Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate/Volume 1/Number 2/Letter to Oliver Cowdery from Warren A. Cowdery (Oct. 28, 1834)

by Warren A. Cowdery

Freedom, Oct. 28, 1834.

DEAR BROTHER:—

When the world, from time to time, has been deluged with the blood of those who dissented in their faith and practice from the professing world around them, it may be thought difficult to discern between the real followers of the Lamb of God and the hypocrite; for the reason that all dissenters were once few in number, compared with their opposers, and were compelled to receive the curses and reproaches of an unholy throng. From such premises, would it not be an irrational conclusion, and tax the Almighty with mutability of purpose to say that they are all alike accepted of him? that he looks at their sincerity only and that he has respect to any and every ordinance, even though they may not be of divine appointment?—One believes that baptism should be performed by immersion; a second by pouring; a third by sprinkling; a fourth is satisfied with any method, and a fifth believes that no ordinances are now required, but that all are done away. Some believe that revelations from God were once received, but that he has now for a long time ceased to reveal his mind and will to the children of men. I would ask such as are willing to accept any thing or nothing, for baptism, if our Savior has given a new commission since the days of the apostles, and left out baptism and the laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost, as nonessential? Prove that position from the scripture and I yield the argument. If this point cannot be supported by scripture argument, it must be by modern revelation, or one of two points must be conceded: first, it is untrue, or, it of necessity follows, that the sincere infidel who believes in neither, has as good a hope of endless felicity beyond the grave as the most zealous christian. For it follows of necessity that God is constantly changing his purposes; varying his ordinances, even in the same dispensation, and does not, (on the principle believed by a majority of the sectarian world,) condescend to reveal it to the children of men, and yet requires an implicit obedience to all his commands, as the ground of their acceptance with him.

On the subject of revelation there is diversity of opinion. Many of those who believe only in ancient revelation: But should such an one perchance tell me he was called of God to preach, I would challenge him to show me his commission from the high court of heaven, or convince me he was sent of God on that all important errand, or has even been renewed by divine grace, without a revelation of God to him. Perhaps, the objector will be willing to admit, for his own safety, and that of his sectarian friends, that he or his friends, have had so much revelation as to convince him that his sins are forgiven and that God has called him to preach his gospel. Admit so much, and then see the dilemma into which the objector has fallen. If God has revealed to one in these degenerate days, that his sins are forgiven; that he has called him and committed to him a dispensation of the gospel, certainly he may do so by another, coeteris paribus; for he has done so anciently, he has done so in these last days; he may do so again, and more also, for he is immutable, and "is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him." The objector may say, that God has for a long time ceased to reveal himself other than as above admitted. To which I would reply, that in every dispensation from the creation down to the present time he has revealed himself by his mercies and his judgments, and even having the ordinance before them, and yet disbelieving them, never changes the purposes of the most High, nor destroys one fact. Did the antediluvians believe the preaching of Noah? certainly not. Did the sectarians heed the admonitions of righteous Lot? not in the least. Did the company of Kora, Dathan and Abiram give ear to the commands of the Most-High by the mouth of his servant, Moses? By no means. Did Saul follow the Lord and hearken to his counsels and precepts as did David, the man after God's own heart? He did not. Did the Jews, as a nation, receive the Messiah? They did not. Did they then, or do they now admit, as a nation, that he rose from the dead? They did not, neither do they now; but the bare denying of a fact will never disprove it. Though they fabricated, and perpetuated a most barefaced falsehood to corroborate their erroneous sentiments, still it did not obtain universal credence? Hear them: "Say ye, his disciples came and stole him away while we slept; and if this come to the governor's ears we will persuade him and secure you:" From the preceding admissions of the objector two points are incontrovertibly established: first, That God has had, in every dispensation, those who feared him and worked righteousness: 2nd That in every dispensation those who disbelieved, and disobeyed, were cut off in and for their unbelief and rebellion.

Who then, I ask, were they to whom he ever condescended to reveal himself? certainly not to those who believed he would not, for their acts have not been characterized with that strict regard for all his commands which has always been the prominent features in the conduct of all those to whom he ever condescended to reveal himself. Therefore, he came out against them in judgment. If he dealt so with his people anciently, will he not deal with them now in the same manner under similar circumstances, if he be the same God? He has certainly (as admitted by all) sent a pestilence in our time, that has walked in darkness and wasted at noon day. "Surely (says the scripture) the Lord will do nothing but he revealeth his secrets to his servants, the prophets;" and if the prophets warn the people to repent and they give no heed to their warning, you must admit that it is no more evidence that they are not the prophets, and that the Lord has not revealed this unto them, than that the unbelief of the Jews did away the validity of the mission of the blessed Savior into this lower world.—But says the objector, your prophets are bad men, and deceivers. In reply, I would say, So said they of the ancient prophets: even the Savior of the world was called a deceiver, and yet he was no less than the Son of the living God. The Jews denied the new testament and its divine authority, but that does not render it nugatory.

From the foregoing remarks we may infer, 1st, That the more righteous, holy and pious any people are, the more sure they are of having their names cast out as evil, by an unholy throng: 2nd, That the unbelief of a wicked world in the testimony of the Lord's prophets, never averted the calamities that have, from time to time, been foretold should come upon the ungodly: 3rd, That the unbelief and sinfulness of a wicked world is what destroys the communications between God and the children of men: 4th, That the unbelief of the many will not destroy the belief nor the intercourse with heaven of the few, whom God has chosen even in these last days: And 5th, That his truly faithful followers are sure of persecution here, and crowns of glory hereafter.

Yours truly.

W. A. COWDERY.

To OLIVER COWDERY.

P. S. Our little church, are, as a body, growing strong in faith. We had an excellent meeting on Sabbath and Sabbath evening.

I have had thoughts of requesting you to enquire what is the will of the Lord concerning me, and what he would have me to do.—It appears to me, that I am willing to submit to any privations, or perform any thing that I can be made fully sensible he requires of me. Sometimes I think I can be useful in the vineyard of the Lord, but if that time ever comes, I must have more purity of heart, more of the Spirit of the living God, and stronger faith. I must have that wisdom which is from above which is first peaceable, then pure; easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.

I have read the last Star with a great deal of interest. Your address to the patrons of the Star is admirably written. There are a few orthographical errors; but the sentiments, I think, are excellent. In your answer to mine of the first ultimo, I think you handle Mr. Beebe of the Baptist Register, rather unceremoniously; but, perhaps no more so than he deserves. I hope you will soon find time to review the affidavits published in Mr. B's Register, and give the world a statement of what you deem facts on the subject.

Although I have never seen your lady, I feel an interest for her welfare, and hope you will assure her, and our other relatives in that place that they all share amply in my affections.

I remain cordially yours,

W. A. C.