which brought the Book of Mormon into existence, there was a series
of revelations given predicting and making for the establishment of
a Church organization. In evidence of which statement I refer to the
first visions of Joseph Smith as described by the Prophet himself in
the first volume of the Church History, [4] and especially as related
by him in the letter written to Mr. John Wentworth in 1842; also the
Prophet's account of the several visits of Moroni to him, and the
prophecies of that angel concerning the coming forth of the work of
the Lord, "and how and in what manner his kingdom was to be conducted
in the last days;" [5] also the eighteen sections of the Doctrine and
Covenants from the 2nd section to the 20th, inclusive, being those
revelations given between September, 1823, to the fore part of April,
1830--the period during which the Book of Mormon was being revealed
and translated--and in which prophetic declarations concerning the
coming forth of the Church are frequently made. The last revelation of
the series--section twenty--is the one in which the first practical
directions are given towards effecting the organization of the Church.
Who ever will look through these writings, to say nothing of frequent
allusions to the same matter throughout the Book of Mormon itself, will
be convinced that the coming forth of the book must result in bringing
into existence the Church.
The Church so brought into existence, cannot be true and the Book of
Mormon false. If the book be not true, Joseph Smith is an imposter,
a false prophet, and an imposter and false prophet cannot found a
true Church of Christ; therefore, if the Church be the true Church of
Christ, it is evidence quite conclusive that the book so inseparably
connected with it, so vitally related to it, is also true. Of course,
the conception is possible that both the Church and the book may
be false, but it is inconceivable that one could be true and the
other false. It follows therefore that whatever facts exist in the
organization and doctrines of the Church which tend to establish it as
being of divine origin, tend also to establish the divine authenticity
of the Book of Mormon.
Here we have a field of evidence and argument well nigh inexhaustible;
but much of it, I may say all of it with which I care to deal, has
already been used in volume one of New Witnesses, as follows:
Chapter XIV: "Fitness in the Development of the New Dispensation."
Chapter XV: "The Evidence of Scriptural and Perfect Doctrine."
Chapter XXIV: "The Church Founded by Joseph Smith, a Monument to His
Inspiration."
Chapters XXV-XXVI: "Testimony of the Inspiration and Divine Calling
of Joseph Smith, Derived from the Comprehensiveness of the Work He
Introduced."
Chapter XXVII: "Evidence of Inspiration Derived from the Wisdom in the
Plan Proposed for the Betterment of the Temporal Condition of Mankind."
Chapters XXVIII, XXIX, XXX: "Evidence of Divine Inspiration in Joseph
Smith Derived from the Prophet's Doctrines in Regard to the Extent of
the Universe, Man's Place in It, and His Doctrine Respecting God."
The evidences and the arguments in all these chapters, then, must be
considered as appropriated here, and made part of my argument for the
truth of the Book of Mormon, as well as for the divine origin of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After thus appropriating
all this body of evidence and argument from these chapters in the first
volume of New Witnesses, I feel justified in saying: It is the Church
that bears witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon rather than the
Book of Mormon which bears witness to the Church. Nor is this said in
disparagement of the Book of Mormon. It is only saying that what comes
of the book is greater than the book itself, that the stately oak is
greater than the acorn from which it grew--a giant tree; that the whole
is greater than a part; that the work in all its fullness is greater
than one of the incidents in which that work had its origin.
Footnotes
1. II. Nephi xxx: 8.
2. III. Nephi xxi: 22.
3. I. Nephi xiv: 12.
4. Chapter i.
5. History of the Church, Vol. I., ch. ii.
CHAPTER XXXVII
INTERNAL EVIDENCES.--THE BOOK OF MORMON, IN STYLE AND LANGUAGE, IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY OF ITS CONSTRUCTION.
I.
_Of the Unity and Diversity of Style._
As already set forth in previous pages, the Book of Mormon, with
reference to the original documents from which it was translated, is
made up of two classes of writings:
1. Original, unabridged Nephite records;
2. Mormon and Moroni's abridgment of Nephite and Jaredite records.
The translation of the unabridged Nephite records comprises the first
157 pages of current editions of the Book of Mormon. The rest of the
623 pages--except where we have the words of Mormon and Moroni at
first hand, or here and there direct quotations by them from older
records--are Mormon's abridgment of other Nephite records, and Moroni's
abridgment of a Jaredite record. It is quite evident that there would
be a marked difference in the construction of these two divisions of
the book. How there came to be unabridged and abridged records in
Mormon's collection of plates has been explained at length in previous
pages, [1] so that it is now only necessary to say that when Joseph
Smith lost his translation of the first part of Mormon's abridgment of
the Nephite records, comprised in the 116 pages of manuscript which he
entrusted to Martin Harris, he replaced the lost part by translating
the smaller plates of Nephi which make up the first 157 pages of the
Book of Mormon before referred to. Now, if there is no difference in
the style between this part of the Book of Mormon translated from
the small plates of Nephi, and Mormon's abridgment of the larger
plates, that fact would constitute very strong evidence against the
claims of the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, if one finds the
necessary change in style between these two divisions of the book,
it will be important incidental evidence in its support. Especially
will this be conceded when the likelihood that neither Joseph Smith
nor his associates would have sufficient knowledge of things literary
to appreciate the importance of the difference of style demanded in
the two parts of the record. Fortunately the evidence on this point
is all that can be desired. The writers whose works were engraven on
the smaller plates of Nephi employ the most direct style, and state
what they have to say in the first person, without explanation or
interpolations by editors or commentators or any evidence of abridgment
whatsoever, though, of course, they now and then make quotations from
the Hebrew scriptures which the Nephite colony brought with them from
Jerusalem. The following passages illustrate their style.
THE FIRST BOOK OF NEPHI.
CHAPTER I.
1. I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was
taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen
many afflictions in the course of my days--nevertheless, having
been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having a great
knowledge of the goodnesss and the mysteries of God, therefore I
make a record of my proceedings in my days.
2. Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which
consists of the learning of the Jews, and the language of the
Egyptians.
3. And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it
with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge. etc.
THE BOOK OF JACOB. [The brother of Nephi.]
CHAPTER I.
1. For behold, it came to pass that fifty and five years had passed
away, from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem; wherefore, Nephi gave
me, Jacob, a commandment concerning the small plates, upon which
these things are engraven.
2. And he gave me, Jacob, a commandment that I should write upon
these plates, a few of the things which I considered to be most
precious; that I should not touch, save it were lightly, concerning
the history of this people which are called the people of Nephi,
etc.
THE BOOK OF ENOS.
CHAPTER I.
1. Behold, it came to pass that I, Enos, knowing my father that he
was a just man: for he taught me in his language, and also in the
nurture and admonition of the Lord. And blessed be the name of God
for it.
2. And I will tell you of the wrestle which I had before God,
before I received a remission of my sins:
3. Behold, I went to hunt beasts in the forest; and the words which
I had often heard my father speak concerning eternal life, and the
joy of the saints, sunk deep into my heart, etc.
And so it continues with each of the nine writers in this division
of the Book of Mormon. But now note how marked the difference is
when we come to Mormon's abridgment of the Nephite record which
begins with the book of Mosiah:
THE BOOK OF MOSIAH.
CHAPTER I.
1. And now there was no more contention in all the land of
Zarahemla, among all the people who belonged to King Benjamin, so
that king Benjamin had continual peace all the remainder of his
days.
2. And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their
names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they
should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby
they might become men of understanding; and that they might know
concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of
their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord.
So also in the abridgment of the book of Alma:
THE BOOK OF ALMA.
CHAPTER I.
1. Now it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of the
judges over the people of Nephi, from this time forward, king
Mosiah having gone the way of all the earth, having warred a good
warfare, walking uprightly before God, leaving none to reign in his
stead; nevertheless he established laws, and they were acknowledged
by the people; therefore they were obliged to abide by the laws he
had made.
2. And it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of Alma
in the judgment seat, there was a man brought before him to be
judged; a man who was large, and was noted for his much strength,
etc.
And so throughout the abridgment this style continues as pointed out
in chapter IX of this work. Had the style which is followed in the
abridgment found its way into the translation of the unabridged part
of the record, the reader can readily see how strong an objection it
would have constituted against the claims of the Book of Mormon. As to
style in other respects there is marked uniformity in the translation.
I have already pointed out the fact that the style of the translation
of the Book of Mormon is influenced, of course, by the translator; the
statements and ideas of the Nephite writers being set forth in such
English and in such literary style as Joseph Smith, with his limited
knowledge of language, could command; he, in his turn, of course, being
influenced in his expressions by the facts and ideas made known to him
from the Nephite record through Urim and Thummim, and the inspiration
of God under which he worked. It is useless to assert a diversity of
style where it does not exist, and that it does not exist in the Book
of Mormon except as to the matter of a distinction between Jaredite
and Nephite proper names, hereafter to be noted, and the distinction
between the abridged records and those unabridged--to the extent just
pointed out--it would be easy, though unnecessary, to demonstrate;
since any one may satisfy himself by even a casual inspection of the
Book of Mormon itself.
The demand for diversity of style in the various parts of the
translation of the Book of Mormon is urged too strongly. It is
sometimes represented, even by believers in the Book of Mormon, that
the volume contains the compiled writings of a long line of inspired
scribes extending through a thousand years, written not only at
different times but under varying conditions, and that unity of style
under such circumstances is not to be expected, and did it occur it
would be fatal to the claims made for the Book of Mormon! Now, as a
matter of fact, there is great unity of style in the translation of
the Book of Mormon which any one can verify who will read it; and
properly so, I insist; for the reason that general unity of style
is not incompatible with the theory of the work's construction and
translation. First of all this long line of inspired writers that
should give to us diversity of style in their writings is reduced
really to a very small matter when the facts in the case are
considered. We have already seen, in chapter IX, that all told there
are but eleven writers in the Book of Mormon. The work of nine of these
runs through only 400 years of Nephite history--from the time Lehi's
colony left Jerusalem to the time when the Nephites, under Mosiah I.,
joined the people of Mulek, some 200 years B. C. Then we have the works
of no Nephite writer until we come to Mormon, who makes his abridgment
of the Nephite records in the closing years of the 4th century A. D.
So that 600 years of the 1,000 through which the long line of Nephite
writers is supposed to run is lifted bodily from the "time range." I
say we have no Nephite writings between the works of the first group
of nine Nephite writers (600-200 B. C.) to the writings of Mormon
(400 A. D.) I should say, we have no such writings except where here
and there Mormon, in his abridgment, makes a direct quotation from
some intervening writer between those two periods. Such quotations,
however, are neither numerous nor long, and in many instances one is
left in doubt as to whether supposed quotations are verbatim or merely
the substance of the original documents given by Mormon. What has led
to confusion in these matters is that the books of "Mosiah," "Alma,"
"Helaman," "III Nephi," etc., are not really the books of these men
whose names respectively they bear, but are Mormon's abridgment of
those books to which abridgment he has given the name of the book he
abridged. Then, again, of these eleven writers we have already shown
(chapter IX) that the first group of nine writers supplied but 157
pages of the book. Of these Nephi writes 127 1/2 pages; and his brother,
Jacob, 21 1/2; making in all 149 of the 157; leaving but 8 pages for
the other seven writers; and as Enos, who follows Jacob, writes 2 1/2
pages of the remaining 8, there is left but 5 1/2 pages for the remaining
six writers. It should be kept in mind, too, that the whole nine
authors were writing in the first 400 years of Nephite times; that
Jacob and Nephi lived much of their lives together, therefore, in the
same period of time, under similar conditions, with the same little
colony of people. Hence there was not much to give diversity of style
to their writings, and the few paragraphs left for the remaining seven
writers could not be sufficient to develop very much diversity of style
in composition. So that the diversity of style clamored for, so far as
this group of nine writers is concerned, is not very insistent.
Turning now to the writers of the Book of Mormon who come six hundred
years later, Mormon and Moroni, they are contemporaries, father and
son. They lived in the same age. One abridged the history of the
Nephites, the other a brief history of the Jaredites. So that their
work is similar in character, is wrought in the same age, and hence
great diversity of style is not to be expected.
Another factor in the question of style is that in the "time range" of
1,000 years through which it is assumed the Book of Mormon is being
composed, there is not much change in the manners or customs of the
people--not very widely varying conditions. It must be remembered that
the colonies which came to America in the sixth century B. C. were
made up of men and women who were civilized. They brought with them a
knowledge of the civilization in the midst of which they had lived.
They also had some Hebrew literature with them, although written in
Egyptian characters; also the Hebrews ideas of government and law,
and these ideas were promulgated among the people as they increased
in numbers and grew into a nation. The before mentioned "time range"
of 1,000 years was a period in the world's history when there was no
such revolutions taking place in manners, customs, and progress in
civilization as is known to our own age. In the western world, as in
the eastern, in the period under consideration, human affairs in the
matter of developing civilization, were well nigh stationary. The same
methods and implements of warfare were employed at the close of the
period as were used at its beginning. So in agriculture, commerce, and
in the sciences and arts. Not nearly so many changes took place in
that thousand years as have taken place within the last hundred years.
Hence, so far as changing conditions affecting style of composition
during the time limit of 1,000 years is concerned, there is nothing
which demands great diversity of style.
Another item at this point should be considered with reference to a
misapprehension of the character of the Book of Mormon. It has been
frequently urged by writers against the Book of Mormon that it pretends
to be the national or racial literature of the peoples of the western
hemisphere, and that in the light of such pretentions it is utterly
contemptible. Such a conception of the Book of Mormon, however, is
entirely unwarranted, since no such claims are made for it by those
at all acquainted with its character. No one acquainted with the book
could for a moment hold it up as the national literature of either the
Jaredite empire or of the Nephite monarchy or republic, any more than
he could regard the single work of Josephus on the "Antiquities of
the Jews" as the national literature of the Hebrew race or nation; or
Doctor William Smith's "Condensed History of England" (less than four
hundred pages) as the national literature of the British empire.
The Book of Mormon was constructed in this manner: Let us suppose
that a writer has before him the national literature of the old Roman
empire; the works of Livy, Sallust, Virgil, Caesar, Terrance, Cicero,
and the rest. The account of the chief events mentioned in these
several volumes he condenses in his own style into a single volume.
Coming to the annals of Tacitus, however, he is so well pleased with
some portions of them that notwithstanding the events Tacitus narrates
parallel some parts of his own abridgment of the history, he places
them, without editing or changing them in the least, with his own
writings. This work, upon his death, falls into the hands of his son,
who is also a writer. In the course of the second writer's researches
he accidentally, or providentially, as you will, discovers the works
of the Greek historian, Xenophon. He considers this writer's history
of Greece of such importance--especially his history of the "Retreat
of the Ten Thousand"--that he condenses into a few pages the events
related by Xenophon and binds them in with his father's work, with such
comments of his own as he considers necessary. As the first writer's
abridgment of some of the Roman books would not be the national
literature of Rome, so also the abridgment of Xenophon's writings
would not be the national literature of Greece; and as this supposed
case exactly illustrates the manner in which the Book of Mormon was
constructed by Mormon and Moroni, the absurdity of regarding the book
so produced as the national or racial literature of the peoples who
have inhabited the western world, will be apparent.
II.
_Characteristics of an Abridgment._
In addition to the changes from the first to the third person already
noted between the first group of Nephite authors, whose writings are
unabridged, and Mormon and Moroni's abridgment, there is one other item
which further exhibits the consistency between the style and language
of the book with the theory of its construction, viz: The style of
Mormon and Moroni's part of the work is pronouncedly the style of an
abridgment. Its general characteristics have already been considered in
chapter ix., and it only remains here to say that the body of the work
is Mormon's abridgment of the chief events from the Nephite annals,
with occasional verbatim quotations from those works, and his own
running comments upon the same. In the progress of the work one may
almost see the writer with a number of the Nephite records about him
engaged at his task. He has just recorded the thrilling events of a few
years rich in historical instances, and in closing says:
"And thus endeth the 5th year of the reign of the Judges."
Then he strikes a period where there are but few important events in
the annals, so he passes over them lightly in this manner:
Now it came to pass in the sixth year of the reign of the Judges
over the people of Nephi, there were no contentions nor wars in the
land of Zarahemla. * * * * * And it came to pass in the seventh
year of the reign of the Judges, there were about three thousand
five hundred souls that united themselves to the Church of God, and
were baptized. And thus endeth the seventh year of the reign of the
Judges over the people of Nephi; and there was continual peace in
all that time. [2]
He closes another eventful period, in a similar manner:
But behold there never was a happier time among the people of
Nephi, since the days of Nephi, than in the days of Moroni; yea,
even at this time, in the twenty and first year of the reign of the
Judges. And it came to pass that the twenty and second year of the
reign of the Judges also ended in peace; yea, and also the twenty
and third year. [3]
The following is a similar example:
And it came to pass that there was peace and exceeding great joy
in the remainder of the forty and ninth year; yea, and also there
was continual peace and great joy in the fiftieth year of the reign
of the Judges. And in the fifty and first year of the reign of the
Judges there was peace also, save it were the pride which began to
enter into the church. [4]
Again in Helaman:
And it came to pass that the seventy and sixth year did end in
peace. And the seventy and seventh year began in peace; and the
church did spread throughout the face of all the land; and the
more part of the people, both the Nephites and the Lamanites, did
belong to the church; and they did have exceeding great peace in
the land, and thus ended the seventy and seventh year. And also
they had peace in the seventy and eighth year, save it were a few
contentions concerning the points of doctrine which had been laid
down by the prophets. [5] * * * * * * * And thus ended the eighty
and first year of the reign of the Judges. And in the eighty and
second year, they began again to forget the Lord their God. And in
the eighty and third year they began to wax strong in iniquity. And
the eighty and fourth year, they did not mend their ways. And it
came to pass in the eighty and fifth year, they did wax stronger
and stronger in their pride, and in their wickedness; and thus they
were ripened again for destruction. And thus ended the eighty and
fifth year. [6]
Moroni's abridgment of the Jaredite record--the Book of Ether--fails
to exhibit this particular characteristic of an abridgment, owing
doubtless to the brevity of the original record he abridged--there
were but twenty-four plates in the record of Ether, and "the hundredth
part," says Moroni, "I have not written;" [7] but otherwise that book
of Ether bears all the marks of being an abridgment that the work of
Mormon does, except perhaps that the running comments of Moroni are
more frequent than Mormon's.
III.
_Originality in Book of Mormon Names._
There is another gratifying distinction between Mormon's abridgment of
the Nephite record and Moroni's abridgment of the Jaredite record that
is also of first rate importance as an evidence of consistency in the
work. That is the quite marked distinction between Nephite and Jaredite
proper names as given in these respective parts of the record. Take for
instance the list of names of Jaredite leaders and kings and compare it
with a list of prominent Nephite leaders.
JAREDITE NAMES.
Jared
Pagag
Jacom
Gilgah
Mahah
Oriah
Esrom
Corihor
Shim
Cohor
Corom
Noah
Nimrah
Nimrod
Kib
Shule
Omer
Coriantumr
Emer
Com
Heth
Shez
Lib
Hearthom
Aaron
Amnigaddah
Shiblom
Seth
Ahah
Ethem
Moron
Coriantor
Shared
Gilead
Shiz
Ether
Riplakish
Morianton
Kim
Levi
Corum
Kish
NEPHITE NAMES.
Nephi
Lehi
Laman
Zoram
Chemish
Abinadom
Amaleki
Mosiah
Benjamin
Ammon
Alma
Amlici
Nephihah
Gideon
Amulek
Giddonali
Giddianhi
Aminadi
Zeniff
Zeezrom
Lamoni
Aaron
Helaman
Limhi
Heloram
Mormon
Moroni
Aminadab
Moronihah
Ammoron
Pacumeni
Gadianton
Kishkumen
Shiblon
Pahoran
Paanchi
Pachus
Cezoram
Limher
Limhah
Mathoni
Mathonihah
Lehonti
Gidgiddonah
Muloki
Abinadi
Corihor
Gidgiddon
Amalickiah
Zemnarihah
Hagoth
Helam
Hearthom
Sherrizah
An inspection of these two lists of names discloses the fact that the
Jaredite names, with the single exception of "Shule" and "Levi," end
in consonants, while very many of the Nephite names end in a vowel;
and while many of the Nephite names also end in consonants, yet the
preponderance of Nephite names that end in vowels over Jaredite names
is considerable. I am not able to say what value attaches to this
distinction, I can only point it out as a marked distinction, and it
may be an important one.
Another distinction may be discerned in the fact that there are
more simple, and evidently root-words among the Jaredite names than
among the Nephite names; that is, there are not so many derivatives
in the former as in the latter, though in the former there are a
few. "Corihor," may have come from "Cohor;" "Coriantumr," from
"Coriantor," though it may be merely a variation of the more ancient
name "Moriancumer." "Nimarah" may have come from "Nimrod;" and "Akish"
from "Kish." But this about exhausts the derivatives among the
Jaredite names. As illustrations merely of the Nephite derivatives,
and not with a view of exhausting the list, I give the following:
"Nephihah," evidently comes from "Nephi," "Amalickiah," from "Amaleki,"
"Gidgiddoni," "Gidgiddonah," "Giddonah," and "Gideon," from "Gid,"
"Helaman" from "Helam;" "Ammoron," from "Ammon;" "Moronihah,"
from "Moroni;" "Mathonihah," from "Mathoni." This is enough for
illustration, and inspection will show the percentage of derivatives
in the Nephite names of the Book of Mormon to be not only greatly but
very greatly in excess of derivatives in the Jaredite names. And this
is what consistency demands of the Book of Mormon. The more ancient
people the simpler and fewer compound names--more root names, fewer
derivatives. William A. Wright, M. A., Librarian of Trinity College,
Cambridge, writing for the Hackett edition of Smith's Dictionary of the
Bible, says:
Glancing a moment at the history of names and name-giving among
the Hebrews, we readily distinguish many of those changes which
characterize popular customs and habits in this particular among
all peoples. In their first or ruder age their names are simple
and "smell of nature." In the period of their highest national and
religious development we find more compound and more allusions to
artificial refinements. [8]
That law is found operating at least between the more ancient people
of the Book of Mormon, the Jaredites, and the more modern people, the
Nephites. While the list of names obtainable from the abridgment of the
very small fragment of a Jaredite record of the Book of Mormon does
not give sufficient data to warrant a positive conclusion, yet I think
there is discernable a tendency even in that list from the more simple
to derivative names; [9] while as between the earlier and later Nephite
times the translation from the simple to an increase of compound names
is quite marked. [10] I do not mean by this that the simpler names are
not found throughout the whole Nephite period, but that the percentage
of derivative names greatly increase in the latter times.
Referring again to the marked distinction between Jaredite and Nephite
names, I desire to call attention to the fact that the demands for this
distinction are imperative, since these peoples though they occupied
the same continent did so successively and at periods of time widely
separated. The Jaredites occupied the north continent from soon after
the dispersion of mankind from Babel until the opening of the 6th
century B. C. About the time the Jaredites were destroyed the Nephite
colony arrived in South America, and Mulek's colony in North America.
But the only person connecting the two peoples was Coriantumr (the last
of the Jaredites) through some nine months of association with the
colony of Mulek. Whether or not his race was perpetuated by marriage
into Mulek's colony is merely a matter of conjecture. [11] So far as
the Nephite connection with the Jaredites is concerned it exists only
through the Jaredite records discovered by the people of Zeniff (B. C.
123), and translated soon afterwards by Mosiah II. This translation of
the Jaredite record making known, in outline merely, the history of the
Jaredites to the Nephites, might give to the Nephites some Jaredite
names, as in the case of the noted warrior among the Nephites bearing
the name Coriantumr. [12] Still from the fact that the connection
between the Nephites and the Jaredites is so slight; and the occupancy
of the North Continent by the respective peoples separated by so long
a period of time, it could not be otherwise than that there would
be a marked distinction in proper names between the two peoples, a
distinction that will be quite apparent to the reader when he compares
the respective lists of Jaredite and Nephite names here presented
at radom; and which, had it been wanting, would have been a serious
objection to the consistency, and consequently to the claims, of the
Book of Mormon.
When the general unity of style found in the Book of Mormon is taken
into account, this distinction in proper names becomes all the more
remarkable. But it is a case where the circumstances emphatically
demand a distinction; just as the circumstances emphatically demand
a marked distinction at the transition from the unabridged writings
of the Nephite authors--written in the first person, and in so simple
and direct a style--to the abridged record of Mormon--written in the
third person and in so complex, not to say confusing, a style. Had
the Prophet Joseph's translation of the Book of Mormon failed to have
shown the distinctions at these points where such distinctions are so
imperatively demanded--in a word, had the style and language of the
book failed to be consistent with the theory of its construction--how
serious an objection the failure would have been considered! But since
the consistency of the style and language of the book with the theory
of the work's construction is established, how strong the evidence is
which that fact constitutes! And more especially when it is remembered
that neither Joseph Smith nor his associates had sufficient knowledge
of literature, to cause them to appreciate the importance of such a
consistency. The evidence that they were unconscious of the point here
made is to be found in the fact that they never alluded to it in their
life time, nor was the foregoing argument ever made by any one else
within their life time.
IV.
_Of the Nephite Custom in Naming Cities and Provinces Being Ancient._
It should be remarked that both Jaredites and Nephites named cities,
plains, valleys, mountains and provinces after the names of prominent
men, especially the men who were identified in some way with the
settlement or history of said places; so that it often happens that
names of places take on the names of men or some variation of their
names; and hence the frequent identity and more frequently the likeness
between the names of places and the names of men. Both people also
followed the custom of ancient nations, not only in naming cities
after the men who founded them or who were prominently connected with
their history, but also in giving the district of country surrounding
a city the same name as the city. Thus among the Jaredites there is
Nehor the city, and "the land [or province] of Nehor," meaning the
district of country surrounding the city of Nehor. [13] I believe
also that there was a Jaredite city of Moron, as well as a land of
Moron, although there is no specific reference to a city of that name,
but frequent references to the "land of Moron," [14] which I take to
mean the district of country surrounding the city of Moron. [15] That
this custom obtained among the Nephites is so commonly understood
that illustration is scarcely necessary, yet by way of illustration I
instance the following: The city of Bountiful, [16] and the land of
Bountiful; [17] the city of Zarahemla, [18] and the land of Zarahemla;
[19] the city of Moroni; [20] and the land of Moroni; [21] the city of
Nephihah, [22] and the land of Nephihah; [23] the city of Manti, and
the land of Manti. [24]
That the customs here referred to are in harmony with the customs of
ancient nations I cite the following as illustrations of my statement:
Nineveh takes its name from Ninus, the son of Nimrod. Nimrod founded
the city and gave to it a variation of his son's name. [25] M. Rollin
also identifies Nimrod with Belus, the first king whom the "people
deified for his great actions," and after whom, some authorities
affirm, the noted temple of Belus within the city of Babylon was named;
and from which the city itself, as some affirm, took its name. [26] Of
course we have the statement of holy writ that Babylon received its
name from the circumstances of the Lord confounding the language of the
builders of the city, [27] "Babel" in the Hebrew meaning confusion.
Professor Hackett, however, in his contribution on the subject to
Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, while nothing the statement in
Genesis, says: "But the native (i. e. Chaldean) etymology is Ba-il 'the
gate of the god 'Il;' or perhaps more simple, 'the gate of god;' and
this no doubt was the original intention of the appellation as given
by Nimrod, though the other sense (i. e. the Bible sense) came to be
attached to it after the confusion of tongues." Hence one may say that
"Babylon" has taken its name from both circumstances. That is, from
the "Nimrod" of the Chaldeans it takes its name from its founder,
"Belus," who is Nimrod, while to the Hebrew mind it owes its name to
the circumstance of the confusion of languages.
Professor Campbell, according to Osborn, thinks that the name "Jebez,"
of Chronicles ii: 55, is "Thebes;" which originally was "Tei Jabez,"
the city named from "Jabez," and which is written without the "T" in
the hieroglyphics, that letter being only the article. [28]
Plato in his Timaeus, where he introduces the story of Atlantis, says:
"At the head of the Egyptian Delta, where the river Nile divides,
there is a certain district which is called the district of Sais,
and the great city of the district is also called Sais, and is the
city from which Amasis the king was sprung." [29] This is an incident
where the district of country takes its name from the city. Other
instances in support of the ancient custom here referred to will be
found in the case of "Rome," so called after "Romulus;" "Alexandria;
after Alexander;" "Constantinople," after "Constantine." The names of
countries and sections of country," says Professor W. A. Wright, "are
almost universally derived from the name of their first settlers or
earliest historic populations." [30]
V.
_Of the Nephites, Like the Jews Being a Mononymous People._
Still another singular and fortunate circumstance for the claims of the
Book of Mormon with reference to names should be noted. "Unlike the
Romans," says Professor Wright, already quoted, "but like the Greeks,
the Hebrews were a mononymous people. That is, each person received but
a single name. [31] The Nephites, it must be remembered, were Hebrews,
and therefore would very likely follow the custom of their race with
reference to this practice of giving but one name to a person. This
they did; for throughout the Nephite part of the Book of Mormon, there
is not a single instance where a person receives more than one name.
In other words, the Nephites, like the whole Hebrew race, were a
mononymous people. So, too, the Jaredites, a more ancient branch of the
same race, are a mononymous people.
Now, as neither Joseph Smith nor his associates would likely be
acquainted with this singular custom of the Hebrew race, I take the
fact of agreement of Nephite practice with this Hebrew custom, as an
incidental evidence of some weight in favor of the claims of the Book
of Mormon. To appreciate the value of it, I will ask the reader to
think what importance would be given to an objection based upon the
violation of this custom by a branch of the Hebrew race. That is,
suppose the Book of Mormon had been full of double names, applied to
the same person, what then? Could it not be claimed with some force
that here would be the violation of a very universal custom of the
Hebrew people? I think such a claim, if the facts warranted it, would
be both forceful and consistent. Instead of the violation of the Hebrew
custom, however, there is a singular accordance with it; and the fact
of agreement, I suggest, is entitled to as much weight in favor of the
book as the supposed disagreement would have been against it.
This circumstance also sustains the claims of the Book of Mormon to
being an ancient record; for if it was of modern origin, having for its
authors Joseph Smith and his associates, it would not very likely have
followed so absolutely this ancient Hebrew custom, since Joseph Smith
and his associates lived in a time and among a people where it was
common at least, if not actually customary, to give to persons double
names, a custom that would likely have influenced them in any creation
of names which they would have attempted.
But very few Jaredite and Nephite proper names with their
interpretation, and but few original common names, with their
interpretation have found their way into the translation of the
Jaredite and Nephite records. Of the first class--proper names with
interpretations--I instance the Jaredite word "Ripliancum," [32] which
by interpretation means "large," or "to exceed all." It is employed in
connection with describing the arrival of the army of Coriantumr in
the region of the great lakes, between the present countries of Canada
and the United States. It is most probably a proper name carrying with
it the signification equivalent to the phrase we use in describing the
same waters, viz: "the Great Lakes," or, as the implied Book of Mormon
interpretation stands, bodies of water that exceed in size all others
of their kind.
Then there is the Jaredite common name "deseret," meaning honey bee.
[33] In passing I call attention to the fact that the Hebrew proper
name, "Deborah" also means "bee," that is, honey bee; [34] and it is
quite likely that the proper name "Deborah" is derived from the same
root whence comes "Deseret." The only other common names from the
Jaredites are the words "cureloms" and "cumoms." [35] These are the
names of domestic animals said to have been especially useful to the
Jaredites, hence most likely used either for draft or pack animals, or
perhaps both.
Turning to the Nephite record we have the name of "Irreantum," [36]
meaning the sea, or "many waters." Also the word "Liahona," [37]
meaning "compass," or perhaps more properly, "director," since, unlike
the modern compass, it indicated a variant direction rather than a
permanent one; and was made useful to the person possessing it through
the principle of faith rather than the magnetic polar force; hence
it could only be explained by the term "compass" in that it was an
"indicator," or "director." The word "Gazelem" is also a Nephite word,
meaning "a stone," that is, a seer stone, since it is spoken of as
a means of ascertaining knowledge through it by revelation. [38] In
addition to these words we have also a number of names of Nephite coins
and the names of fractional values of coins, as follows:
The names of the gold coins, commencing with the one of lowest value,
are: a senine, a seon, a shum and a limnah.
A seon was twice the value of a senine; a shum was twice the value of a
seon; and a limnah was equal to the value of all the other gold coins.
The silver coins were, a senum, an amnor, an ezrom and an onti.
Their relative value is stated as follows: an amnor of silver was twice
the value of a senum; an ezrom four times the value of a senum; an onti
was equal in value to all the other silver coins.
The fractional values are represented as follows: A shiblom is half a
senum; a shiblum is one half a shiblom; a leah is one half of a shiblum.
We have no means of obtaining specifically the value of these coins in
modern terms, nor am I interested in that matter here. I only desire to
call attention to the fact that these are Nephite names brought over
into our language by the translation of the Nephite records, though
reference to the passage [39] where the tables are given will plainly
indicate to the interested enquirer that there is stated a system of
relative values in these coins that bears evidence of its being genuine.
Alluding to this matter of names in a general way I suggest that there
is nothing more difficult in literature than to originate new names.
As a matter of fact names do not suggest things, but things suggest
names. Men do not bring into existence names and then fasten them upon
things, but they see an object, they hear a sound, or become acquainted
with an idea, and the object, the sound or the idea suggests a name. So
that names, speaking generally, arise from things already existing and
are not formed arbitrarily. The names in the Book of Mormon could come
into existence in one of two ways only. Either Joseph Smith arbitrarily
created them, or else he found them in the Nephite record. Since
originating new names is so extremely difficult, the probability in
the case lies on the side of Joseph Smith finding them in the Nephite
record. If any one should doubt of the difficulty of originating new
names I would invite him to make the experiment. In this connection I
remember with what ease an old teacher of mine in English put down a
somewhat presumptuous class mate. The teacher had expatiated on the
excellence of the Proverbs of Solomon, when the aforesaid class mate
expressed his contempt of things so simple. "Proverbs," exclaimed he,
to those sitting near him, "why, it's easy enough to write proverbs."
The good Doctor who was our teacher happened to overhear the remark
and said to the speaker, "Suppose you write us a few." My class mate
tried: and the more he tried the farther from proverbs he got. He had
not learned that proverbs were the "pure literature of reason:" the
statement of "absolute truths without qualification;" "the sanctuary
of the intuitions of humanity." And so with this matter of originating
names. It may seem a simple thing, but those who entertain such an idea
let them give us a few new names. Now, the Book of Mormon has a number
of proper names that are not new. These are chiefly Bible names and are
found in Nephite writings because the Nephites brought with them to the
western hemisphere copies of so many of the sacred books of the Jews
as were in existence at the time of their departure from Judea, 600 B.
C., parts of which were multiplied by copying and helped form part of
the Nephite literature; hence they sometimes used Bible names. But the
Book of Mormon also gives us a long list of absolutely new names, both
of men and of places, though in many in stances, as already pointed
out, the names of cities and the districts or country surrounding them
took the name of some noted person in some way or other prominently
connected with the history of the place. I have already pointed out
that a marked distinction exists between Nephite names and Jaredite
names, so that we may see that the Book of Mormon gives us two lists of
new names, one Jaredite, the other Nephite, which fact, when coupled
with the well recognized difficulty of originating names, renders the
performance all the more remarkable. It not only demonstrates the
originality of the Book of Mormon, but must be admitted to be either a
striking demonstration of wonderful genius on the part of the Prophet
Joseph Smith, or else a very strong evidence in support of the claims
of the Book of Mormon. And since the list of new names is quite too
large to refer to the genius of one single writer for their origin, I
think the latter conclusion represents the truth in the case.
Footnotes
1. Vol. II., chapter viii.
2. Alma iv: 1-5.
3. Alma i: 23, 24.
4. Helaman iii: 32, 33.
5. Helaman iii: 32, 33.
6. Helaman xi: 21-24
7. Ether xiv: 33.
8. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Hackett edition Vol. III., p. 2062.
9. In the first chapter of Ether there is given a list of names of
Jaredite kings, twenty-six in all. In the first thirteen names--half
of the number--representing the most ancient Jaredite times, there
are only four that could possibly be derivatives; these are Oriah,
Coriantumr, Riplakish, Morianton, while in the latter half of the list
of names there are at least six derivatives. Beginning with the most
ancient they are--Hearthom, Amnigaddah, Coriantumr, Shiblon, Ethem,
Coriantor.
10. It is not until we reach the middle and later period of Nephite
times that we meet with such names as Amlici, Antiomno, Amalickiah,
Nephiah, Moronihah, Kishkuman, Pecumeni, Lachoneus, Giddianhi,
Gidgiddoni, Zemnarihah, Ammaron, Ammonihah, and many others that are
plainly derivative names.
11. While there can be no more than conjecture upon this point the
likelihood of the thing, I am inclined to believe, is all on the side
of his marriage and the perpetuation of his race. Coriantumr had
doubtless every reason to believe that he was the sole survivor of his
people, and he could have no greater anxiety than that his race should
be perpetuated. In support of this theory it may be urged that in the
Nephite history, about 41 B. C., we learn of a very strong and mighty
leader in war, bearing the name "Coriantumr," who was a descendant of
Zarahemla (Helaman i: 15: 32), the leader of the descendants of Mulek's
colony when discovered by Mosiah I, about 200 B. C. It was Mulek's
colony, it will be remembered, who found Coriantumr, the Jaredite,
and with whom he lived some nine months. May it not be reasonably
supposed that this noted man among the Nephites, bearing the name of
the old Jaredite chieftain was a descendant of his, since we find that
chieftain's name strangely appearing among the Nephites? And may it
not be urged that here we have one of those obscure instances in the
history of a great people unlikely to be provided for by conspirators
constructing a book to be imposed up the world as a revelation from God?
12. It is quite possible also that the word Shiblon among the Nephites
came from the Jaredites. Unfortunately the orthography of this name
is given in two ways in the translation of the Jaredite abridgment,
"Shiblom" and "Shiblon;" but if the Jaredite name is Shiblon, it may
be that the name among the Nephites was taken from the Jaredites as
suggested.
13. Ether vii: 4-9.
14. Ether vii: 6, 16, 17; also xiv: 6-11.
15. Helaman v: 14.
16. Alma li: 30.
17. Helaman i: 22.
18. Helaman i: 23.
19. Alma l: 14.
20. Alma lxii: 32.
21. Alma lxii: 30.
22. Alma lxii: 30.
23. Alma lvi: 14.
24. Alma lvi: 14.
25. Rollin's Ancient History, Vol. I., pp. 266, 227.
26. Ibid.
27. Genesis xi: 9.
28. Osborn, Ancient Egypt and the light of Modern Discoveries, p. 205.
29. Plato (Jowett), Vol. II., p. 517.
30. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Hackett Ed., Vol. III., p. 2060.
31. Ibid.
32. Ether xv: 8.
33. Ether ii: 3.
34. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, article "Names," Vol. III., p.
2061.
35. Ether ix: 19.
36. I. Nephi xvii: 5.
37. Alma xxxvii: 38-40. I. Nephi xvi: 10-30. I. Nephi xviii: 12-21. II.
Nephi v: 12.
38. Alma xxxvii: 23.
39. Alma xi.
CHAPTER XXXVIII
INTERNAL EVIDENCES--THE BOOK OF MORMON FORMS OF GOVERNMENT CONSISTENT
WITH THE TIMES AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY EXISTED.
In the Book of Mormon three forms of government are said to have
existed among the various peoples inhabiting the western world. These
are, first, a Monarchial form; second, a sort of Republic or rule of
Judges; third, an Ecclesiastical government, or rule of priests, ending
finally in the rule of military chieftains. The Book of Mormon giving
as it does, though only in an incidental way, a description of these
several forms of government, presents a crucial test of its claims to
being a translation of an ancient record. For if in describing any
one of these forms of government it should be out of harmony with
well known facts concerning ancient forms of government, or if it
ascribes to them qualities or powers out of harmony with the times
or circumstances under which they existed, then doubt is thrown upon
the claims of the book to being a translation of an ancient record.
To illustrate the proposition now laid down: It is well known that to
the ancients the only form of monarchy was what we call a "simple" or
"absolute" monarchy; that is, a form of government in which all powers
of government are centered in one person. Such a thing as a division of
the powers of government into co-ordinate branches, relegating several
functions to distinct persons or groups of persons, was unknown to
the ancients. The ideas prevailing in modern times which have brought
into existence our "mixed" or "constitutional monarchies" had not
as yet been discovered by the ancients; hence if such modern ideas
concerning monarchy should be found in the Book of Mormon governments,
involving the existence of cabinets, parliaments or distinct judiciary
departments it would at least be very prejudical to the claims of the
book to being an ancient record.
Again in respect of democratic forms of government: the only form
known to the ancient was "simple" democracy. The form of government
by which the people acted directly upon governmental affairs. The
principle of representation in democracies was not as yet discovered
in times contemporary with the Book of Mormon republic, therefore
if in the Nephite republic, or the "reign of the Judges," as that
form of government is sometimes called in the Book of Mormon, there
should be found the representative principle, which is really a modern
refinement in government, that fact too would be prejudicial to its
claims being an ancient record. Per contra, if these modern ideas
respecting monarchial and democratic forms of government are absent
from the kingdoms and republics described in the book, then it would
be at least presumptive evidence of the genuineness of its claims;
for if the Book of Mormon had been the product of a modern author, or
authors, there would very likely be found in it some of the modern
ideas of government, both in its monarchies and in its republics, and
especially would this be probable if its authors were illiterate men
and not acquainted with these facts concerning government among ancient
peoples. Under those circumstances the ancient and modern forms would
inevitably be confounded because modern illiterate authors would not
possess sufficient discretion to keep them separated.
Monarchies.
I am aware that the Book of Mormon account of the Jaredite monarchy
is so very limited that we can form but little idea as to its nature;
but the little there is said of it is strictly in harmony with the
ancient forms of monarchy. That is, the kings were absolute, the source
of all law and the center of all political power. They were inducted
into their office by formal anointing, according to ancient custom.
[1] They are sometimes associated with them on the throne the son who
had been selected to succeed in the kingly authority, which is also in
accordance with ancient custom. [2]
Respecting the nature of the Nephite kingdom also but little can be
learned from the Book of Mormon because matters concerning government
are only mentioned in an incidental way, but from what little is said
we are justified in forming the same conclusions regarding it as in
regard to the Jaredite Monarchy. That is, it was "simple" or "absolute"
monarchy. The remarks of Mosiah II in relation to the power of a king
for good or evil leads to the conclusion that the power of a Nephite
king was most absolute; and that with the Nephite monarch as with the
Jaredite, the king was the source of all laws and the center of all
political authority. The remarks referred to are as follows:
And behold, now I say unto you, ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous
king, save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much
blood. For behold, he has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth
his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have
reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his
feet the commandments of God; and he enacteth laws, and sendeth
them forth among his people; yea, laws after the manner of his
own wickedness; and whosoever does not obey his laws, he causeth
to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him, he will
send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy
them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all
righteousness. [3]
This certainly is a description of arbitrary powers vested in the
king. And what is true of the Nephite monarchy is equally true of the
Lamanite kingdoms--judging from those rare and brief glimpses one
gets of Lamanite governments in the Book of Mormon. Among all three
peoples--Jaredites, Nephites, Lamanites--wherever kingly government
is described it is the same--it is "simple," "absolute," "ancient"
monarchy. [4] There is no indication anywhere of the existence of
cabinets or parliaments; or of the division of political authority into
executive, legislative or judicial co-ordinate branches. Nor is there
any indication that there was ever an attempt to blend the various
primary forms of government--monarchy, aristocracy, democracy--into
a mixed government, a government embracing elements from all three
of these recognized primary forms. Such mixed governments are modern
creations; refinements in the science of government unattempted by
the ancients. The ancients, in fact, held them to be impossible, mere
visionary whims, solecisms. Even a man of the excellent understanding
of Tacitus declared that if such a government were formed it could
never be lasting or secure.
Reign of the Judges--Republic.
It is however in the matter of the Nephite "reign of the Judges" or the
"Nephite Republic" that an illiterate, modern writer would most likely
have betrayed himself. Especially an American writer strongly imbued
with the excellence, to say nothing of the sanctity, of the American
form of government.
That Joseph Smith, as also his early and later associates, were imbued
with such opinions concerning the American system of government is
notorious. Joseph Smith declared the constitution of the United States
to have resulted from the inspiration of God: "And again I say unto
you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will
that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by
the hands of those who are placed as rulers, and are in authority over
you, according to the laws and constitution of the people which I have
suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and
protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles, that
every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity,
according to the moral agency which I have given unto them, that every
man be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore,
it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And
for this purpose have I established the constitution of this land, by
the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and
redeemed the land by the shedding of blood." [5]
On another occasion the Prophet said: "Hence we say, that the
constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded
in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner; it is to all those who
are privileged with the sweets of its liberty, like the cooling shades
and refreshing waters of a great rock in a thirsty and weary land. It
is like a great tree under whose branches men from every clime can be
shielded from the burning rays of [oppression's] sun." [6]
Still more especially would an illiterate modern writer be likely to
betray himself if the American system of government was practically
the only one of which he had any definite knowledge. If then his
description of a "reign of judges," based upon democratic principles,
among an ancient people, escape not only some but all modern
refinements of democratic government--some of which were unknown until
employed in the establishment of the republic of the United States
[7]--then indeed are we well within the realm of the marvelous. And
this we may claim for the Book of Mormon description of the "reign of
the judges," viz. that while it outlines a government based upon the
central principle of democracy--government by the people [8]--yet there
is nothing modern in that republic. The principle of representation
no where appears; a division of the political power into co-ordinate
and independent departments no where appears; there is no indication
of a federation even, much less any of those modern refinements which
distinguish modern federated republics from more ancient federated
republics.
Of course democratic government existed from very ancient times
and there have also been from of old confederated republics, but
the government of the United States rests upon some principles
that are recognized as entirely modern. The principal differences
between the modern republics and the ancient are these: first, the
modern republics recognize the principle of representation: that is,
masses of the people delegate authority to act for them to selected
representatives; second, the powers of government are lodged in three
distinct co-ordinate departments, the law making, the law executing,
and the law determining departments; third, the federal government
has the same division of political power as the respective states,
viz., legislative, executive and judicial; and also has conferred upon
it power, within the limits prescribed by the constitution, to act
directly through its own instrumentalities upon the citizens of the
respective states. The last item the French philosopher De Tocqueville,
in speaking of the republic of the United States, declared to be a
wholly novel theory which he characterizes as a great discovery in
modern political science. "In all the confederations which precede
the American constitution of 1789," he says, "the allied states,
for a common object, agree to obey the injunctions of a federal
government; but they [the respective states] reserve to themselves
the right of ordaining and enforcing the execution of the laws of the
union. The American states which combined in 1789, agreed that the
federal government should not only dictate but should execute its own
enactments. In both cases the right is the same but the exercise of the
right is different; and this difference produced the most momentous
consequences. The new word which ought to express this novel thing does
not yet exist." (De Tocqueville, U. S. Constitution, Vol. I.)
Ecclesiastical Government.
The government which obtained in the era following the advent of
Messiah in the western world was also in harmony with the conditions
prevailing in those days. That is, the ecclesiastical government
supplied by the Church founded by Messiah appears to have superseded
all other form of government through the two hundred years which
succeeded that event; nor, indeed, up to the close of the Book of
Mormon period, 420 A. D., except here and there a reference made
to "kings" among that division of the people who styled themselves
Lamanites; but I take it that even these "kings" among the Lamanites
more nearly resembled military chieftains than monarchs at the head
of settled governments. In the division of the people called Nephites
there is no reference either to a reign of judges or of kings or other
form of government than this Church or Ecclesiastical government, so
that what I have previously said upon this subject [9] will be found
correct, viz., the people after the establishment of the Church of
Christ among them found its institutions and authority sufficient, as
well in secular as in spiritual affairs. That such a government as
this should take the place of governments formerly existing, I repeat,
was in harmony with conditions that obtained after the advent of
Messiah. I have already called attention to the fact that government
becomes necessary because of the vices and injustice of men. That
its chief function is to restrain men from injuring one another and
thus give security to society. When all the people are righteous
government becomes well nigh unnecessary, or operates at least in a
very limited sphere, and the form of government becomes a matter of
more or less indifference. Now it will be remembered that in the awful
judgments of God which had swept over the western world at Messiah's
crucifixion the more ungodly part of the people were destroyed, and
those who survived were afterwards thoroughly converted to the gospel
of Jesus Christ by his advent and the ministry of his servants, so
that there was inaugurated an era of peace and perfect righteousness.
For two centuries at least there was a veritable golden age in the
American continents, during which time the simple laws of righteousness
promulgated by the gospel were all sufficient as a rule of conduct, and
men practically forgot the reign of kings and the reign of judges. When
wickedness once more began to stalk through the land it may be that the
hitherto prevailing ecclesiastical governments gave way to the rule
of military chieftains, both among the Nephites and Lamanites, though
among the later such chieftains were sometimes called "kings."
That the monarchial and republican forms of government described in
the Book of Mormon should be in harmony with the principles of those
ancient political systems, and that the kind of government which
obtained after the advent of Messiah among the Nephites should be in
such perfect harmony with the conditions that obtained in that period,
is internal evidence of marked significance in support of the claims
of the Book of Mormon. To see it in its full strength one should ask
himself what would be the state of the case if the descriptions of
monarchial and democratic government were not in harmony with the
restricted ideas of ancient governments, but were full of modern ideas
and refinements of government; and if the facts existing after the
advent of Messiah and the introduction of the Nephite golden age were
utterly at variance with the kind of government that we are ready to
believe then obtained. It should be remembered that if inconsistencies
in the Book of Mormon forms of government would be so damaging against
its claims to being an ancient record, then consistency in its forms of
government should be allowed equal weight in support of its claims to
being an ancient record.
The Events to which Importance is Given in the Book of Mormon are in
Harmony with the Character of the Writers.
In considering this subject we must bear in mind the purposes for which
the Book of Mormon was written. The purposes are set forth in detail in
chapter III.
Here it will be sufficient to say that the main purpose of the Book of
Mormon is to be a witness for Jesus, the Christ; for the truth of the
Gospel as the power of God unto salvation.
Notwithstanding these purposes are adhered to throughout the work it
is very noticeable, and indeed one cause of complaint against the
book, that it gives great prominence, at least in the parts made up
of Mormon and Moroni's abridgments, to wars; to minute descriptions
of battles, the construction of fortifications, and the affairs of
war in general. This doubtless arises from the fact that Mormon and
Moroni were both military chieftains, and notwithstanding their general
purpose was to make prominent the religious events which happened
among the Nephites and Jaredites, and the hand-dealings of God with
those peoples, yet when these writers came to give an account of wars,
it is but to be expected, by the very nature of things, that they
could not refrain from recording those events which would have such
a powerful attraction for them. Involuntarily they were drawn into a
description of those events, and unconsciously gave them prominence in
their narratives. So I say the events to which importance is given in
the Book of Mormon are in harmony with the character of the writers,
a fact which is still further emphasized by the nature of the first
part of the volume. We have seen that 149 of the 157 pages constituting
that first part is written by the first Nephi and his brother Jacob,
prophets and priests of God. In their writings wars are mentioned only
in the most incidental way, but there is an abundance of religious
teaching, and prominence is given to visions, dreams and revelations,
and that because those writers were, in the main, prophets and priests
of God. It should also be noted, of course, that the time in which
these earlier writers lived was not so much a period of warfare as
subsequent centuries among the Nephites. It is to be observed, then,
in conclusion upon this point, that the very prominence given to wars
and battle-movements in Mormon's and Moroni's part of the volume is
but in keeping with the nature of things--an additional evidence of
consistency in the work--the events to which importance is given are in
harmony with the character of the writers.
_Complexity in the Structure of the Book of Mormon in Harmony with
the Theory of its Origin._
I hesitated some time before adopting the above as a heading for this
division of the subject, because I was aware, and am still aware of the
fact that it scarcely presents the thought I would have considered;
and I know how easily, by a slight variation, it could be made subject
to the smart retort that the complexity of the structure of the Book
of Mormon is in harmony with the theory of its merely human origin
since it is simplicity, not complexity, which is the sign manual of
things divine. Still, for all that, I have concluded to make use of
this faulty title, for want of a better, confident that when my whole
thought under it is developed it will result in producing evidence for
the truth of the claims of the book.
That the structure of the Book of Mormon is complex all who read it
know. The first part of it is made up of the translation of unabridged
records, the small plates of Nephi. The second part is made up of the
translation of abridged books (Mormon's abridgment), Mormon, however,
retaining for the several parts of his abridgment the title of the
respective books he abridged.
I have already pointed out the fact [10] that Mormon's condensed
narrative from the original Nephite records makes up the body of his
work; with occasional direct quotations from the original records, and
the whole more or less confused by his running comments, unseparated
from the body of his work save by the sense of the text. All this is
complex enough surely, but the end is not yet; for within the old
Nephite records Mormon had at hand while doing the work of abridgment,
there were still other books. That is, books within books; as, for
instance, the Book of Zeniff within the Book of Mosiah, which see.
[11] Also the account of the church founded by the first Alma,
likewise within the book of Mosiah. Also the account of the missionary
expedition to the Lamanites by the young Nephite princes, sons of
King Mosiah II., within the book of Alma, which see. [12] Mormon,
coming to these books within books, followed that order also in his
abridgment; so that as in the original Nephite records, we have books
within books, so within Mormon's abridgment we have abridged records
within abridged records. Then, as if to cap the climax of complexity
in structure, Mormon writes a book of his own to which he gives his
own name. That is, calls it the Book of Mormon; the last two chapters
of which, however, are written by Moroni. Then follows what may be
called the third part of the Book of Mormon--Moroni's abridgment of the
twenty-four plates of Ether, which gives us so much of the history as
we have of the Jaredites. By this arrangement the history of the first
people to occupy the western hemisphere, (after the flood), comes last
in the Book of Mormon; and Moroni's abridgment of the Jaredite record
has much of the complexity of his father's abridgment of the Nephite
records.
Now, with all this before the mind of the reader--whether he regards
Joseph Smith, Solomon Spaulding, or Sidney Rigdon as the author of the
Book of Mormon--I submit to him the question: Would either ingenuity or
stupidity in a modern author suggest such complexity in the structure
of a book as this? Can a parallel case be pointed to in the modern
making of books?
If the Book of Mormon were modern in structure and its author or
authors had the conception that this western world was peopled by a
colony coming from the Euphrates valley, in very ancient times, and
subsequently by two other colonies from Judea, one leaving 600 B.
C. and the other shortly afterwards, in giving the history of those
people, would not the modern author have begun with the most ancient
colony and treated the history of the respective peoples in the order
of their occupancy of the western continents? Then, again: If the Book
of Mormon is mere fiction, the idle coinage of an inventive, modern
author, why three migrations?
If the object of the modern author was merely to convey an idea how
a civilized race in ancient times occupied the western world, why
would not the first migration--the Jaredite--have answered all his
purposes? Or why not take the second migration--the Nephite--for the
accomplishment of such a purpose? Why complicate it by bringing in the
migration of Mulek's colony, when the simple treatment of developing
the Nephite colony into national proportions would have been sufficient
for the purpose of a work of fiction? One other question I would submit
relative to the Jaredite record and the strange place it occupies in
the Book of Mormon. The plates of Ether were found by an expedition
sent out from Zeniff's colony about 123 B. C., and were translated
shortly afterwards by Mosiah II., who was a seer; that is, he was able
to use Urim and Thummim in the translation of strange languages. Now,
why did not Mormon include an abridgment of Mosiah's translation of
the plates of Ether in his abridgment of Nephite records, allowing it
to stand in his collection of plates as his abridgment of the Book of
Zeniff stands within his abridgment of the Book of Mosiah, instead
of passing the matter by and leaving it for his son Moroni to make a
translation direct from the Book of Ether, thus throwing the history
of the first inhabitants of the western world, after the flood, to the
very last part of the record? Candidly, does the complex structure of
the Book of Mormon appeal to one as at all modern in its arrangement?
Are modern books so constructed? And yet, notwithstanding all the
complexity in the structure of the book, each part is so in harmony
with every other part, and with the whole, that really, after all, it
is a very simple book, and one readily understood. It is clear that the
very peculiar circumstances under which the Book of Mormon was compiled
by the original Nephite writers, and that neither the ingenuity nor
the stupidity of Joseph Smith, nor of any other modern writer, is
responsible for this peculiar structure of the book. And, moreover,
since the book in its details retains harmonious consistency with
the plan of its structure, must not such a fact be conceded to be an
incidental evidence in favor of its claims?
Footnotes
1. Ether vi: 27. Ibid. ix: 15-22. Ibid. x: 10 et. seq.
2. Ether ix: 14, 15, 21, 22. Ibid. x: 13.
3. Mosiah xxix: 21-23. See also remarks, chapters x, and xiii.
4. Perhaps it may be thought that an exception should be made in the
matter of Lamanite kingdoms, of which I have spoken (chapter xiii) as
constituting at one period of Lamanite history, a sort of confederacy
of kingdoms; but this does not affect the statement of the text which
is dealing with the form of government. I believe myself justified in
saying that whether reference is made to the petty Lamanite kingdoms
or the central kingdom to which they were tributary, the principle
in government will be found the same--the king is the source of all
political power, the monarchy is "simple," the kingly power absolute.
5. Doc. & Cov., Sec. ci: 76-80.
6. Letters of Joseph Smith, from Liberty Prison, under date of March
25, 1839--to the Church of the Latter-day Saints. History of the
Church, Vol. III., p. 304.
7. See De Tocqueville's Constitution of the U. S., Vol. I.
8. See Chapter xiii.
9. Ante pp. 216-7.
10. See Ante Chapter xxxvii.
11. Book of Mosiah, p. 181 (current edition).
12. Book of Mormon, p 283 (current edition).
CHAPTER XXXIX
INTERNAL EVIDENCES--THE ORIGINALITY OF THE BOOK OF MORMON AN EVIDENCE
IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIMS.
How far originality may be insisted upon as a necessary element in a
book avowedly containing a revelation from God is an open question;
just as how far originality in a prophet may be insisted upon is.
In both cases, however, it cannot be doubted but that originality
would be regarded as evidence of considerable weight in favor of the
divinity of the message of either prophet or book. Somehow men look for
originality in any thing that purports to be a revelation from God,
come how it will. They look for a word "from the inner fact of things"
in a revelation. A new word that shall add somewhat to the sum of known
things, and spoken in a way to attract anew the attention of men. And
yet it must not be forgotten that "every scribe which is instructed
unto the kingdom of heaven * * * bringeth forth out of his treasure
things new and old" [1]--the old, mark you, as well as the new--and one
of olden time doubted even if there really was any new thing under the
sun. "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that
which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing
under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, see, this is
new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us." [2]
From all which I conclude that while in a way originality may be
regarded as affording some evidence in favor of the claims of a prophet
and his message, or of a book and its revelation, still originality is
not an indispensable quality in either prophet or book. Contemporary
prophets, or prophets living in succession, may come burdened with the
same word of the Lord, with the same divine message; but the one who
speaks secondly or thirdly, and hence with all claim to originality
gone, is none the less God's messenger; and the word he speaks may not
with safety be rejected for that it lacks the quality of originality.
So, too, with books. It would be a senseless manner of handling the
scriptures to reject the books called first and second Chronicles
because they chiefly duplicate the matter of the books called first
and second Kings, and have little originality to commend them to our
acceptance. So with the books of the New Testament. Accepting for our
purpose here the order in which they stand in the commonly received
versions of the New Testament, as the order in which the books were
written, shall the book of Mark be rejected because in the main it
deals with the same matter that engages the attention of Matthew,
and there is but little on the score of its originality of matter to
commend it as an inspired book? The same question could be asked in
relation to the book of Luke. The truth is that God in books as in
prophets sometimes requires more than one for a witness to his message,
and hence repeats the revelation in a number of inspired books, in
which case the books merely repeating the revelation are as truly
inspired, as truly scripture as the one in which the message first
appeared, although it could be said that the quality of originality is
wholly wanting.
Since the Book of Mormon feigns the introduction of no new religion,
but gives merely an account of the introduction of the Christian
religion in the western hemisphere, by inspired teachers, both before
and after the coming of Messiah, and by the personal ministry of
Messiah after his resurrection; and as the Christian religion is always
the same, in all times and in all lands, it must have been the same
when introduced into America as when taught in Judea--where is room
for originality? Is not originality by the very nature of the claims
of the Book of Mormon excluded? The reader, I believe, will recognize
the force of the question; and I take occasion here to remark that
the point in the question exhibits the weakness of those objections
that are sometimes urged against the Book of Mormon on the score of
sameness of matter in it and the New Testament; and also it exhibits
how senseless is the clamor for the existence of some new moral or
religious truth [3] in the Book of Mormon, not to be found in the Old
or New Testaments.
Since, then, the Book of Mormon, so far as it treats of religion,
treats of the Christian religion, it is comparison not contrast that
should be made; sameness, not difference that should be looked for;
identity of moral and religious truths, not differences; accordance
with old truths, rather than the existence of new ones. The Christian
religion may not be contrasted with itself; and as the fullness of the
gospel was revealed in the proclamation of it in Judea, it would be
sufficient if a dispensation of the same gospel proclaimed in America
is in strict accordance with that taught in Judea. In fact this is
all that the nature of the case strictly requires. Still, after the
reasonableness of all this is established, there may be claimed for the
Book of Mormon an originality in the fact of the existence of new and
important Christian truths in its pages; as, also an originality of
emphasis placed on certain other Christian truths.
This much that a proper estimate may be formed of the value of
originality as an evidence of the divine authenticity or inspiration of
a book; neither giving an exaggerated value to it on the one hand, nor
accounting it of little or no importance on the other.
I.
_Originality of Structure._
In enumerating the several particulars in which the Book of Mormon
manifests originality, I would name its peculiar structure--so at
variance with all modern ideas of book making--pointed out in the
treatment of the last subdivision of chapter xxxviii, and ask the
reader to consider that treatise brought over into this subdivision,
and the peculiar structure of the Book of Mormon made one, and the
first, of the evidences of its originality.
II.
_Originality in Names._
So also as to names; so far as they are original, I would have that
fact considered as another, the second, evidence of the originality
of the Book of Mormon; and so much of that treatise as deals with the
originality of the names, (see chapter xxxvii) considered as brought
over into this subdivision.
III.
_In the Manner of its Coming Forth._
In the manner of its coming forth no less than in its structure and
its names, the Book of Mormon is original. It must be remembered that
at the time of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon such a thing
as a new revelation from God was utterly unlooked for. Indeed it was
the consensus of Christian opinion and teaching that the time of
revelation had passed; that the days of miracles were over; that God
in the Christian dispensation to mankind (the dispensation in which
Messiah ministered in person) spoke the final word; that no more divine
communication would be given. Speculating upon this very subject in
connection with the desirability for knowledge respecting the ancient
inhabitants of America, Ethan Smith, in his "View of the Hebrews; or
the Tribes of Israel in America," says, most emphatically:
We are to expect no new revelation from heaven, and the days of
miracles are thought to be past. We probably must look for just
such evidence to exhibit to the world that people so long lost [as
the ten Tribes of Israel], as is in fact exhibited by the natives
of America. [4]
It is well to remember that this was said some years before the
Book of Mormon was published, and I repeat that it represents the
generally accepted Christian idea concerning revelation and miracles.
Furthermore, it is notorious that the prime objection urged against
the Book of Mormon was the fact that it claimed to be a new revelation
from God; and the arguments found in the discourses and writings of
the early Elders of the Church clearly prove that the chief contention
over the Book of Mormon in those early days was on this point. [5] It
follows, therefore, that Joseph Smith's account of the manner in which
the Book of Mormon was brought forth and translated was a very original
one; for it involved a revelation from God to make known its existence,
and what men call a miracle to secure its translation. Here, then, was
not only originality, but a bold contradiction of what was supposed to
be the most completely settled doctrine of modern Christendom, _viz_.
that the age of revelations and miracles had forever passed away. It
is scarcely probable that imposters would move along such lines as
these. The proclamation of a new revelation making known the existence
of a new volume of scripture was the most remarkable innovation upon
Christian opinion that the world had ever witnessed. Orthodoxy stood
aghast at the presumption as they called it; and seemed for a time to
forget all other points of controversy in order to concentrate their
attack upon this innovation of their most cherished idea. They thought
the very claim that the Book of Mormon involved a new revelation from
God was sufficient to justify its rejection. Yet never was opposition
so completely demolished in controversy as this sectarian argument
against new and continual revelation. So completely was it overthrown
that we to-day scarcely ever hear it mentioned. With this, however, I
have nothing further to do. My only point at present is that there was
a bold originality in Joseph Smith's account of the coming forth and
translation of the Book of Mormon, which, in addition to contravening
the accepted Christian opinion of the times on the subject of
revelation and miracles, carried with it much weight in support of the
claims made for this American volume of scripture; for surely imposters
seeking to foist a book upon the world either for obtaining fame or
money would never be found moving along lines so diametrically opposite
to accepted opinions.
IV.
_Its Accounting for the Peopling of America._
In its account of peopling America no less than in its structure and
the manner in which its existence was made known and its translation
accomplished, the Book of Mormon is original. All the books on
American antiquities that could possibly have been accessible to
Joseph Smith and his associates favored the theory of migrations from
northeastern Asia by way of Behring Straits where the Asiatic and
American continents approach each other. See Josiah Priest's American
Antiquities, preface. Ethan Smith, referring to the authorities that he
was acquainted with on this subject, says:
All seem to agree that the Indians came from the northwest, and
overspread the continent to the south. * * * * * I forbear to
offer any further remarks upon these testimonies incidentally
afforded by this most celebrated author, [meaning Humboldt]. Let
them be duly weighed by the judicious reader; and he surely cannot
doubt but that the natives of America came from the north over
Behring's Straits; and descended from a people of as great mental
cultivation, as were the ancient family of Israel. [6]
Not only were such the prevailing views at the time Ethan Smith wrote,
1825, but even to this day the same general opinion prevails among
authorities; [7] that is, that America was peopled from Asia by way
of Behring Straits. The migrations of the Book of Mormon, however,
contravene this quite generally accepted theory. While it is supposed
that the Jaredites passed out of the Euphrates valley and wandered
several years eastwardly through Asia, they crossed the Pacific and
landed in the south part of the north continent of America and settled
in a district of country they afterwards called Moron, near what was
afterwards the Nephite province called Desolation, which was in the
region of country known to us as the Central American States. [8]
The Nephite colony, as we have seen [9], landed on the west coast of
South America about thirty degrees south latitude; and Mulek's colony
is supposed to have landed somewhere in the south part of the North
American continent. These Book of Mormon accounts of migrations to
the American continents constitute the widest possible departure from
usually accepted theories upon the subject.
V.
_The Nativity of Ancient American Peoples._
The Book of Mormon is original with reference to the facts it presents
respecting the nativity of its peoples. On this point, more is
sometimes claimed by believers in the Book of Mormon than is warranted
by the facts in the case. For example, it is sometimes stated that the
Israelitish origin of the native Americans was first asserted by the
Book of Mormon. That is not true. Long before the advent of the Book
of Mormon James Adair, whose work was published in 1775, advanced the
theory that the native American Indians were the Lost Ten Tribes of
Israel, and argued for the truth of his theory at great length. [10]
Ethan Smith, in his work we have several times quoted, advances the
theory that the native Indians were the "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel,"
the very title of his book--"View of the Hebrews; or the Tribes of
Israel in America"--is the evidence of his holding that theory.
It is therefore a mistake to say that the idea of Israelitish descent
of the native American Indians originated with the Book of Mormon.
Indeed the theory that the native Americans were the Ten Lost Tribes
of Israel found many advocates both in Europe and the United States,
especially, I may say, in the New England states, before 1830. Wherein
the Book of Mormon is original in respect of this matter is that while
declaring the Israelitish descent of the ancient people of America,
it directly contravenes the idea that the native Americans, are the
Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, by incidentally declaring those tribes to
be in another part of the world, and Jesus announcing to the Nephites
his intention to appear unto them, and administer among them. [11] Of
course reference to Israelitish descent is here made to the two last
migrations only, that is, to the colony of Lehi, and the colony of
Mulek. The colony of Jared were doubtless of the same race, but of
earlier ancestors, among whom the patriarch Shem. The Book of Mormon
refers to Lehi's colony as made up of descendants of Manasseh [Lehi]
and Ephraim [Ishmael] [12] while the colony of Mulek were Jews.
From this it appears that the Book of Mormon is as boldly original
in declaring the nativity of these colonies that peopled America
with teeming millions of their descendants, as it is in its account
of the course of their migrations or the manner in which the Book of
Mormon came forth. For, in limiting the nativity of these colonies to
the descendants of Joseph and of Judah, it as radically contravenes
existing opinions upon the subject as it does in respect of the manner
in which the book came forth, and the course of migration.
VI.
_Accounting for the Existence of Christian Ideas in America._
The Book of Mormon is original in the matter of accounting for the
existence of Christian ideas and doctrines among the native Americans.
I would have this statement so understood as to include all Bible
ideas, since right conceptions of Christianity in its fullness includes
the Old Testament and the dispensation of God to the children of men
described therein as part of the Christian heritage, as well as the
specific Christian dispensation which is described in the New Testament.
The manner in which the Book of Mormon accounts for Christian ideas
and doctrines among native Americans is, first, by detailing the facts
of direct revelation of Christian truths to the ancient inhabitants
of America, as, for instance, in the case of the Prophet Moriancumer
among the Jaredites, where that great prophet is represented as being
permitted to stand in the revealed presence of the preexisting spirit
of Jesus Christ, and to hear the proclamation that in him should all
mankind have life and that eternally; and that as he appeared unto
that prophet in the spirit, so would he appear unto his people in the
flesh; and that those who would believe on his name should become
his sons and daughters. [13] Also the revelation of Christian truths
vouchsafed to the first Nephi; who, in vision, some hundreds of years
before the advent of Christ, was permitted to foresee the birth of
the Redeemer, the labors of his forerunner, John the Baptist, who
prepared the way before him, and much of the Judean ministry of Christ,
including his crucifixion, his resurrection, and the establishment
of his ministry through twelve Apostles; so also his advent and
ministry among the inhabitants of the western world, [14] ending in
the establishment of the Christian sacraments, and of the Christian
Church, as the sacred depository of Christian truths. Secondly, the
Book of Mormon accounts for the existence of Christian ideas and
doctrines among native American races by declaring the Nephites to be
in possession of the Hebrew scriptures extant among that people from
the beginning up to 600 B. C., including the five books of Moses, some
of the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah. [15] And also ascribing to
the Jaredites the knowledge of most ancient events through scriptures
in their possession, dealing with events from the Tower of Babel back
to the very days of Adam. [16] It is, then, by most direct means of
the revelations of God to the ancient inhabitants of America and the
personal ministration of Jesus Christ among them and the knowledge
imparted by these several volumes of very ancient scripture that the
Book of Mormon accounts for the existence of Christian ideas and
Christian truths among the native Americans.
There is nothing like this in the theories of men to account for the
existence of these truths in America. In the first place let the
reader be assured that it is quite generally conceded by the very best
authorities that ideas closely analogous to Christian truths are found
in the traditions of the native Americans. "Most ancient and modern
authors," says De Roo, "agree in saying that the Christian religion
has been taught on our [the American] continent at an epoch not so
very much anterior to the Columbian discovery. Bastian establishes the
latter opinion by the numerous analogies he points out between the
religious belief and practices of the Christians and those of American
aborigines. Von Humboldt admits the parity to be so striking as to
have given the Spanish missionaries a fine opportunity to deceive the
natives by making them believe that their own was none other than the
Christian religion. 'Not a single American missionary who has, until
this day, left any writing has forgotten to notice the evident vestiges
of Christianity which has in former time penetrated even among the most
savage tribes,' says Dr. de Mier, commenting on Sahagun's History.
Quite a number of ancient writers, such as Garcilasso de la Vega,
Solorzano, Acosta, and others are equally explicit in asserting that
several Christian tenets and practices were found among our aborigines;
but they deny their introduction by Christian teachers, giving, strange
to say, to the devil the honor of spreading the light of Christianity,
in spite of his hatred of it." [17] Later he says:
No modern student of American antiquity fails to notice the close
and striking resemblances between several leading particulars
of Christian faith, morals, and ceremonies and those of ancient
American religions. Sahagun, who wrote in Mexico about the middle
of the sixteenth century, and took such great pains to be correctly
informed in regard to all religious rites of our aborigines, states
already that all the Spanish missionaries who wrote in America
before him had pointed out the numerous vestiges of Christianity to
be found even among the savage Indian tribes. [18]
Devil propaganda of Christianity was quite a favorite theory with many
of the early Spanish writers, while others advanced the theory that
Christian apostles had evangelized the western hemisphere. Among the
latter was the Archbishop of San Domingo, Davilla Padilli, a royal
chronicler who wrote a book to prove that Christian apostles had
formerly preached in the West Indies. So also Torquemada holds the same
opinion, although he admits of the possibility of the devil teaching
Christianity. More modern writers seek to account for the existence of
these Christian analogies in other ways. Prescott for instance, in his
Conquest of Peru, says:
In the distribution of bread and wine at this high festival, [the
feast of Raymi] the orthodox Spaniards who first came into the
country saw a striking resemblance to the Christian communion;
as in the practice of confession and penance, which, in a most
irregular form indeed, seems to have been used by the Peruvians,
they discerned a coincidence with another of the sacraments of the
Church. The good fathers were fond of tracing such coincidences,
which they considered as the contrivance of Satan, who thus
endeavored to delude his victims by counterfeiting the blessed
rites of Christianity. Others, in a different vein, imagined that
they saw in such analogies the evidence that some of the primitive
teachers of the gospel, perhaps an apostle himself, had paid a
visit to these distant regions and scattered over them the seeds of
religious truth. But it seems hardly necessary to invoke the Prince
of Darkness, or the intervention of the blessed saints to account
for coincidences which have existed in countries far removed from
the light of Christianity, and in ages, indeed, when its light had
not yet risen on the world. It is much more reasonable to refer
such casual points of resemblance to the general constitution of
man and the necessities of his moral nature. [19]
Of which I think De Roo very justly remarks: "The Christian mysteries
admitted by the ancient Peruvians and Mexicans could hardly find
their origin in man's constitution; nor are religious practices, like
baptism, fasting, celibacy, and a cloistered life, to be considered
as necessities of man's moral, yet corrupt nature. More reasonable and
better historical causes should be found to account for the presence of
Christian faith and Christian rites in ancient America." [20]
H. H. Bancroft also concedes the existence of rites among native
Americans analogous to those existing among Jews and Christians, but
regards them as mere coincidences. He says:
Many rites and ceremonies were found to exist among the civilized
nations of America that were very similar to certain others
observed by the Jews and Christians in the old world. The
innumerable speculators on the origin of the aboriginal inhabitants
of the new world, or at least on the origin of their civilization,
have not neglected to bring forward these coincidences--there is
no good reason to suppose them anything else--in support of their
various theories. [21]
On which De Roo remarks: "Coincidences, so many, so striking, in faith,
in morals, and liturgy! Coincidences, indeed, little short of wonders!"
Nadaillac also would refer these "coincidences" to natural causes. He
says "No dissemination of merely Christian ideas, since the conquest
[by the Spaniards] is sufficient to account for these myths [having
in mind the traditions of the creation, flood, migrations, Christian
analogies, etc.], which appear to have their root in the natural
tendencies of the human mind in its evolution from a savage state." [22]
And so in these various ways men would account for the existence of
Christian ideas and doctrines; but it was reserved for Joseph Smith,
the Prophet of the dispensation of the fullness of times, through the
Book of Mormon, to announce the boldly original idea that knowledge
of Christian truths and doctrines had their origin among native
American peoples in direct revelation to them from God; in the personal
ministration of the Lord Jesus Christ, after his resurrection from
the dead; and from being in possession of ancient scriptures which
to the Nephites, no less than to the Jews, made known God's plan of
redemption for mankind through the personal suffering and resurrection
of his Son Jesus Christ. I hold that the very originality and boldness
of these assertions respecting the direct means by which the people of
America in ancient times received their knowledge of Christian truths,
and which so far transcend the timid and tentative speculations of
men, even of the most intelligent and courageous, have about them an
atmosphere of truth that is most convincing; moreover, I cannot help
but believe that originality in respect of such things as are here set
down; structure, names, the manner of coming forth, in its account of
peopling America, the nativity of American people, and lastly this
accounting for the existence of Christian ideas among native American
races, is of a vastly greater importance than originality in mere
phraseology or style of composition.
Footnotes
1. Matt. xiii: 52.
2. Ecclesiastes i: 9, 10.
3. For this clamor see a brief discussion on the Book of Mormon
between the writer and an "Unknown" writer in "The Salt Lake Tribune,"
impressions of Nov. 22, 29; and December 6, 13, 1903. See also "The
Golden Bible" (Lamb), Edition of 1887, p. 207-213. Also the views of
the Rev. Dr. Wm. M. Paden, of the First Presbyterian Church; Salt Lake
City, quoted by the writer in a discourse on "The Fifth Gospel"--Third
Nephi--"Defense of the Faith and the Saints," Vol. I, pp. 373-399.
4. View of the Hebrews, 2nd Edition, (1825) pp. 168, 169.
5. See the works of Orson and Parley P. Pratt; John Taylor's Discussion
with three ministers in France; early volumes of Millennial Star,
Spencer's Letters--in fact all the early Church literature. Of late
opponents of the Book of Mormon have not pressed this point of
controversy, since the sectarian arguments respecting it have been
utterly demolished. For a brief consideration of the various points of
that argument see "New Witnesses for God," Vol. I., Ch. viii.
6. View of the Hebrews, pp. 187, 188
7. See chapter xxix, especially taking account of foot note references.
8. Dictionary of the Book of Mormon, Reynolds, p. 168. And Vol. II, pp.
139-40.
9. Vol. II, pp. 157-8.
10. See this volume, pp. 46-48.
11. See III. Nephi xv, xvi, xvii.
12. The statement here that Ishmael was of Ephraim is set down upon
the authority, first, of inference. The inference is based upon the
fact as already stated that there are promises in the Hebrew scriptures
respecting Ephraim which cannot be realized so far as we know, except
through the seed of Ephraim dwelling upon the land of America, as
we have seen in considering the evidence of the Bible for the truth
of the Book of Mormon; and as Lehi and his family were of the tribe
of Manasseh, and Mulek's colony being Jews, it leaves the family of
Ishmael, and perhaps Zoram, the servant of Laban to introduce the
descendants of Ephraim into the western world. Second, a number of
Latter-day Saints, familiarly acquainted with the Prophet Joseph
Smith, declare that in conversation they had known him to say that in
Mormon's abridgment of the book of Lehi (which supplied the 116 pages
of manuscript lost by Martin Harris) it was plainly stated that Ishmael
was of the tribe of Ephraim. Among those who heard such remarks was
the late Elder Franklin D. Richards, of the Council of the Apostles
and Church Historian, who records his recollection of the Prophet's
statement in the following manner:
"One day in the autumn of that year, (1843) as I was passing near,
(the "Nauvoo Mansion") it being in warm weather, I observed the door
standing open and the Prophet Joseph inside conversing with one of
the brethren, leaning against the counter. It being a public house, I
ventured to walk in, and scarcely had more than time to exchange usual
civilities, when this brother said: 'Brother Joseph, how is it that we
call the Book of Mormon the Stick of Joseph, in the hands of Ephraim,
when the book itself tells us that Lehi was of the lineage of Manasseh?
I cannot find in it about the seed of Ephraim dwelling on this land at
all.' Joseph replied: 'You will recollect that when Lehi and his family
had gone from Jerusalem out into the wilderness, he sent his son Nephi
back to the city to get the plates which contained the law of Moses and
many prophecies of the prophets, and that he also brought out Ishmael
and his family, which were mostly daughters. This Ishmael and his
family were of the lineage of Ephraim, and Lehi's sons took Ishmael's
daughters for wives, and this is how they have grown together, 'a
multitude of nations in the midst of the earth.'
"'If we had those one hundred and sixteen pages of manuscript which
Martin Harris got away with, you would know all about it, for Ishmael's
ancestry is made very plain therein. The Lord told me not to translate
it over again, but to take from Nephi's other plates until I came to
the period of time where the other translation was broken off, and
then go on with Mormon's abridgment again. That is how it came about
that Ishmael's lineage was not given in the Book of Mormon, as well as
Lehi's."'--Frankling D. Richards, "The Contributor," Vol. XVII, p. 425.
13. Ether iii.
14. I. Nephi x: 11, 12.
15. See I. Nephi v: 11.
16. Ether i: 3-6.
17. History of America Before Columbus, P. De Roo, Vol. I., 423, 424.
18. Ibid. p. 517.
19. Conquest of Peru, Vol. I., pp. 96, 97.
20. History of America Before Columbus, Vol. I., pp. 523-4.
21. Native Races, Vol. III., pp. 438-9
22. Prehistoric America, p.531.
CHAPTER XL
INTERNAL EVIDENCES.--THE ORIGINALITY OF THE BOOK OF MORMON AN EVIDENCE
IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIMS. (Continued.)
VII.
_The Fall of Adam--The Purpose of Man's Earth Existence._
In the matter of some Christian truths, it sets forth, as well as in
some it emphasizes, the Book of Mormon is original; and in none more so
than in dealing with the doctrine of Adam's fall, and the purpose of
man's existence.
In the second book of Nephi, chapter ii, occurs the following direct,
explicit statement:
Adam fell that men might be: and men are that they might have joy.
This sentence is the summing up of a somewhat lengthy discussion
on the atonement, by the prophet Lehi. It is a most excellent and
important generalization, and is worthy to be classed with the
great generalizations of the Jewish scriptures, such for instance
as that in the closing chapter of Ecclesiastes, "Fear God and keep
his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man;" Paul's famous
generalization: "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive:" or the Apostle James' summing up of religion: "Pure
religion, and undefiled before God and the Father, is this, To visit
the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep one's self
unspotted from the world." Or of Messiah's great summing up of the
whole law and gospel; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first
and great commandment, and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the
law and all the prophets." I care not whether you regard the literary
excellence of this Book of Mormon generalization or the importance of
the great truths which it announces, I repeat, it is worthy in every
way to stand with the great generalizations quoted above. It deals with
two of the mightiest problems of theology:
1st, The reason for Adam's fall;
2nd, The purpose of man's existence.
Before entering into a consideration of these doctrines, however,
I must establish the fact of their Book of Mormon originality; for
I fancy there will be many who at first glance will be disposed to
question their being original with that book. It must be conceded, of
course, that the fact of man's fall is frequently mentioned in the
Bible. The story of it is told at length in Genesis. [1] It is the
subject of some of Paul's discourses; [2] and, indeed, it underlies the
whole Christian scheme for the redemption and salvation of mankind.
Yet, strange to say, there is not to be found a direct, explicit, and
adequate statement in all the Jewish scriptures as to _why_ Adam fell.
The same may be said with reference to the second part of this passage.
That is, there is nowhere in Jewish scriptures a direct, explicit,
adequate statement as to the _object_ of man's existence.
These statements with reference to the absence of anything in Holy
scripture on these two important points, will, I know, be regarded as
extremely bold; and especially when made with reference to so large a
body of literature as is comprised in the Bible. Yet I make them with
confidence; and am helped to that conclusion from the fact that nowhere
in the creeds of men, based upon Jewish and Christian scripture, is
there to be found a direct statement upon these two subjects that has
in it the warrant of explicit, scriptural authority. Nowhere in the
creeds of men--the creeds of men! those generalizations of Christian
truths as men have conceived those truths to be; those deductions from
the teachings of Holy scripture--nowhere in them, I repeat are these
two great theological questions disposed of on scriptural authority.
The Westminister Confession of Faith, which embodies the accepted
doctrine of one of the largest sects of Protestant Christendom, while
it indeed has a word, in fact several sections on the subject of Adam's
fall and its consequences, it contents itself with stating the fact of
it, the manner of it, as also, that God permitted it, "having purposed
to order it to his own glory," yet in such manner as himself not to be
chargeable with the responsibility of the sin; but nowhere is there
an explanation of _why_ Adam fell. With reference to the purpose of
man's creation--included in the treatment of the purpose of creation in
general--the creed ascribes the purpose of all the creative acts of God
to be "The manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom and
goodness." [3] and in an authoritative explanation of this part of the
creed it is said, "The design of God in creation was the manifestation
of his own glory." And again: "Our confession very explicitly takes the
position that the chief end of God in his eternal purposes and in their
temporal execution in creation and providence is the manifestation of
his own glory. The scriptures explicity assert that this is the chief
end of God in creation. [4]. * * * * * The manifestation of his own
glory is intrinsically the highest and worthiest end that God could
purpose to Himself." [5]
The only business I have here with this declaration of the purpose of
God in creation--including the creation of man, of course--is simply to
call attention to the fact that it nowhere has the direct warrant of
scripture.
The creed of the "Episcopalian Church," whose chief doctrines are
embodied in "The Book of Common Prayer," is silent upon the two
subjects in question, viz., "why" Adam fell; the "object" of man's
existence. The "Articles of Faith," it is true, speak of the "fall" of
Adam, and its effects upon the human race, but nowhere is it said "why"
Adam fell; or a "reason" given for man's existence. The creed proclaims
faith in God, "the Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and
invisible;" but nowhere declares the purpose of that creation, and
consequently has no word as to the "object" of man's existence.
The exposition of the Catholic creed on the same points, as set forth
in the Douay Catechism is as follows--and first as to the fall:
Man was created in "the state of original justice, and perfection
of all natural gifts;" this "original justice" was lost "by Adam's
disobedience to God in eating the for-bidden fruit;" but nowhere is
there anything said as to the reason for this fall from the state of
"original justice."
As to the purpose of man's creation, the Catechism has the following:
Ques. What signify the words creation of heaven and earth?
Ans. They signify that God made heaven and earth and all creatures
in them of nothing, by his word only.
Ques. What moved God to make them?
Ans. His own goodnesss, so that he may communicate himself to angels
and to man for whom he made all other creatures. [6]
Speaking of the creation of the angels, the same work continues:
Ques. For what end did God create them (the angels).
Ans. To be partakers of his glory and to be our guardians.
Referring again to man's creation the following occurs:
Ques. Do we owe much to God for creation?
Ans. Very much, because he made us in such a perfect state,
creating us for himself, and all things else for us. [7]
From all which it may be summarized that the purposes of God in the
creation of man and angels, according to Catholic theology, is--
First, that God might communicate himself to them; Second, that they
might be partakers of his glory.
Third, that he created them for himself, and all things else for them.
While this may be in part the truth, and so far excellent, it has no
higher warrant of authority than human deduction, based on conjecture,
not scripture; and it certainly falls far short of giving to man--as
we shall see--that "pride of place" in existence to which his higher
nature and his dignity as a son of God entitles him.
If in these creeds of the greater divisions of Christendom there is
found no clear and adequate explanation of the reason of Adam's fall,
or the purpose of man's existence, it may be taken for granted that
none of the minor divisions of Christendom have succeeded where these
have failed, since these larger divisions of Christendom embody in
their creeds the hived theological wisdom and the highest scholarship
of the Christian ages.
The originality of these two Book of Mormon Doctrines established, let
us now consider if they are true and of what value they are, and what
effect they will probably have upon the ideas of men. I shall treat
them separately first, and in relation afterwards.
"Adam fell that men might be."