Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate/Volume 2/Number 9/Letter to Oliver Barr from Sidney Rigdon (June 1836)
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
SIDNEY RIGDON.