# Title: Letter to Elder O. Barr (on revelation), dated Kirtland Nov. 15, 1835, Messenger and Advocate II:5, p. 258
# Date: 1835-11-15 (published 1836-02)
# Source: http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/RigWrit/RigWrit3d.htm | Provenance: signed SIDNEY RIGDON. High confidence. Contains brief quoted phrases from Barr's letter.

Kirtland, November 15, 1835.

Elder O. Barr,

Dear Sir: -- A letter written by you to your brother of this place, was put into my hands
by him some time since, with a request that I should answer it. A press of business prevented me of doing
it until now.

I can say that it is with a degree of pleasure, that I avail myself of the opportunity of forming an
acquaintance with a stranger, by investigating an item of our holy religion, believing that there is
nothing in this world, which could profit us more, than a fair and candid investigation of the subject
of revealed religion: being myself a firm believer in revelation.

Before I proceed to answer your four principle queries, I will notice some things said in the preceding
part of your letter. You say, "The design of revelation, was, then, 1st To make known the being of God."
to this I must object, and my reasons for so doing are the following. Revelations from God were at all
times the result of the faith of those who received them; for without faith it is impossible to please
him." (God) Now if revelations were the result of the faith of those who received them, this faith could
not exist, without the persons having it, had personally an idea of the being of God. "For how can they
believe on him of whom they have not heard," is an apostlic maxim, founded both in reason and revelation.
This being the fact, no revelation could come only through those who previously had the idea of the being
of God.

With regard to the idea of the being of God, it has doubtless been a matter of tradition, since the
creation of Adam our common parent, who at his creation stood in the presence of his God, and beheld him
face to face, and had the most perfect knowledge of his existence; and having this knowledge, he
communicated it to his posterity, and thus the idea of the being of God came among men. And this idea
being among men, some of them sought unto God by reason of the faith they had in the being of God, and
obtained the revelation of his will.

You ask,
"How was the revelation made to man? Was it made directly to every individual for whose benefit
it was designed, or was it made to individuals, who were chosen and commissioned to instruct the
rest of mankind? That it was not made to every individual it needs no argument to prove. It follows then
that it was made by individuals chosen and commissioned to instruct the rest of the human family. -- On
their veracity then we are dependant for our knowledge of the way of salvation."

If I understand you in these last expressions "That we are dependant on the veracity of
some men for our knowledge of the way of salvation" I must object to it with every feeling
of my heart. Indeed sire, I consider the assertion a contradiction in terms. It is impossible for one man
to be dependent on another for his knowledge of the way of salvation. The first idea that a man has
of the way of salvation, he may have, by reason of the credence he gives to the word of others; but his
knowledge of the way of salvation depends on something very different from this. Nothing less than
a revelation from God directly to ourselves can give us knowledge of the way of salvation; however strong
our faith may be in it, still, it is a very different thing to have knowledge of it.

While I am on the subject of revelations, and by way of reply to your observations on that subject, -- Let
me observe, that though there were men chosen of God through whom he gave revelations to the world, yet
it does not follow of necessity, that those for whose use the revelations were given, had no other way
of testing their truth, but the veracity of those through whom they came. This would to all intents be
staying ourselves on man, and making flesh our arm; which is strictly forbidden in the word of the Lord.

I conceive Sir, that the heavens have always been accessible to the saints of God, and that God who gave
revelations would also give testimony to the truth of them by his spirit, to those who sought it in
sincerity and truth. So that the saints at no period of the world, were indebted to the veracity of inspired
men alone for their firm reliance on revelations.

You again ask, "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 can."

To the idea of our being confined to a miracle, to know that a communication was or is a revelation, I
must object; for it would justify the Jews in rejecting the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah and others;
for we have no account of their ever working a miracle to prove to the Jews that their communications
were a revelation from God, the Jews must have found it out some other way, and if they could not have
done it, they were justified in rejecting them as imposters, and not sent of God. I think Sir, if you
were to consider this subject again, you would find that according to the faith of all believers in
the old and new testament, you have espoused an untenable ground, in saying that a miracle is the only
way by which we can determine that a communication is a revelation from God; for there are a great many
things in the scriptures, that the persons delivering them never confirmed them by a miracle.

The Jews on this principle, were surely justifiable in refusing to acknowledge Jeremiah as a prophet
of God, and his communication, as revelation for he never pretended to confirm them by a miracle; though
he was greatly abused by the Jews and insulted, (at one time cast into a pit, at another incarcerated;)
but no miracle was wrought to prove to the Jews that they were persecuting a prophet of the living God,
and that he was delivering to them the word of the Lord; and if mankind are justifiable in rejecting
every thing as a revelation only what is confirmed by miracles, they were surely justified also.

This is a conclusion Sir which I conclude is at war with both your faith and practice, yet, it is
fairly deductible from your premises, and the only one that can be deduced from them. So that your own
faith and practice are at war with your assertion contained in your letter.

On the subject of confirming revelations by miracles, you descend to particulars. You say, "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 should command the elements, and
they should obey him, the wind 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."

All the reply I wish to make to this lengthy quotations is this. Where is it recorded, that the prophecies
of Isaiah. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Zachariah, Zephaniah, Joel, Haggai, Micah, with a number of
others were ever established as you have said a revelation must be confirmed, in order to receive
credence. I think Sir, you would be difficultied to find it, indeed there is no such thing written, and
yet, you believe these prophecies to be a revelation, and consider the Jews to have been bound by them,
at the time they were written, notwithstanding they were unattended with the evidence necessary to give
them the character of revelations, if your assertions in the above quotations are correct.

I must confess Sir, believing as you do, I cannot see the consistency of your course. It does seem to me,
that in order for you to be consistent with yourself, you must exclude from the canonical books all
those which have not the evidence above required, and if you do this, you will certainly lessen the
quantum of our revelation very much.

As to Moses and some of the prophets performing splendid miracles there is no dispute. Neither as to
Christ and his apostles: but to use the prophets indiscriminately, it cannot be done in truth; for there
are some of them of whose miracles we have no account, neither have we evidence that they wrought any.
But the most objectionable part of this assertion is the conclusion which you draw from them, and that
is, because Moses and some of the prophets wrought miracles, and Jesus Christ and his apostles did so
also, that from these facts you draw the sweeping conclusion, that we are not authorized to receive a
communication as a revelation, unless it is confirmed by such miracles as you are pleased to mention.
But to pass on to your four queries.

They stand thus. "1. Did not Jesus Christ and his apostles declare the gospel,
and the whole gospel to the world? 2. And did they not receive it by revelation from God?
3. Will not the
miracles they wrought expressly to convince the world that they were divinely authorized teachers,
and that what they taught was from God? -- 4. And were not the miracles which they wrought abundantly
sufficient to confirm the fact that God spoke by them?" On these four principle queries
you ask the following questions. -- 1. "If they delivered the whole gospel, What more
is there to be revealed? -- Or what reasons have we to expect more revelations? 2. And if no new revelation
is to be made, Why should miracles be continued?"

In order to reply to these queries, I will in the first place correct a singular mistake, which runs
through your whole letter upon the subject of miracles. You seem to think that the object of miracles
was to confirm revelation, at least take this thought away from your letter and what you have said would
be without meaning. Now a greater mistake than this, could not exist in the mind of man. You talk about
Moses and the prophets, Jesus and the apostles working miracles, to confirm the scriptures as though
there were no other characters in the world who had wrought miracles but them.

I should think from your writings that you had never duly considered the commission given to the
twelve apostles. Which reads thus. "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, not the apostles,
but those that believed on their word. They were to lay hands on the sick. They were to take up serpents.
If they were to drink any deadly thing it should not hurt them. Mark then dear Sir particularly, that
the signs were not to follow the apostles themselves; but those who should believe on their word: there
is no exception here both men and women were alike included. --These signs shall follow them that
believe, making no exceptions.

Now if Jesus and the apostles wrought miracles to prove that they were Messengers sent of God, and that
God spoke by them. For what purpose do you think those wrought miracles, who believed on their word?
was it to prove to themselves that the apostles were men of God? Not so most assuredly, but something
else, and what was that something? Why to prove to the world, that they were the churches of Jesus Christ.
Now Sir as you argue that there can be no apostles and revelators unless they can prove their mission
to be divine by miracles, so, upon the same principle I argue that there can be no Church of Christ
unless they can prove themselves to be so by miracles, and the very same evidence which is brought to
prove one of these things will prove the other. And there is no reasonable man, who is conscientiously
convinced that there can be no apostles unless they can prove their mission by miracles, but must also
be convinced that there are no Churches of Christ unless they prove it by miracles also. For argue that
the ancient apostles did so, and the argument is equally as strong that the ancient churches did so also,
and the rule will quadrate: it will meet at every corner.

I have been no little surprised to hear men contending with all the zeal of their nature to guard the
world against receiving any man as a messenger of heaven unless he can prove his mission by miracles;
and yet call any thing and every thing the church of Christ, miracles or no miracles. -- There is nothing
in the world more pleasing than consistency (I mean to the candid mind) and no man can be consistent
with himself, who says that he is forbidden to receive any man as an apostle unless he can work miracles,
and yet say that he is authorized to acknowledge a society as the church of Christ, without that society
having the gifts which were in the ancient churches.

After saying so much upon the subject of miracles, I shall return to your queries.

Having seen then, that the power of miracles as it existed among the former day saints was of such a
nature as to put it as much out of our power to claim the right of being churches of Christ as for us
to claim apostleship, your queries will be very easily answered.

Let it be observed then, that there is no dispute, as to the apostles having fully preached the gospel,
and of their having proven themselves to be messengers sent of God, but the point of difference, if any,
is this, that the whole religious world have departed from the gospel as preached by Christ and his
apostles, and what the world now preaches is not the gospel, which was preached by the Savior and his
apostles, and that the whole religious world without excepting one sect, is in danger of the curse
which Paul pronounced on the head of those who preach another gospel as there is not one single sect
of all the sects who preach the gospel that Paul preached, and the Galatians received, and as you said,
so say I, "I awfully fear for those false Prophets and false teachers, who are publishing
to the worth for gospel what Moses and the prophets, Christ and the apostles never taught, may God
pity them and save them from delusion."

I wish you to understand distinctly that I believe as much as you can believe, that Christ and his apostles
preached the gospel, and the whole gospel; but I also believe that it was a very different thing from
what is new preached for gospel in the world. Let me invite your attention to some of the differences
between the gospel of Christ and what is now proclaimed in the world.

The first difference then I shall mention is that of the priesthood. That gospel had a priesthood attached
to it, which had the power of getting revelations, and obtaining visions, as well as the ministering of
angels. They had power to administer in the name of the Lord Jesus to the sick, and in his name to rebuke
diseases of all kinds, they had also power to give the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, they
obtained revelations, not only for their own direction in the world; but for that of the churches also
that they raised up. So that they were truly ministers of Christ sent forth to minister in his name to
all who would believe, and by means of this ministry, and power, they could build up the kingdom of Christ
among men, and establish his cause in the world. The gospel that men preach in these days have no such
ministry or priesthood: the priesthood of modern times has no such power or authority. No revelations;
no ministering of angels; no heavenly visions; no ministering of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the
hands, and yet claim to be the ministers of Christ acting under the same commission, and the same
authority as they did. Surely the disparity is too great no to be seen by the least discerning. Will you
be so kind as to shew [show] to me how this great difference can exist, and yet the two priesthoods be
the same priesthood, acting under the same commission, and the priesthood of the same gospel? For take
the priesthood away by which the gospel was administered, and of what avail is the gospel? the answer
is, it is of none; for the gospel is only of use to man, when there is somebody to administer it to them.

The second grand difference is the different effects which is produced by the two. The gospel preached
by the Savior and his apostles produced the most marvelous effects, the persons who were administered
to by the priesthood of that gospel, found themselves in possession of something very different from the
rest of mankind. They too could lay hands on the sick and they would recover, they could take up serpents
and they could not hurt them, they could drink any deadly thing and yet be unhurt. They also had the power
of getting revelations, of seeing visions, of prophesying enjoying the ministering of angels as well as
many other marvelous things, which are no where found among those who embrace the gospel of Modern times;
but enjoyed by all those who received the gospel administered by the apostles.

Now Sir, I should be glad to know how it is that the same gospel can be preached by the same authority,
and the effects be in every respect different? The gospels which are not preached possess not one single
characteristic which distinguished the gospel preached by the Savior and his apostles. Neither is there
the least resemblance between the effects of the two. One was attended by power, and by the gifts of the
Holy Spirit. The other is unattended by power, or by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Both those who preach
them, and those who receive them, reason as you have done in your letter, to prove that both the power
and gifts of the Holy Spirit which always attended the gospel are done away; but still contend for the
same gospel they say, and for the same commission, and yet declare that the effects of both have ceased.
This surely is marvelous, a great deal more so, than that there should be revelations in the last days.

If I should ask by what power did the former day saints heal the sick, cast out devils, raise the dead,
take up serpents, drink deadly things and yet not be hurt, work miracles, speak with tongues, interpret
tongues, prophesy, dream dreams, see visions, &c. &c. -- The answer would be, that it was by the power
of the gospel by which they did such things, as administered by the Savior and his apostles. And this
is what is proposed in the gospel as proclaimed by the former day saints, and if those who received it
did not enjoy these blessings, they did not receive the blessings proposed to them in the gospel.

This then, is what I contend for; that the gospel as proclaimed by the Savior and his apostles, and as
written in the new testament has disappeared with the ministry thereof, and this is the reason why
revelation has ceased, and the power of the Holy Spirit known no more. If the gospel of the new testament
was proclaimed, all the effects of it would follow those who received it,-So that the same order of
things would be on the earth now as was then.

You ask "If they revealed the whole gospel, what reason have we to expect any more
revelation."

Let me ask a question in connection with this, If the world has departed from the gospel
revealed by the Savior and his apostles so as to loose both its ministry and its effects? How will
the God of heaven restore it to them again, but by revealing unto them that they are wrong, and showing
to them and that by revelation too wherein they are wrong, that they may repent and turn to him and
obtain forgiveness. -- Or can you show me when it was, that a generation of people had apostatized
from the truth, and ever turned back to it again without revelation being given unto them?

When you answer these questions I will answer yours.

Now Sir, having noticed everything in your letter which I consider of importance I submit it to your
inspection, desiring that you would reply as fully as the case required hoping that this communication
will be received in as good feelings as it was written.

In consideration of high respect, I subscribe myself your friend and well wisher,

SIDNEY RIGDON.
