Universalists

Because the Universalists were claiming that man would not receive eternal punishment for his sins, the question of justice and mercy was a burning issue during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. The evangelist Charles G. Finney tells of an incident that took place in the 1820’s:

. . . a Universalist minister came in and began to promulge his objectionable doctrines . . . people became so interested that there was a large number that seemed to be shaken in their minds, in regard to the commonly received views of the Bible. . . . The great effort of the Universalist was of course to show that sin did not deserve endless punishment. He inveighed against the doctrine of endless punishment as unjust, infinitely cruel and absurd . . . how could a God of love punish men endlessly? . . . When the evening came for my lecture, the house was crowded. I took up the question of the justice of endless punishment, and discussed it through that and the next evening. There was general satisfaction with the presentation. (Charles G. Finney, pp. 48-49)

Speaking of another incident, Charles G. Finney said: “. . . as Universalists always do, he dwelt mainly on the utter injustice of endless punishment” (Ibid., p. 120).

The Gospel Advocate, a Universalist publication which was printed in Buffalo, New York, stated that orthodox Christians were the “violent opposers of the Universalists . . .” (Gospel Advocate, April 21, 1826, p. 118). On November 17, 1826, the Gospel Advocate printed a letter from a minister to Mrs. Mary Cooley. In this letter we read:

It is currently reported, that you deny the final and eternal punishment of the wicked; and avow your belief that all men will finally be saved . . . if you do not renounce this error and heresy, the Church will be obliged to cut you off as a heretic from their communion.

On March 3, 1826, the Gospel Advocate printed a letter from an orthodox Christian which stated that “infidel preachers have come into the neighborhood, who blas[p]hemiously assert that there is neither hell nor devil, and that all my fears proceed from ignorance.”

When we examine the Book of Mormon we see that it is filled with this controversy. In Alma 1:3 we read of a wicked man who “had gone about among the people, preaching to them that which he termed to be the word of God, . . .” In the fourth verse of the same chapter it becomes clear that this man was a Universalist in his doctrine:

And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life. (Alma 1:4)

The reader will notice that this wicked man taught that “all mankind should be saved at the last day.” In the Universalist publication, Gospel Advocate, we find many similar expressions:

The Universalists believe . . . all men will ultimately enjoy happiness, . . . (Gospel Advocate, Feb. 17, 1826, p. 47)

. . . he both can and will save all mankind with an everlasting salvation . . . (Ibid., p. 47)

. . . all punishment will ultimately have an end. (Ibid., p. 123)

. . . all men will be saved. (Ibid., p. 158)

. . . all men will finally be saved. (Ibid., p. 178)

The Universalists taught that “the devil is a nonentity, and an endless hell of brimstone a bug-bear . . .” (Gospel Advocate, August 25, 1826, p. 245). The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, warns against such a teaching:

And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, . . . and all that have been seized therewith must . . . go into the place prepared for them, even a lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment. (2 Nephi 28:22-23)

Joseph Smith could hardly have avoided this controversy. The Mormon historian B. H. Roberts informs us that Joseph Smith lived with Joseph Knight and his family “when he was twenty-one years of age, . . .” (Comprehensive History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 85, n. 1), and on page 200 of the same volume, B. H. Roberts informs us that they were Universalists: “Of this family and the friendship subsisting between them and Joseph Smith we have already spoken. The family were Universalists in their faith, . . .”

Richard L. Anderson, of Brigham Young University, has recently discovered evidence that Joseph Smith’s own father was at one time a Universalist:

. . . the Tunbridge Town Record, . . . records the formation of a Universalist Society in 1797, three of whose members were Asael Smith, Jesse Smith (the eldest son), and Joseph Smith (the Prophet’s father). (The Ensign, Feb. 1971, p. 16)

Although Joseph Smith’s father was a Universalist in Tunbridge, he apparently did not give much support to any church in Palmyra. Joseph Smith states that his “father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith,” but that “my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, . . .” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:7-8). Since the Presbyterians and the Methodists were opposed to the Universalists, it is not surprising that the Book of Mormon supports the orthodox position. It is also interesting to note that Alexander Campbell was opposed to the Universalists.

On December 5, 1825, he wrote:

. . . I would earnestly request those preachers of universal deliverance from hell, to stop and think...we are very sure that all the Universalists on earth cannot produce one sentence in all the revelations of God that says any thing about the termination of the punishment of the wicked. (The Christian Baptist, vol. 3, pp. 104-105)

On September 7, 1826, Alexander Campbell published a letter from a boy who was questioning the doctrine of eternal punishment. In this letter we read the following: You will, no doubt, be surprised at receiving a letter from a boy; . . . While reflecting, one day, on the subject of the truth of revealed religion, a thought occurred to me with peculiar force, it was: Whether the Deity would have created any being and placed him in such a situation in which it was possible for him to make himself deserving of eternal torment. . . . I was led strongly to doubt the divinity of the Bible. . . . I thought that as the greatest degree of happiness, was the only object of creation, the design of the Almighty would have failed, if as the scripture authorize us to believe, a majority of mankind will be forever damned: . . . I thought that as the Deity was the first cause of all things, . . . he could not punish any of his creatures with eternal misery; . . . I . . . could not satisfy myself of the necessity or justice of God’s punishing a being, eternally, for the effects of a weakness in which he was born. Punishment, I thought, should be proportioned to criminality; but in inflicting eternal punishment for temporal crimes, this principle of justice [is] violated. (The Christian Baptist, vol. 4, pp. 36-37)

Alexander Campbell devoted almost 20 pages of The Christian Baptist to answer this boy’s arguments. In the Book of Mormon we find that Alma had a similar problem with his son: And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand—which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery. Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee. (Book of Mormon, Alma 42:1-2)

In the Gospel Advocate for January 19, 1827, we read: “In England, . . . several of the most zealous and useful Unitarian ministers publicly avow their belief in the final restoration of all

men to happiness; . . .”

In another article, we read of “the doctrine of the final restoration” of all souls to “holiness and happiness” (The Gospel Advocate, February 3, 1826, p. 25).

Now, in Alma’s discussion with his son, he seems to answer this very point:

And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the restoration of which has been spoken; for behold, some have wrested the scriptures, . . . Behold, it is requisite . . . that the soul of man should be restored to its body, and that every part of the body should be restored to itself. And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good. And if their works are evil they shall be restored unto them for evil. . . . Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness. . . . And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature? O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—. . . therefore, the word restoration more fully condemneth the sinner, and justifieth him not at all. (Book of Mormon, Alma 41:1-4, 10, 12, 13, 15)

It is very difficult for us to believe that the ancient Nephites would be arguing over exactly the same issues and terms that were being discussed in Joseph Smith’s time.

Richard L. Anderson informs us that “the Universalists held a faith that denied the orthodox doctrine of damnation . . . A convention agreed on the following typical tenet in 1803: ‘We believe there is one God, . . . who will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness’ ” (The Ensign, February 1971, p. 16). Milton V. Backman, Jr., says that during Joseph Smith’s boyhood days in Palmyra “the views of the Universalists were also being fanned in the area by means of pamphlets written by their apologists and by a few enthusiastic spokesmen living within seven miles of the Smith farm, . . .” (Joseph Smith’s First Vision, 1971, p. 93).