palladium 5, no. 18 (16 January 1837): 273–75; Stephen Post, “Mormon Defence.” Christian Palladium 6, no. 7 (1 August 1837): 98–100. Oliver Barr, “The Mormon Defence Refuted [Mormonism, no. 4].” Christian Palladium 6, no. 9 (1 September 1837): 138–39; Stephen Post, “Mormon Defence.--No. II.” Christian Palladium 6, no. 15 (1 December 1837): 230–31; Oliver Barr, “Mormonism--No. V.” The Christian Palladium (New York) 6, no. 18 (15 January 1838): 275. |
| Language | English; eng; en; |
| Patron Usage Instructions | http://www.lib.byu.edu/genericnote_copyright.html |
| Copyright status/owner | Public Domain, Courtesy Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Conversion specifications | E-Image Data Scanpro 1000; 600dpi; pdf |
| Full text | Transcriptions provided by the Maxwell Institute |
| Identifier | 1836_MA_June_b |
Description
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for Open Facsimile 1
