BEING A DISCOURSE, GIVING AN EXPLANATION OF SOME OF The PROMINENT DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, DELIVERED BY ELDER WILLIAM BUDGE, AT CHESTERFIELD, AUGUST 10TH, 1879.  
(Phonetically Reported.)
 
My Brethren, Sisters and Friends:
 
I am thankful for the privilege of speaking to you a short time this afternoon. I am anxious to explain, whenever opportunity affords, the nature of our faith. And I presume that, on this occasion, I am justified in feeling that our friends who have kindly visited our meeting room have come for the purpose of learning something regarding that subject.
 
In this free country, where we congratulate ourselves in enjoying and allowing the greatest freedom to everybody, I presume we will, all of us, speaker and congregation, exercise the privilege of explaining and reflecting upon the things that may be said; so that our friends, I trust, will leave us understanding a little more about the nature of our religion than when they came to the meeting.
 
I can feel, in part, the interest that exists, even in the minds of our friends. They have, doubtless, heard about the Latter-day Saints. They have had the opinions of men who have spoken in the pulpits, and who have written books about the "Mormons," and they, very likely, have come here under certain impressions in regard to the "Mormon's" faith.
 
I am sorry to say that experience has taught me that the public generally have been deceived. I am gratified sometimes in listening to acknowledgments of this kind from our friends who have heard for themselves, and have thus been able to judge intelligently as to whether the reports which they have heard from our enemies are correct or not.
 
It seems strange, but it is nevertheless true, that many people who wish to know the faith of the Saints go to their enemies to learn of them. I do not know whether our kind {120} friends have thought of the inconsistency and injustice of such a course as this. If I wished to learn what the Roman Catholics believed in, I do not think, at present, that I would go to the Protestant Church to learn it; or, if I wished to learn what any denomination of professing Christians believe, I do not think it would be just for me to go to some other denomination to ascertain it. In the first place other churches might be led—perhaps unwittingly, perhaps intentionally—to misrepresent the faith of their neighbors, and I might be deceived through their misrepresentations. On the other hand, there is no need of my going to any one church to learn the faith of another people, because I can go just as easily to their own church to listen to their explanations, and thus be sure of getting information of their peculiar views, without trusting to the misrepresentations of their neighbors. Now I submit that such a course as this is right; it is just, and accords with our impressions of a fair and just hearing and consideration from the parties most interested, as to whether their faith be correct or not.
 
Of course we have no disposition, as Latter-day Saints, even if we had the power, to constrain any person to believe our doctrines. We have not the power; we have not the disposition. It is not for the purpose of using an undue influence in any respect, or in any degree, in favor of our faith, that we preach to our friends. We simply wish to explain to them the nature of that religion of which we are ministers—laboring under a feeling of anxiety to deliver the message with which we have been sent, that our friends may have the privilege of receiving or rejecting it, just as they think proper. But, in the meantime, while we are explaining it, my friends, be pleased to follow me with your faith and sympathy and good wishes, so far as your assistance may help me to lay before you the peculiar faith and doctrines of the Church with which I am connected, that you may be able to judge, and I will place before you, as plainly and briefly as I possibly can, some of the prominent doctrines of our Church.
 
I approach the subject feeling that I have the sympathy of many good friends, because I feel there exists an impression upon their minds that a system of religion that has more power with it than those now taught, is necessary. I approach the examination of this subject because I believe that many of our kind, honest, well-wishing friends—those who desire to serve God according to his will and pleasure—are under the impression that there exists a confusion so general, and errors so prevalent, that religion seems to be losing its {121} hold upon the minds of the people; and, of course, we, who have faith in God and in his revealed word—as contained in the Old and New Testaments—deplore a state of things which indicates a departure from that respect and reverence which we wish to see existing and manifested on the part of the people towards the Supreme Being.
 
What is the reason, my friends, that people are becoming irreligious? What is the reason that people talk of sacred things lightly? What is the reason that men, who have heretofore been respected as ministers of religion, are now little thought of? It is simply because the religions that are taught are losing their hold upon the minds and affections of the people; because the religions that are taught do not supply the want that men and women feel; because the word preached by most ministers carries with it no power to convince people as to the truthfulness of the doctrines that are presented, or the sinful condition of the people to whom they are taught.
 
The present condition of the Christian world does not present that union, that love, that we expect from the perpetuation of the doctrines that Christ taught, and it is this fact, understood by many, that increases their doubts and strengthens their objections to what is called "Christianity." The New Testament teachings lead us to expect a state of unity in the Christian Church. The admonitions of the Apostles were to the effect that the Saints in early days should be united together, that they should understand alike, that they should speak the same things, that they should be of the same mind and of the same judgment. Such are the words of the Apostle, to be found in I Cor., 1, 10.
 
Now, my friends, does such a state of things exist around us in connection with the Christian churches that we might expect from the nature of a perfect religion, introduced by Christ? Does there exist, at the present time, a state of things so perfect as to agree with the expectations raised from the teachings of St. Paul in this Scripture that I have quoted? I think not. I am safe, I believe, in stating—and I think our friends are prepared to agree with me—that there does not exist amongst the Christian denominations, that unity and that oneness of faith, peace, kindness, and love which, by reading the New Testament, we might expect to appear amongst them as the true fruits of Christianity. And it is upon this I wish to make a few remarks before proceeding to explain to you, from the Bible, the nature of our faith.
 
Of course the existence of a number of denominations called "Christian" cannot be denied. But we are told that all {122} the Christian churches exhibit to us one church: that if one denomination does not teach the whole perfect plan of religion revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ, all the churches put together do; although there may be divisions existing amongst the members of these denominations. Unless we accept this view we must object to Christianity on the ground that we cannot find which of all the Christian denominations teach the truth. Here is one church called Christian that teaches certain doctrines, another more or less in its teachings contradicts them, a third teaches doctrines that are in conflict with the other two; and so we might go through them all, and speak in like terms of those who think honestly enough that they are serving God.
 
Now, my friends, I will ask—First:—Is it reasonable to suppose that God would sustain two distinct religious churches as his churches? Is it reasonable to suppose that God would set up two distinct religious bodies, the ministers of which teach different doctrines? After learning from the Bible so much indicating the anxiety of God's inspired servants for a time of perfect unity, I say it is not reasonable to suppose it. And just so long as two distinct religious systems exist, teaching different doctrines and preaching different principles, there exist a conflicting influence, division, feelings perhaps very strong if the difference in doctrine is very decided. If it is not reasonable, what are we to do? How can we account for such a condition of things?
 
This leads to the position we occupy. We want to know something more.
 
Is it true that the bodies called "Christian" at present represent the Church of Christ? Or is it true that they have ignored some things belonging to the perfect doctrine of Christ, and taken as their guide, their own conclusions in regard to what is right, which leads to this division of doctrine? How is it? But I will endeavor to show that it is unscriptural as well as unreasonable for us to receive different Christian bodies as the Church of Christ.
 
I will direct your attention to a few passages from the word of God. Jesus, when he sent the Apostles to preach in the first place, said to them, "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature." Not any system that might be termed a Gospel. There was no choice left to anybody. He spoke definitely in regard to the Gospel plan which he, the Son of God, came to the earth to set up. Paul, in the first chapter of Galatians, 8th verse, says, "Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than {123} that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Paul, one of the apostles, taught the Gospel, the same Gospel that Peter, James, John and others taught. They all taught the same system. And Paul said in another place, that he went up, by revelation to Jerusalem, taking Barnabas and Titus with him, and communicated the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles (Gal. ii, 1, 2), thus showing that he taught the same thing everywhere. You see, Paul's words and practice show that he did not admit of the least change or alteration from the Gospel as taught by Christ, and preached by the apostles to the people. In another place it is said, "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrines of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son," (2 John ix,) showing us that he taught strictly the necessity of abiding in that form of doctrine which had at first been delivered. I quote these passages to show you that the Gospel which Christ and the apostles first taught was intended to be taught continually, without change, and that none had a right, not even an angel from heaven, to preach any other Gospel than that which had been delivered at the first.
 
Do you agree with this? Because I am about to examine, in detail, some of the doctrines that will readily show to you the difference between the ministers of the true Gospel, and the ministers of the so-called Gospels that are preached at the present time. But are you prepared to come to the conclusion, with me, that it is the old Gospel, Christ's Gospel, the doctrine of the apostles that we ought to seek and follow, if we expect eternal life? Or do you think you are safe in following the teachings of men, who have made great changes from the ancient Gospel, with the following passage before you? If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed" (2 John, 10th verse). Do you think you can obtain God's blessing by being members of a church or churches that teach doctrines opposed to what Christ taught? How is this?
 
"Well, certainly," says one—a Bible believer—"of course I wish to have the religion of the Bible. I would like to have the religion of Christ. I do not admit of any departure." This is right. This is consistent. Of course, if there is a question as to whether God has made any change in his primitive faith, revealed through Christ, we shall consider it; for I am willing also to make a change, if God has authorized it. I am quite willing to accept any doctrine that God has revealed from heaven for my salvation. I confess to you that I have {124} no disposition whatever to maintain private views or speculations which may have been engendered on my own part, through reflection. I wish the doctrine of Christ, as Christ taught it, as the apostles taught it, and I will not, with the light that I possess, depart one particle from the letter and spirit of that ancient plan. And if there are any friends here who have heard that the Elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not believe in the Bible, let them judge. There are no practices pleasing to God, or likely to bring his blessings upon the heads of the children of men, except those inculcated by him, through his servants by the power of revelation from heaven, so that we will not depart from the Book. We will not teach doctrines that are opposed to this book, but we are prepared to show our friends, in the spirit of kindness, that doctrines opposed to those contained in this Book are displeasing to God, and are not calculated to bring peace and salvation to the children of men.
 
"But," says one, "what matters it whether we go this road that you point out or some other? You know if we can get to heaven one way, is not that as good as another?" We will try to illustrate this idea. If a man wish to go to London, says the enquirer, may he not go the road that leads towards the south, or a road that leads towards the north, as the case may be; what matters it so that he gets to London? It would not matter in the least. He might go the road that led to the north, or that which led to the south, and by making a shorter or longer journey, as the case might be, he might get to London. But you see there is no parallel between this figure and the facts in regard to religion, because there are not two ways to get to heaven. This is the difference. There are two ways to get to London probably, perhaps more, but you see there is only one way to get to heaven, so that when we admit, as an illustration, a figure of this kind, we start with an error and it leads us astray.
 
The Bible speaks of one way. It speaks of two ways. It speaks of a broad road, that leads to destruction, and it speaks of a narrow way that leads to eternal life. So you see there is only one way that leads to heaven, and if any one persuades us that the wide road will lead us there, he deceives us, for there is only one way, and it is narrow. The Bible is very plain upon this, because the doctrines are steadfast and sure, and the words are plain that there is but one way that leads to life and glory. Now that is the way we want to find out.
 
Jesus came, he said, to do his Father's will, not his own. He called apostles and ordained them, and he said, "As I have {125} been sent, so send I you. Go and preach the Gospel to every creature." That was their business. But he said, "Tarry ye first in Jerusalem, until ye are endowed with power from on high." Jesus called the apostles. He ordained them himself. He instructed them personally, and he commissioned them to preach the Gospel to every creature. But he wished them to tarry at Jerusalem until they received power from on high; a certain gift which God had promised, that they might be qualified, in every sense, to discharge the important duty devolving upon them, of administering words of salvation to a fallen world. The apostles did this. They gathered in Jerusalem. They were there on the Day of Pentecost, and whilst there, in the upper room, the endowment of which Jesus spoke was given unto them. The Holy Ghost came upon them, in the upper room, as a mighty rushing wind, and it sat upon them as cloven tongues of fire. And, whilst under that influence, the apostles who were sent to preach the Gospel, stood up—at least Peter did, as the mouth-piece of the rest at that time—to preach the Gospel that Christ sent them to declare. Now, what was it? Let us lay a good foundation as we proceed.
 
Were they qualified to preach it? I do not think any Christian will doubt it. If they were not prepared to teach the Gospel of the Son of God, then I would have no hope, my friends, of hearing it in this life. Never. Jesus himself chose them. He ordained them; he instructed them, and after all this, as you will find, in the 2nd chap, of the Acts of the Apostles, 1st, 2nd and 3rd verses, they assembled in Jerusalem, and had fulfilled unto them the promise of the Lord Jesus Christ, receiving the endowment of which I have been speaking.
 
I think that all my friends here are certainly prepared to accept the words that Peter spoke, and acknowledge them to be true. What did Peter say? First, he preached Christ and him crucified. You see the people, who had gathered together on the day of Pentecost, were people who had no faith in Christ. They had rejected him and his instructions. They had been of those who persecuted Christ and the apostles. They were of those who had either personally or in their sympathies sustained the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. Therefore, Peter, knowing this, stood up and preached to them, first Christ and him crucified, and he was successful. Who can doubt it? Peter, a servant of God, ordained by the Son of God. Peter, upon whom the Spirit of God rested as tongues of fire, as the Scriptures have it. This man stood up and argued the point, and explained about Jesus. And who can doubt the result? I am sure we would have been disappointed {126} if we had been told in the Bible that Peter was not successful. He was successful. Many believed on him, and the result of their belief was that they said, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts ii, 37). No wonder they asked that question. People who had either helped to crucify the Lord, or who had rejoiced when he was crucified, as many of them did, to be convinced that that same Jesus whom they had assisted to crucify was indeed the Lord, the Christ, and when they were convinced of this they cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
 
Peter was prepared to tell them. He had the very instructions that were needed, and the words of Peter are applicable to-day, my friends, to you and to me, so far as we have not obeyed them.
 
We are believers in Christ, I trust. We have fortunately made our appearance in this life, in the midst of a people who at least believe in the divinity of Christ, and we have received impressions favorable to this end; therefore the words of Peter, spoken to those who believed in the divinity of Christ, are applicable to us, and are the words of salvation to us, if that ancient Gospel is not changed. What were the words? He says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts ii, 38).
 
Was that the Gospel? Yes, unless the apostles disobeyed the instructions of Christ, because they were sent to preach the Gospel, and they were endowed that they might preach it perfectly and represent God, the Maker of heaven and earth, in the words and spirit by which they presented it unto the people.
 
Now, my friends, faith in Christ was the first principle of the Gospel; repentance of sins was the second principle; baptism for the remission of sins was the third principle, and then the reception of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands, as taught by Peter on that day in Jerusalem. Is there any objection to this? "None at all," says one, "that is Scriptural; we cannot object to it." A Bible believer cannot object to it. But what is becoming of us if such doctrines are not taught? "Well," says one, "are they not taught?" No. "Faith in Christ" is taught, and "Repentance of sins is taught," although by some people the latter is taught first, before faith in Christ. Some teach that we must repent of our sins before we can have faith in Christ. This is a mistake. We cannot possibly repent of sin committed unless we are convinced that we have committed the sin. We cannot repent of laws broken, {127} which Jesus has taught through his apostles, unless we are first convinced that Jesus was divine, and had the authority to teach them; so that faith in Christ and his divine mission must be the foundation of our practice as Christians. And the first effect th............