E-mail this page to a friend | Tell me when this page is updated |
Why Are There So Many Churches? |
The answer in matter-of-fact terms is , NO!!!
So, is there a "correct" Church, can one be right, and if so, are ALL the others wrong?
Backman, Milton V. Jr. Joseph Smith's First Vision. 2d ed., rev. Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1980.
Chapter 4
The "War of Words and Tumult of Opinions"
An Era of Ecumenism
One of the widely-publicized religious characteristics of modern America
is the powerful movement of Christian unity. Today there is a constant,
friendly dialogue between Protestants of various denominations and between
Protestants and Catholics. This spirit of ecumenism is beginning to create
new religious alignments. For example, after most Congregationalists united
with a body called Christians, these two societies merged with former members
of the Evangelical Church and the German Reformed Church, creating the
United Church of Christ. At the time of writing (1970) plans are being
discussed for the uniting of this society with eight other Protestant faiths
which would produce an estimated membership of twenty-five million.
The modern spirit of unification and denominational cooperation is
evident today in many sections of western New York. During the summer of
1958, the Presbyterian minister of Shortsville, a hamlet located about
eight miles south of Palmyra, was hospitalized and members of this congregation
united in weekly worship with the Methodists of Manchester village. A few
miles south of Manchester, in Canandaigua, Baptists and Presbyterians have
merged permanently, creating a Baptist-Presbyterian Church.
The modern ecumenical movement is partly the result of a new reformation
which is de-emphasizing dogma. While one spectrum of Protestantism is clinging
to the historic or traditional beliefs, another wing within most
large Protestant [p.91] societies has endorsed a new theology in the sense
that they are reinterpreting classical Protestantism and are popularizing
concepts that do not harmonize with the old-time religion. As a result
of the increasing acceptance of a liberalized theology, striking diversity
of opinion has evolved within many Protestant congregations and Catholic
parishes. The views of some Baptists are more in harmony with the beliefs
of many Methodists and Presbyterians than they are with the espoused convictions
of many other Baptists. To avoid conflict, many ministers do not preach
from the pulpit precise descriptions of belief. Many theologians are emphasizing
the need for each generation to formulate its own creed and for each individual
to determine his own patterns of faith. A few years ago, after a group
of Protestant ministers gathered socially, one of the clergy suggested
that his colleagues discuss a traditional Christian tenet, such as the
fall, the atonement, or life beyond the grave. Because this preacher dared
suggest that the spiritual leaders engage in such a doctrinal discussion,
he was regarded by some as an intellectual curiosity.
An Age of Theological Discord
Although the spirit of ecumenism has engulfed many Protestant congregations
of the twentieth century, one hundred and fifty years ago members of these
same denominations were engaged in innumerable theological confrontations.
Revivalists and lay members engaged in numerous and vigorous debates concerning
doctrines. Authors wrote and circulated countless polemical theological
treatises. Christians argued vehemently over doctrines that today are seldom
discussed in most congregations of the Genesee country. In describing the
historical setting of the First Vision, the Prophet Joseph Smith aptly
declared:1
My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great
and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists
and [p.92] Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry
to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were
in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn
were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove
all others.
In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said
to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or,
are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it,
and how shall I know it?
What was the nature of the theological struggle dividing Christians
in the neighborhood where Joseph lived in 1820? What were the doctrines
that precipitated the "war of words and tumult of opinions" which erupted
in the Genesee country in the early nineteenth century?
These questions can partially be answered by determining the location
of the churches that had been constituted prior to 1820 in the area where
Joseph Smith lived, by examining the creeds adopted by these Protestants,
and by investigating the controversial religious tracts which were circulated
in western New York at the tune of the First Vision.
Congregations in Joseph Smith's Neighborhood
Within a radius of eight miles of the Smith farm, four Protestant denominations
had organized congregations and were holding meetings regularly in 1820--Quakers,
Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists. In addition to four congregations
of Friends, within eight miles of the Smith farm there were three Presbyterian
societies and two Baptist congregations; and at the time of the First Vision
four groups of Methodists were worshipping regularly in the towns of Palmyra
and Farmington.
Within fifteen miles of the Smith farm other Protestants had organized
and were holding weekly Sabbath services in 1820. Congregationalists and
Episcopalians were meeting in Canandaigua. Freewill Baptists were
worshipping regularly in [p.93] Junius; Eastern Christians or members of
the Eastern Christian Connection were assembling in West Bloomfield; and
Episcopalians of Palmyra sporadically assembled to worship according to
the rites of their church.
Although the views of the Universalists were also being fanned in the
area by means of pamphlets written by theft apologists and by a few enthusiastic
spokesmen living within seven miles of the Smith farm,2 there is no evidence
that Roman Catholics had constituted a society in that section of New York,
nor are there records informing us that Catholics were active participants
in the war of words that rocked the Genesee country in the early nineteenth
century.
When Joseph Smith identified the denominations engaged in a theological
confrontation, he mentioned three faiths, the Presbyterians, Baptists,
and Methodists. It is understandable why the Prophet referred to these
societies, for they were three of the four faiths who had organized congregations
within a few miles of his log home, and members of his family divided theft
interests primarily between the Presbyterians and Methodists. The only
Protestant group not mentioned by the Prophet which had organized prior
to 1820 in the neighborhood where he lived was the Society of Friends.
Being opposed to a salaried clergy, Quakers did not support their religious
leaders financially and few Quaker missionaries were preaching in the Genesee
country at the time of the First Vision. Most Friends lived peaceably on
their rural farms and seldom engaged in rigorous debates with other Christians.
The literature published in the vicinity where Joseph lived does not include
debates between Quakers and other Protestants, but does include controversial
debates, sermons, or vehement discussions emphasizing distinct theological
positions of the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Eastern
Christians, and Universalists. Consequently, even though [p.94] young Joseph
undoubtedly learned some of the peculiar tenets of the Quakers, he did
not mention this religious body as a major participant in the war of words.3
However, as the Prophet considered the tumult of opinions which created
a theological barrier among Christians, he probably not only remembered
disputes between Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists, but also contemplated
some of the unusual beliefs held by the Friends and other Protestants.
Baptism a Source of Contention
One doctrine which precipitated innumerable theological debates and
produced a noticeable "tumult of opinions" among the early settlers of
western New York was the belief concerning baptism. What are the prerequisites
for baptism? Are infants proper subjects for this sacrament? What is the
proper mode of baptism? What is meant by baptismal regeneration? These
were questions which were continually discussed by Genesee farmers, merchants,
craftsmen, and ministers.
Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Episcopalians unitedly
insisted that infants were proper subjects for baptism and that sprinkling
and pouring were proper modes. Children, many argued, are baptized into
future repentance and faith, for the efficacy of baptism is not confined
to the occasion when it is administered. It is a sacrament, some added,
that replaces circumcision, which was a token of God's covenant with Abraham.
Baptism, therefore, is a sign or indication that God will tend to save
the children of believers. And members of these denominations asserted
that the quantity of water performed in this rite was not important.4
[p.95] Replying to those arguments, the Baptists and Eastern Christians
insisted that, according to the Bible, the essential prerequisites to baptism
were faith and repentance, and that since infants could not believe nor
repent, small children were not proper subjects for that ordinance. There
is no scriptural warranty, they added, for the belief that circumcision
was replaced with baptism, nor is there a New Testament reference of an
infant being baptized. Although they admitted that there were references
in the Bible to all within a household being baptized, these Protestants
declared that there was no scriptural evidence that there were infants
in these families. Moreover, members of these societies emphasized that
immersion was the only proper mode of baptism. The Greek word "baptizo"
from which the English word "baptism" is derived, they explained, means
immersion; and in the New Testament this rite was compared to a death,
burial, and resurrection. Sprinkling and pouring, they concluded, are not
symbolic of a burial and are modes of baptism which are not in harmony
with New Testament Christianity.5
In response to arguments employed by Baptists to support their conviction
concerning baptism, some ministers charged that Baptists incorrectly cited
the baptism of Jesus as an example of the recommended form of this sacrament.
John the Baptist, some contended, was baptizing Jesus as part of a Jewish
rite, not as a Christian ordinance. John's baptism was one of repentance
and preparation for the kingdom which was to come, and was not the same
as the rite administered by the apostles.6 Moreover, theologians of the
early nineteenth century reasoned that there is only one instance of early
Christians baptizing possibly by immersion, and that was the case of Philip
and the eunuch in which the rite was performed "accidentally" by plunging
the candidate in the water. Even in this instance, some specified, there
is [p.96] no way of determining the depth of the water; and since baptisms
were performed, they explained, in prisons and homes and in places such
as Jerusalem where there was a lack of sufficient water to immerse candidates,
it is inconceivable that all early Christians were baptized by total immersion.
"Surely," one apologist declared, "those who can believe that the jailor
and his household were immersed under" a variety of "forbidding circumstances,
can believe anything they wish." When Paul referred to being buried in
baptism, men further reasoned, he meant in a pure symbolic sense, for we
are not really baptized into the death of Christ.7 Furthermore, men asserted
that the word baptizo has more than one meaning and includes the concept
of wetting or washing with water.8
Most Protestants of western New York also replied to the Baptists by
insisting that we should not deny our infant children baptism. "If you
say," one man declared, "that infants must not be baptized, because they
cannot believe, do you not also say in effect that they must not be saved
because they cannot believe?" Faith, some insisted, is only a requirement
of adults, not children. Since "it is clear that baptism succeeds circumcision,
as a seal of the same covenant, … of course it ought to be administered
to our infant offspring."9
Baptists and Eastern Christians were not silenced by the arguments
advanced by their Protestant opponents, for such reasoning merely added
fuel to the fire of contention. Most Protestants, they retorted, "are ever
restless and uneasy, endeavoring to maintain and support, if possible,
their unscriptural practice of infant baptism," which should more properly
be labeled "infant sprinkling."10 Christ's baptism, they insisted, is an
example which all should emulate. Following the precepts taught by the
Savior, the apostles baptized only those who had faith and only performed
the ordinance by immersion. "The apostolic churches," they added, "consisted
only of baptized believers, or of such who were baptized upon [p.97] profession
of their faith." Our critics, Baptists concluded, have failed to provide
any scriptural warranty for infant baptism or of a baptism performed by
sprinkling.11
One of the most perplexing concepts that divided Protestants in the
area where Joseph lived was the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. In
1818, William Bacon delivered a sermon in the Presbyterian church of Waterloo
which incited many settlers of the Finger Lake country. Individuals who
profess that baptism is regeneration, he charged, maintain incorrect opinions.
"Baptism is not regeneration," he asserted. "Everyone who knows from experience,
what it is to be born again, knows it is not baptism."12
In an attempt to clarify the Episcopalian position concerning baptismal
regeneration and expose the "misrepresentations" appearing in Bacon's work,
Rev. Henry U. Onderdonk published two tracts in Canandaigua in 1818. Regeneration,
he explained, means a change of state or character and is a change from
being out of to being within the visible church. This change, he continued,
"is effected in baptism, and by the Spirit or Holy Ghost; the minister
being His agent.…Hence Christian baptism consists of two parts; viz: washing
done by the minister; and regeneration effected by the Holy Ghost."13
Onderdonk made no attempt to define precisely the term "baptismal regeneration,"
but recited various conflicting theories concerning the meaning of these
words. He emphasized that regeneration, when coupled with baptism, might
be interpreted in either a figurative or a literal sense. What is important,
Onderdonk suggested, is that the term is scriptural. After citing Titus
3:5, the rector insisted that the term "washing of regeneration" was another
method of saying baptismal regeneration. Concluding his defense, Onderdonk
[p.98] stated ambiguously that the precise meaning of the phrase was a
"mystery; revealed in scripture, but not to be explained by men."14
Although immediately prior to the First Vision a heated debate concerning
baptismal regeneration was going on in the area where Joseph lived, the
war of words did not center on the subject of the necessity of baptism.
While Episcopalians were accused of holding to the essential nature of
the ordinance, Onderdonk, one of the leading spokesmen of that faith in
the area where Joseph lived, refused to be precise in his interpretation
of this doctrine. Meanwhile, Calvinist Baptists and Presbyterians living
in the Genesee country definitely contended that baptism was not essential,
but was a sign of one's regeneration.15 Also, the Methodists emphasized
that baptism was a symbol of the new birth. Even though John Wesley commented
that the church supposes that "all who are baptized in their infancy, are
at the same time born again" or regenerated, Methodists of the early republic
did not teach that baptism was necessary for salvation. It is not to be
assumed, Methodists exclaimed, that a person cannot be saved nor regenerated
without baptism.16 Quakers agreed with other Protestants in rejecting the
essential nature of that ordinance. In fact, Friends rejected all sacraments,
denying that one should be literally baptized by water.17
Since some members of the Smith family were "proselyted to the Presbyterian
faith" and others, including the Prophet, "became somewhat partial to the
Methodist sect," it would appear that immediately prior to the First Vision
family discussions might not have concentrated as much on the subject of
baptism as on the concept of predestination versus fore-ordination.18 While
Presbyterians and Methodists agreed that [p.99] infants were proper subjects
for baptism, that sprinkling was a proper mode for this rite, and that
baptism was not essential for salvation, they disagreed sharply concerning
man's role in the salvation experience.
What you have just read is the testimony of a modern day Prophet of God. To his testimony I humbly add my own. What you have just read is divine revelation and is absolutely true and correct. This I humbly submit in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
Ask me questions directly Just Click Here
Go Here For The Official LDS Page
Back to Have
You Ever Wondered?