not follow that in giving expression to what the Lord puts into his
heart he will always do so in grammatical terms, any more than the
orthography of an inspired writer will always be accurate. We have
many illustrations of this fact among the inspired men that we have
known in the Church of Jesus Christ in these last days. Those of us
who have listened to the utterances of Prophets and Apostles cannot
doubt of their inspiration, and at the same time some of those who
have been most inspired have been inaccurate in the use of our English
language. The same seems true of the ancient Apostles also. The writer
of the Acts, at the conclusion of a synopsis of a discourse which he
ascribes to Peter, says, "Now, when they [the Jews] saw the boldness
of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant
men,[A] they marveled." The commentators upon this passage say that
the listening Jews perceived that Peter and John were uninstructed
in the learning of the Jewish schools, and were of the common sort
of men, untrained in teaching.[B] And again, "Their language and
arguments prove that they were untaught in the Rabbinical learning of
the Jewish schools."[C] But in what way could the Jews have discerned
the ignorance and absence of learning in Peter and John except through
the imperfections of their language? And yet those imperfections in
language may not be urged in evidence of the absence of inspiration
in the two apostles. Surely with God it must be that the matter is of
more consequence than the form in which it is expressed; the thought of
more moment than the word; it is the spirit that giveth life, not the
letter. "He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What
is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord."[D]
[Footnote A: Acts iv: 13.]
[Footnote B: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary, Acts iv: 13.]
[Footnote C: International Commentary of the New Testament, Acts iv.]
[Footnote D: Jeremiah xxiii: 28.]
The view of the manner of translating the Book of Mormon here set forth
furnishes the basis of justification for those verbal changes and
grammatical corrections which have been made since the first edition
issued from the press; and would furnish justification for making many
more verbal and grammatical corrections in the book: for if, as here
set forth, the meaning of the Nephite characters was given to Joseph
Smith in such faulty English as he, an uneducated man, could command,
while every detail and shade of thought should be strictly preserved,
there can be no reasonable ground for objection to the correction
of mere verbal errors and grammatical construction. There can be no
reasonable doubt that had Joseph Smith been a finished English scholar
and the facts and ideas represented by the Nephite characters upon the
plates had been given him by inspiration of God through the Urim and
Thummim, those ideas would have been expressed in correct English; but
as he was not a finished English scholar, he had to give expression
to those facts and ideas in such language as he could command, and
that was faulty English, which the prophet himself and those who have
succeeded him as custodians of the word of God have had and now have a
perfect right to correct.
II.
Accounting For Evident Transcriptions of Bible Passages in the
Translation of the Nephite Record.
It is objected to the Book of Mormon that there are found in it whole
chapters, besides many minor quotations from King James's English
translation of the Bible. Since these chapters and passages in some
cases follow the "authorized English version" verbatim, and closely
resemble it in others; and as it is well known that in translating
from one language into another almost infinite variety of expression
is possible, the question arises, how is it that Joseph Smith, in
translating from the Nephite plates by divine assistance, follows so
closely an independent translation made in the ordinary way, by dint
of scholarship and patient labor, and by diligent comparison of former
translations.
Nearly all the Anti-Mormon writers raise this objection, though perhaps
John Hyde,[A] 1857, makes the most of it. Following him the Revelation
M. T. Lamb,[B] 1887, and last, but not least, Linn,[C] 1902.
[Footnote A: Hyde's "Mormonism," Chapters 9, 10, 11.]
[Footnote B: "Golden Bible," Chapter 7.]
[Footnote C: Linn's "Story of the Mormons," Chapter 11.]
This objection was most carefully and intelligently stated recently
(October 22, 1903), by Mr. H. Chamberlain, of Spencer, Iowa, U. S. A.,
in a letter of inquiry on the subject to President Joseph F. Smith, of
Salt Lake City, in the course of which he said:
"I find that Christ in quoting to the people on this side of
the water, the third and fourth chapters of Malachi, quotes,
according to the Book of Mormon, in the identical text of King
James' version, not missing a word. I find chapters of Isaiah
quoted practically in the same way. I find that in many instances,
in his talks with the people, and to his disciples here, he used
the identical language of King James' version, not omitting the
words supplied by the translators. Now, I know that no two parties
will take the same manuscript and make translations of a matter
contained therein, and the language of the two translators be
alike; indeed, the language employed by the two parties will widely
differ. These translations are from different manuscripts, and from
different languages, and still it appears in the Book of Mormon as
King James' translation. I can conceive of no other way in which
such a coincidence could have occurred, within the range of human
experience, except where one writing is copied from another, and
then it takes the utmost care to get them exactly alike, word for
word, and letter for letter as this is. * * * * * Now, what I
want to know is, how do you as a Church account for these things
appearing in the Book of Mormon in the identical language of King
James' version, when we know his version is faulty, and the same
translators could not have made it twice alike themselves? Did
Joseph copy it from the Bible, or did the Lord adopt this identical
language in revealing it to Joseph?"[D]
[Footnote D: _Improvement Era,_ Vol. viii, 1904, pp. 180, 181.]
This communication was referred to the writer by President Smith for an
answer, from which I quote:
The difficulty which you point out of course has been recognized
by believers in the Book of Mormon, but I do not know that I can
say that the Church as yet has settled upon any explanation which
could be regarded as an authoritative view on the subject. Each
one has been left to settle the matter upon the lines which seem
most reasonable to him; as a matter of fact, though our opponents
have frequently called attention to the difficulty in question,
it has not occasioned any particular anxiety in the minds of our
own people. Accepting the overwhelming evidences that exist for
the truth of the Book of Mormon, we have regarded that difficulty,
with some others, as of minor importance which would in time be
satisfactorily settled. Still, I realize the reasonableness of
the objection that may be urged against the Book of Mormon from
the point of view from which you present it, and realize that it
constitutes a real difficulty, and one, too, in which we have no
word from the Prophet Joseph Smith, or those who were immediately
associated with him in bringing forth the Nephite record, to aid us
in a solution of the matter. We are left, therefore, very largely
to conjecture, based on the facts in the case, which facts are most
tersely put in your esteemed communication; viz.:
First. It is a fact that a number of passages in the Book of
Mormon, verses and whole chapters, run closely parallel in matter
and phraseology with passages in Isaiah, Malachi and some parts of
the New Testament.
Second. It is a fact that no two persons will take the same
manuscript and make translations from one language into another,
and the language of the two translations be alike.
Third. It is a fact that the translations of the words of Isaiah,
of Malachi, and the words of the Savior, in the Book of Mormon, are
generally supposed to be independent translations from different
manuscripts or records and from different languages.
Then, of course, comes your question: how can the strange fact be
accounted for, viz., that the 'translation in the Book of Mormon
Corresponding to Isaiah, Malachi and the words of the Savior, are
in the language of King James' translation?
Of course, you will remember that according to the Book of Mormon,
the Nephite colony carried with them to America so much Of the Old
Testament as was in existence at the time of their departure from
Jerusalem (600 years B.C.). The prophecy of Malachi, chapters 3 and
4, quoted in the Book of Mormon, was supplied by the Savior, and
that the Nephites engraved portions of these scriptures in their
records, and this both in the Hebrew, and what the Nephites called
the reformed Egyptian. I simply mention this in passing, that you
may remember afresh how these passages came to be in the Nephite
record, and that you may remember that the Nephites had the Jewish
scriptures in much the same form as they were to be found in Judea,
600 B.C. When the Savior came to the western world and appeared to
the Nephites, he had the same message to present to them that he
had presented in Palestine; the same ordinances of the gospel to
establish, a similar church organization to found, and the same
ethical principles to teach. The manner of the Savior's teaching
would doubtless lead him to present these great truths in the same
forms of expression he had used in teaching the Jews, so that in
substance what he had taught as his doctrines in Judea he would
repeat in America. This is mentioned also, by the way, that it may
appear reasonable to you that in a general manner the Savior must
have taught the people in the western hemisphere substantially
the same things that he taught the people in Palestine. With
this remembered, I think we find a solution of the difficulty
you present in the following way: When Joseph Smith saw that the
Nephite record was quoting the prophecies of Isaiah, of Malachi,
or the words of the Savior, he took the English Bible and compared
these passages as far as they paralleled each other, and finding
that in substance, in thought, they were alike, he adopted our
English translation; and hence, we have the sameness to which you
refer.
It should be understood also, in this connection, that while Joseph
Smith obtained the facts and ideas from the Nephite characters
through the inspiration of God, he was left to express those facts
and ideas, in the main, in such language as he could command; and
when he found that parts of the Nephite record closely paralleled
passages in the Bible, and being conscious that the language of
our English Bible was superior to his own, he adopted it, except
for those differences indicated in the Nephite original which
here and there make the Book of Mormon passages superior in sense
and clearness. Of course, I recognize the fact that this is but a
conjecture; but I believe it to be a reasonable one; and indeed the
only one which satisfactorily disposes of the difficulty you point
out.
Such was the answer made to Mr. Chamberlain's inquiries, and as the
reader will doubtless be interested to know how this answer was
received by this intelligent, un-prejudiced gentleman, I quote the
following from his letter in response to the explanation.[A]
[Footnote A: The correspondence in full is to be found in the
_Improvement Era_ for January, 1904, pp. 197-196.]
"Of course, I realize that if the Book of Mormon was not just
what it purported to be, the whole fabric [of Mormonism] must
fall to the ground, so far as being an inspired religion, and
would then only be worth what good one could get out of it as the
best organization or controlled religion on earth; * * * * upon
studying the Book of Mormon, I, of course, found these portions of
King James' version of our Bible, and judging it by the applied
law of human experience, as we lawyers learn to judge everything,
I could account for it in no other way, than that Joseph Smith
copied it therefrom, and I am free to say that your reasons for
his so doing are not only probable, but the only solution that can
be given. * * * * * I believe and think that your suggestion is
the only theory upon which it is possible to advocate its divine
character. It seems to me that God, so far as I know, has never
supplied man with what he already possessed, and Joseph Smith
already had language with which to express his ideas, and all that
was required in addition from God was, that he furnish him with
the thought, and then let him express it in his own language. I
never could for a moment believe that God is interested in placing
his approval on King James' translators' style of translating, nor
upon the composition of the English language therein adopted. I
do not see wherein your theory. detracts in any manner from the
value of the Book of Mormon, as an inspired work acknowledged by
God as authentic, nor makes more impracticable the manner of its
introduction."
III.
Answers to Questions Respecting the Manual Theory of Translating the
Book of Mormon.
I.
A number of questions from their correspondents have been submitted
to the writer, by the Editors of the _Era_ respecting the manner of
translating the Book of Mormon, as set forth in the Senior Manual for
1905-6.
In one communication, a president of an association, an aid in a M. I.
A. Stake Board, and a bishop's counselor, join in saying:
We are not able to harmonize the theory of translation presented in
our Manual with the testimony of the Three Witnesses, especially
Harris and Whitmer. We are not able either to harmonize the
theory of the Manual with the following passages of scripture
regarding the interpreters: Ether 3:22-25; Mosiah 8:13-18; Mosiah
28:11-15;D&C Section 130:8-10.
To answer the matter in the above quotation, it is necessary to ask:
What is the Manual theory of translating the Nephite record? It is a
theory based upon the only statement made by the Prophet Joseph Smith
on the subject, _viz.,_ "Through the medium of Urim and Thummim _I_
translated the record by the gift and power of God;"[A] and the Lord's
own description of the manner of translating in general by means of
Urim and Thummim, contained in his revelation to Oliver Cowdery in the
Doctrine and Covenants, sections viii and ix.
[Footnote A: Wentworth's Letter, Mill. Star, vol. 9, page 118.]
That is the only theory the Manual has upon the subject. The foregoing
quotation from the prophet is all he has said with reference to the
manner of the translation, and we could wish that all other persons,
necessarily less informed upon the subject than the prophet himself,
had been content to leave the matter where he left it. In this,
however; they did not follow his wise example; but must needs undertake
to describe the manner of the translation; and, from such description
has arisen the idea that the Urim and Thummim did all, in the work of
the translation, the prophet, nothing; except to read to his amanuensis
what he saw reflected in the seer-stone or Urim and Thummim, which the
instruments, and not the prophet, had translated. The men responsible
for those statements, on which said theory rests, are David Whitmer and
Martin Harris. The former says:
A piece of something resembling parchment did appear, (i. e., in
Urim and Thummim), and on that appeared the writing, one character
at a time would appear, and under it was the translation in
English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Brother
Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and then it was
written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was
correct; then it would disappear and another character with the
translation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by
the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.[A]
[Footnote A: Address to all Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, page
12.]
We have no statement at first hand from Martin Harris at all, only the
statement of another, Edward Stevenson, as to what he heard Martin say
was the manner of translation. This was as follows:
"By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear, and were read by
the prophet, and written by Martin, and when finished he would say
"written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear,
and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly, it
remained until corrected so that the translation was just as it was
engraven on the plates precisely in the language then used."[A]
[Footnote A: Millennial Star, vol. 24, page 86-87.]
These statements have led to the assumption of the theory, I repeat,
that the Urim and Thummim did the translating, not Joseph the Seer.
Accordingly, it is held that the translation was a mechanical,
arbitrary, transliteration; a word for word bringing over from the
Nephite language into the English language, a literal interpretation
of the record. The prophet, therefore, it is urged, was in no way
responsible for the language of the translation, it was not his, but
the divine instrument's, and if there are errors of grammar, or faults
of diction, (modern words for which in the nature of things there could
be no exact equivalents in an ancient language) New England localisms,
modern phrases from the English translation of Hebrew scripture, and
other sources--all these must have been in the original Nephite record,
say the advocates of this theory, and are arbitrarily brought over into
the English language.
This theory of translation led opponents of the Book of Mormon and
some who were not opponents of it, but sincere investigators of its
claims--to suggest certain difficulties involved in such a theory of
translation.
First. The impossibility of such a thing as a word-for-word bringing
over from one language into another. Such a procedure could only result
in producing an unintelligible jargon--a fact well known by those who
are at all acquainted with translation.
Second. The fact that the language of the English translation of the
Nephite record is in the English idiom, and diction of the period and
locality when and where the translation took place, and is evidently
but little influenced by any attempt to follow the idiom of an ancient
language.
Third. The fact that such errors in grammar and diction as occur in the
translation are just such errors as might reasonably be looked for in
the work of one unlearned in the English language.
From this data the following argument proceeds: It is impossible that
the alleged translation, whether by divine or human media, could be
a word-for-word bringing over from the Nephite language into the
English; and if the translation is not such a word-for-word bringing
over affair, then it cannot be claimed that the Nephite original is
responsible for verbal inaccuracies and grammatical errors. If the Book
of Mormon is a real translation instead of a word-for-word bringing
over from one language into another, and it is insisted that the divine
instrument, Urim and Thummim, did all, and the prophet nothing--at
least nothing more than to read off the translation made by Urim and
Thummim--then the divine instrument is responsible for such errors in
grammar and diction as did occur. But this is to assign responsibility
for errors in language to a divine instrumentality, which amounts to
assigning such errors to God. But that is unthinkable, not to say
blasphemous. Also, if it be contended that the language of the Book of
Mormon, word for word, and letter for letter, was given to the prophet
by direct inspiration of God, acting upon his mind, then again God is
made responsible for the language errors in the Book of Mormon--a thing
unthinkable.
Rather than ascribe these errors to Deity, either through direct or
indirect means, men will reject the claims of the Book of Mormon; and,
since the verbal errors in the Book of Mormon are such as one ignorant
of the English language would make, the temptation is strong, in the
minds of those not yet converted to its truth, to assign to the Book of
Mormon an altogether human origin.
In the presence of these considerations, it is but natural to ask,
"Is there no way by which such a conclusion may be avoided?" Most
assuredly. Set aside the theory based upon the statements made by David
Whitmer and Martin Harris, (mark you, _I say the theory_ based on these
statements, not necessarily the statements themselves) and accept the
more reasonable theory based upon what the Lord has said upon the
subject in sections viii and ix of the Doctrine and Covenants, where,
in describing how Oliver Cowdery might translate by means of Urim and
Thummim, the Lord said:
"I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost
which shall come upon you, and it shall dwell in your heart."
Then, Oliver only having partially succeeded, and that to a very
limited extent, in his effort to translate, the Lord, in explaining his
failure, said:
"Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would
give it [i. e., the power to translate] unto you, when you took no
thought, save it was to ask me; but, behold, I say unto you, that
you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be
right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn
within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right; but if it
be not right, you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a
stupor of thought, that shall cause you to forget the thing which
is wrong."
This is the Lord's description of how Oliver Cowdery _could_ have
translated with the aid of Urim and Thummim (see context of the
revelation quoted), and it is undoubtedly the manner in which Joseph
Smith _did_ translate the Book of Mormon through the medium of Urim and
Thummim. This description of the translation destroys the theory that
Urim and Thummim did everything, and the seer nothing; that the work of
translating was merely a mechanical process of looking at a supplied
interpretation, in English, and reading it off to an amanuensis. This
description in the D&C implies great mental effort; of working out the
translation in the mind, and securing the witness of the Spirit that
the translation is correct. In all this, Urim and Thummim are helpful.
They are an aid doubtless to concentration of mind. They may have
held at the time just the characters to be translated at the moment,
and excluded all others; the translation thought out in the seer's
mind may also have been reflected in the interpreters and held there
until recorded by the amanuensis, all of which would be incalculably
helpful. But since the translation is thought out in the mind of the
seer, it must be thought out in such thought-signs as are at his
command, expressed in such speech-forms as he is master of; for, man
thinks, and can only think coherently, in language; and, necessarily,
in such language as he knows. If his knowledge of the language in which
he thinks and speaks is imperfect, his diction and grammar will be
defective. That errors of grammar and faults in diction do exist in
the Book of Mormon (and more especially and abundantly in the first
edition) must be conceded; and what is more, while some of the errors
may be referred to inefficient proof-reading, such as is to be expected
in a country printing establishment, yet such is the nature of the
errors in question, and so interwoven are they throughout the diction
of the book, that they may not be disposed of by saying they result
from inefficient proofreading, or referring them to the mischievous
disposition of the "typos," or the unfriendliness of the publishing
house. The errors are constitutional in their character; they are of
the web and woof of the style, and not such errors as may be classed
as typographical. Indeed the first edition of the Book of Mormon is
singularly free from typographical errors.
In the presence of these facts, only one solution to the difficulties
presents itself, and that is the solution suggested in the Manual,
viz., that the translator is responsible for the verbal and grammatical
errors, in the translation; as it is said of the original Nephite
record, so let us-say of the translation of that record, "If there
be faults, they are the faults of man;" not of God, either mediately
or immediately. Nor does this solution of the difficulties presented
cast any reflections upon Joseph the Seer. It was no fault of his that
his knowledge in the English language was so imperfect. His imperfect
knowledge was due entirely to his limited opportunity to acquire such
knowledge; to environment, not at all to neglect of opportunities or to
mental laziness.
But it is objected that this theory unsettles former conceptions of the
part taken by Urim and Thummim, in the work of translation. It upsets
somewhat the marvelous that has been associated with the translation of
the Nephite record. "Shall we understand," writes with some feeling one
objector, "that Urim and Thummim are not what they hitherto purported
to be?" and cites somewhat indefinitely the testimony of the Three
Witnesses; refers, but not definitely, to the _History of the Church,_
and to a sermon by Brigham Young; also to the following passages in
the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants: Mosiah 28:11-15; Ether
3:22-25; Mosiah 8:13-19; Doctrine and Covenants, section 130. We assure
this writer and other correspondents of the _Era_ that there is no
conflict between the Manual theory of translation and these passages
of scripture. The strongest passage cited as suggesting a conflict is
Mosiah 28:13-16, as follows:
"And now he translated them (i. e., the Jaredite records) by the
means of those two stones which were fastened into the two rims of
a bow.
"Now these things were prepared from the beginning, and were handed
down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting
languages; * * * * And whosoever has these things, is called seer,
after the manner of old times."
Emphasizing and insisting upon a rigid construction of the words, "Now
these things were handed down * * * for the purpose of interpreting
languages," may seem to fix the power of interpretation in the divine
instruments, not in the seer; but when these words are considered
in connection with all that one may learn upon the subject, we know
better than to insist upon a severely rigid construction. It should be
observed in the opening sentence of the very passage quoted that these
words occur:
"And _he_ [Mosiah] translated them [the Jaredite records] by means
of those two stones, which were fastened to two rims of a bow."
In other words, Mosiah, the seer, did the translating, aided by Urim
and Thummim; it was not the Urim and Thummim that did it, aided by
Mosiah.
Moreover, the theory that the interpreters did the translating, not
the seer aided by them, is in conflict with the Lord's description
of translation by means of Urim and Thummim; and if old conceptions
respecting the part performed by Urim and Thummim are in conflict with
God's description of translation, then the sooner we are rid of such
conceptions the better.
"We are not able," say some of these objectors, "to harmonize the
theory of translation, presented in our Manual, with the testimony of
the Three Witnesses." The testimony of the Three Witnesses respecting
the translation of the record, mentioned in the foregoing, is simply
this: "We also know that they have been translated by the gift and
power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us."
This goes no further than the Prophet's description, already quoted.
The only thing Oliver Cowdery ever said, outside of the official
testimony of the Three Witnesses, was:
"I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few
pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he
translated by the gift and power of God, by the means of Urim and
Thummim."
This is all that he has said on the subject, and that is in harmony,
it will be observed with what the Prophet Joseph Smith said, and at no
point contradicts the view of translation set forth in the Manual.
There remains, however, the statement of Whitmer and Harris, and it
is claimed that the Manual theory of translation cannot be harmonized
with what they have said. If that were true, and the Manual theory is
more in harmony with what God has said upon the subject than what they
have said, then all the worse for their theory--"yea, let God be true
but every man a liar!" And, by the way, in passing, I want to ask those
who stand up so stoutly for the vindication of what Messrs. Whitmer and
Harris have chanced to say on the subject of translation--What about
the Lord's description of the same thing in the Doctrine and Covenants?
Are they not interested in vindicating that description? I care very
little, comparatively, for what Messrs. Whitmer and Harris have said
about the subject. I care everything for what the Lord has said about
it. Whence did the two witnesses in question obtain such knowledge as
they had about the manner of translation? Undoubtedly, from the Prophet
Joseph; for they claim no revelation from the Lord upon the subject.
And this knowledge they did not announce until in the later years of
their lives; nothing was said about it, by them, until long after the
death of the Prophet. They doubtless have given their recollection
of what the Prophet had told them about the manner of translating;
but experience and observation both teach us that there may be a wide
difference between what is really said to men, and their recollection
of it--their impressions about it; especially when that recollection or
impression is not formulated into written statement until long years
afterwards.
At the same time, it is proper to say, as the Manual suggests, that
there is no necessary conflict between the statements of these
two Witnesses and the Manual theory of translation. They say the
Nephite characters, to be translated, appeared in Urim and Thummim.
We say that may be true, or the Prophet may have looked through the
interpreters--since they were transparent stones--and thus have seen
the characters. They say the interpretation appeared in English,
under the Nephite characters in Urim and Thummim; we say, if so, then
that interpretation, after being wrought out in the Prophet's mind,
was reflected into Urim and Thummim and held visible there until
written. The English interpretation was a reflex from the Prophet's
mind. (And may it not be that the peculiar quality of the Urim and
Thummim was to reflect _thought,_ especially God-given or inspired
thought, as other substances reflect objects?) All this is possible,
and is not in conflict with what either the Prophet or Oliver Cowdery
said upon the subject; nor in conflict with the Lord's description of
translation. But to insist that the translation of the Book of Mormon
was an arbitrary piece of mechanical work, wrought out by transparent
stones rather than in the inspired mind of the Prophet, is in conflict
with the Lord's description of translation, and all the reasonable
conclusions that may be drawn from the known facts in the case. This
theory--the Manual theory--accepted, accounting for errors in grammar
and faulty diction, as pointed out in chapter vii, Part I of Manual,
and in chapter xlvii of the Manual, Part III, is easy.
It is asked, however, "Shall we understand that Urim and Thummim are
not what they have hitherto purported to be?" By no means; if by
"purported to be," is meant what the seers, Mosiah of the Book of
Mormon, and Joseph Smith said of them. The former said of them that
"he translated by means of them"--i. e., they were an aid to him in
translating. Joseph the seer said that "through the medium" of Urim and
Thummim, _he_ translated the Nephite record--i. e., they were an aid to
him in the work of translation. But if by "purported to be" is meant
that the Urim and Thummim did the _mental_ work of translating--that
the instrument did everything, and the Prophet nothing, except to read
off what the instrument interpreted--then the sooner that theory is
abandoned the better; there is nothing in the word of God, or right
reason, to warrant it; it is utterly untenable, and affords no rational
explanation of the difficulties arising from the existence of verbal
and grammatical errors in the translation of the Nephite record.
But the question is asked, "Why bring these matters up at all?" "I
seriously question the expediency of any theory, beyond the facts that
are definitely known and attested, to explain the details of the coming
forth of the Book of Mormon," says one _Era_ correspondent. So say we
all. I wish Messrs. Whitmer and Harris, and those who have worked out
theories based upon their statements, had left the whole matter where
the Prophet Joseph left it; but this they failed to do. Then opponents
took up the question, and insisted that the theory of translation,
hitherto commonly accepted, requires us to charge all the faults in
diction and errors in grammar to the Lord; and also urge that we have
no right, under this theory of translation, to change a single word of
the translation, and some Latter-day Saints take the same view.
The correspondent last quoted also says: "It is enough for me to
know that the Book of Mormon was translated by the Prophet Joseph
Smith, by the gift and power of God, through the means of the Urim
and Thummim." The present writer might join in that simple, bigoted
refrain, and say--"for me, too." But what of those for whom it is
not enough? What of the many young men in the Church who hear the
objections urged by the opponents of the Book of Mormon, based upon
the hitherto popular conception of the manner in which the translation
was accomplished--what of them? What of the earnest inquirers, in the
world, whose knowledge of languages, and of translation, teaches them
that the hitherto popular conception of the translation of the Book of
Mormon is an absurdity, not to say an impossibility--what of them? What
of the elders in the mission field who are constantly coming in contact
with these questions involved in the manner of translating the Book of
Mormon, and are asking--as they have been asking for years--for some
rational explanation of these matters--what of them? It is not enough,
in the presence of the controversies that have arisen out of Messrs.
Whitmer and Harris's unfortunate partial explanations, to say that the
Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and that is
enough for one to know.
It is not a question involving merely the wisdom or unwisdom of
setting up a "theory" of the manner in which the translation of the
Book of Mormon was accomplished. A "theory" already existed, based
upon the statements of Messrs. Whitmer and Harris, which, as generally
understood, was untenable. This had to be corrected; and the truth, so
far as possible, ascertained and expounded. It was not the desire to
create a new theory respecting the translation of the Book of Mormon
that prompted the writer of the Manual to advance such explanations
as are there made. Indeed, the theory set forth in the Manual did not
originate with him. The difficulties involved in the hitherto commonly
accepted theory of translation have long been recognized by Book of
Mormon students; and often have been the subject of conversation
between this writer and Elder George Reynolds, President Anthon H.
Lund, members of the Manual committee, and others; and this writer by
no means regards himself as the originator of what is sometimes called
the new theory of the Book of Mormon translation.
Meantime, the fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints
that the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to
literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism;
for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of
sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will
escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it
should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It
is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the
keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who
accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that
it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated,
the greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world;
let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will
remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it to suppose
that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture
by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as
to what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The Book of Mormon is
presented to the world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints
are anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are
made to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these
objections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable
explanations possible, given. This is what, in an unpretentious way,
is attempted in the Manual. The position there taken is intended to be
not destructive, but constructive; not iconoclastic, but conservative;
not negative, but positive; and the writer is of opinion that time will
vindicate the correctness of the views therein set forth.
II.
I find it necessary to refer again to the matter of a "literal
translation"--a word-for-word bringing over from one language into
another, a thing which is practically impossible, if sense is to be
expressed. Reference is again made to this subject because it seems
to be the most stubborn obstacle in the way of the acceptance of the
"Manual theory."
[IMAGE (SEE HTML FILE): GREEK AND ENGLISH TEXT OF LUKE]
Since writing the fore part of this article, a so-called "literal
translation" of the Greek New Testament has fallen into my hands,
extracts from which I think will help to illustrate the point at issue.
It should be remembered in what is to follow, that this "literal
translation" is only approximately so. The publishers themselves say,
"We give the Greek text with an interlinear translation _as literal
as may be to be useful."_ To show that the "literal translation" is
not and cannot be literal, it is only necessary to call attention to a
few facts which the publishers of the Greek text and its translation
themselves call attention to; namely, The word "master" is used in
the authorized version (our common English version) to translate
six different Greek words, all bearing different shades of meaning.
The word "judgment" stands for eight different Greek words in the
original. Of particles, "be" represents twelve different words; "but,"
eleven; "for," eighteen; "in," fifteen; "of," thirteen; and "on,"
nine; and so with many other words. Where these facts obtain, to talk
of "literal translation" is to talk of literal nonsense. Still, this
so-called "literal translation" will be of assistance to us in this
investigation, and I hope also somewhat convincing for the contention
made here, and in the Manual, respecting the nature of the translation
of the Book of Mormon.
I give on the foregoing page the photograph of an entire page from the
Greek New Testament. It will be observed that the Greek is given, and
under each Greek word an English equivalent, "as literal as may be to
be useful." Remember, not absolutely literal; and in the margin is the
translation of our common English version.
Now, for purposes of comparison, I give Paul's account of himself
before King Agrippa from the so-called Greek "literal translation," and
Nephi's account of himself taken from the Book of Mormon.
PAUL'S ACCOUNT OF HIMSELF.
And Agrippa to Paul said, it is allowed thee for thyself to speak.
Then Paul made a defense, stretching out the hand: Concerning
all of which I am accused by Jews, King Agrippa, I esteem myself
happy being about to make defense before thee today, especially
acquainted being thou of all the among Jews customs and also
questions; wherefore I beseech thee patiently to hear me. The then
manner of life my from youth, which from commencement was among my
nation in Jerusalem, know all the Jews, who before knew me from the
first, if they would bear witness that according to the strictest
sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now for hope of thee
to the Father's promise made by God, I stand being judged, to which
our twelve tribes intently night and day serving hope to arrive;
concerning which hope I am accused, O King Agrippa, by the Jews.
Why incredible is it judged by you if God dead raises? I indeed
therefore thought in myself to the name of Jesus the Nazarine I
ought many things contrary to do.
NEPHI'S ACCOUNT OF HIMSELF.
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 had a
great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore
I make a record of my proceedings in my day; 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. And I know that the record
which I make, is true; and I make it according to my knowledge.
For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the
reign of Zedekiah, King of Judah, (my father Lehi, having dwelt at
Jerusalem in all his days;) and in that same year there came many
prophets prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the
great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.
In order that it may be seen that the difference between even an
approximately "literal translation," and the translation of the Book of
Mormon, holds good in other forms of composition as well as personal
narrative, I place the following doctrinal explanations before the
reader for purpose of comparison:
THE DOCTRINE OF PREACHING TO THE SPIRITS IN PRISON. PETER.
For better, doing good, if wills the will of God, to suffer, than
doing evil; because indeed Christ once for sins suffered, just
for unjust, that us he might bring to God; having been put to
death in flesh, but made alive by the spirit, in which also to the
imprisoned spirits having gone he preached, disobeyed sometimes,
when once was waiting the of God long suffering in the days of Noe,
being prepared ark, into which few, that is eight souls, were saved
through water, which also us figure now saves baptism, not of flesh
a putting away of filth, but of a conscience good demand towards
God, by resurrection of Jesus Christ who is at right hand of God,
gone into heaven, having been subjected to him, angels, authorities
and powers.
DOCTRINE OF THE FALL OF ADAM.--LEHI.
And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed, he would not have
fallen; but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all
things which were created must have remained in the, same state
[in] which they were, after they were created; and they must
have remained forever and had no end. And they would have had
no children; wherefore, they would have remained in a state of
innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good,
for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the
wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be;
and men are, that they might have joy. And the Messiah cometh in
the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from
the fall.
This will doubtless be sufficient to show the difference between
a somewhat "literal translation" and one which is evidently not a
"literal," or word-for-word bringing over from one language into
another. The difference between the two things as indicated here is
very great. Still not so great as it would be if we were in possession
of a real "literal translation." One other thing also should be
remembered; namely, that however sharp the difference is between
a somewhat "literal translation" of the Greek and the translation
of the Book of Mormon, a "literal translation" from the Nephite
reformed Egyptian language would undoubtedly indicate a still sharper
difference, for the reason that our English idiom undoubtedly conforms
more readily to the Greek than it would to the Nephite language; so
that, great as the differences are in the foregoing illustrations,
they would be still more sharply defined if the Book of Mormon were
a word-for-word bringing over from the Nephite language into the
English--if such a thing were possible. Enough, however, is here
apparent to make it plain that the Book of Mormon is not a "literal
translation" from the Nephite language, that is, in the sense of being
brought over word for word and letter for letter from the Nephite into
the English. The translation of the Book of Mormon is English in idiom,
and the idiom of the time and locality where it was produced, as all
must know who read it, and especially those who have read the first
edition of it. It having been determined, then, that the translation of
the Book of Mormon is in English idiom, the question remains, Whose is
it? The Urim and Thummim's, the Lord's, or is it Joseph Smith's? And
who is responsible for its palpable errors? The Lord, or man? With that
question in mind, read the following few sample passages from among
many that might be quoted of like character from the first edition.
Speaking of Urim and Thummim the following occurs:
"And the things are called interpreters; and no man can look in
them, except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he had
not ought, and he should perish; * * * * but a seer can know of
things which has past, and also of things which is to come * * *
and hidden things shall come to light, and things which is not
known shall be made known by them." (Page 173.)
"Blessed are they who humbleth themselves without being compelled
to be humble." (Page 314.)
"Little children doth have words given unto them many times which
doth confound the wise and the learned." (Page 315.)
"But they had fell into great errors, for they would not observe to
keep the commandments of God." (Page 310.)
"Have mercy on me, who art in the gall of bitterness and art
encircled about by the everlasting chains of death." (Page 325.)
"I have always retained in remembrance their captivity, yea, and ye
also had ought to retain in remembrance, as I have their captivity;
* * * for ye had ought to know as I do know, that inasmuch as ye
shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land;
and ye had ought to know also that inasmuch as ye shall not keep
the commandments of God, ye shall be cut off from his presence."
(Page 326.)
"Behold I say unto you, that it is him that surely shall come to
take away the sins of the world." (Page 333.)
"My son, do not risk one more offense against your God* * * which
ye hath hitherto risked to commit sin; * * * for that which ye doth
send out shall return unto you again." (Page 337.)
"And thus ended the record of Alma, which was wrote upon the plates
of Nephi." (Page 347.)
"And this shall be your language in them days: But behold your days
of probation is past."
Are these flagrant errors in grammar chargeable to the Lord? To say
so is to invite ridicule. The thoughts, the doctrines, are well
enough; but the awkward, ungrammatical expression of the thoughts is,
doubtless, the result of the translator's imperfect knowledge of the
English language,[A] for which lack of knowledge he is not one whit
blameable, since his lack of education was due entirely to his want of
opportunity for acquiring learning. And, moreover, the errors are just
such errors as one circumstanced as the translator was, would make.
Again, I say for the translation, what Moroni says for the original
Nephite record: "If there be errors, they are the errors of man," not
God's errors. Let us rid ourselves of the reproach of charging error,
even though it be of forms of expression, unto God, in whom and in
whose ways there are no errors at all.
[Footnote A: Of course, inefficient proof-reading, and the fact that
the publishing firm from whose press issued the first edition of the
Book of Mormon was unfriendly to it, and, therefore, careless in its
work, and, perhaps, even mischievously disposed towards it, may account
for some of the verbal and grammatical errors of the first edition.
On the probability of this being the case, the writer of the Manual
said in that work: "The fact that the Book of Mormon was published in
a country town, on a hand press, and by persons unfamiliar with book
making, and the proofs were read by Oliver Cowdery, who was entirely
without experience in such work, will account for many errors, verbal
and grammatical. The further fact that the employees, at the printing
establishment where the book was published, were unfriendly to it, and
were more anxious to make it appear ridiculous than to turn out a good
job, may account for other errors that crept into the first edition.
But after due allowance is made for all these conditions, the errors
are so numerous, and of such a constitutional nature, that they cannot
be explained away by these unfavorable conditions under which the work
was published."--_Manual_, page 494-5.]
One correspondent to the _Era,_ after making some objections to the
"Manual theory" of the translation of the Book of Mormon, closes his
communication with the following _post script:_
"P.S.--We don't think the writer of the Manual should answer this.
Give us better authority."
It would have pleased the writer of the Manual had the Editor of the
_Era_ thought proper to have referred these questions concerning
the translation of the Book of Mormon to someone else--to better
authority--and there are many better authorities; but the Editors have
seen proper to refer the questions to the Manual writer, and they have
received such consideration as he is able to give them, within the
compass of this article. Since the questions were referred to him,
however, the _Deseret News_ editorially has taken up the subject, and
I am very pleased with the opportunity of presenting to this _post
script_ writer the better authority for which he longs; but he may be
disappointed in the fact that the _News_ writer sees this matter of
translation substantially in the same light in which it was presented
by the Manual:
A CURRENT QUESTION.
"We have received from one of the wards in Idaho the following
question, which we are requested to answer through the columns of
the _Deseret News._ As it does not relate to any local matter which
would come under the immediate jurisdiction of the ward or stake
authorities, and is a subject that is receiving much attention just
now, we will respond to the desire of our friend on this matter, as
we are able. The question asked is as follows:
"'Did Joseph Smith the Prophet, in translating the Book of Mormon,
use his own language in translating the book into the English
language, or did he use what appeared to him in the Urim and
Thummim as the interpretation of the Nephite characters, and would
it pass away before it was correctly written?'
"We are of the opinion that the Manual for 1905-1906, prepared as
a guide to the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association in the
study of the Book of Mormon, will give a sufficient answer. But
there is some conflict of opinion, in consequence of statements
purporting to have been made by David Whitmer and Martin Harris,
concerning the manner in which the Prophet Joseph obtained the
interpretation of the characters inscribed upon the metallic
plates, which were in "reformed Egyptian" hieroglyphics. The idea
conveyed by those statements was that when the Prophet Joseph
looked into the Urim and Thummim he saw the characters that were
on the plates, and underneath them their meaning in the English
language, and that when reading them to the scribe who wrote for
him, the line would not disappear and another take its place unless
it was copied correctly.
"The history of the Prophet Joseph Smith, prepared from his
diary, does not afford that information, nor do we know of
anything authentic as coming from him which gives a description or
explanation of the manner of translation of the Nephite record. One
thing, however, is very clear to us, and that is, that whether in
prophecy or preaching or translating, the man inspired of God is
not simply a talking machine, but one who is divinely impressed and
enlightened, and whose understanding is quickened and enlarged, but
who still possesses all his faculties and the free agency which God
has given to all mankind.
"If all that was necessary for the Seer was to look into the
instrument given to him as an aid in the work of translation, there
would have been no real necessity for his possession of the plates,
which he had to guard with such care. And if every word in English
was supplied to him in the way supposed, it is not likely that any
errors either in grammar or composition would be seen. We have
not the slightest doubt that with the aid of those stones, and by
the gift and power of God, Joseph was able to read the characters
on the plates and understand their full significance, and that he
expressed that in the ordinary language to which he was accustomed
and according to his knowledge in the use of it, just as a person
who translates anything from an ancient or modern language, the
understanding of which he obtains by the ordinary means, and who
would give it in English, according to the usual phraseology to
which he was accustomed.
"The prophets of old who spoke and wrote 'as moved upon by the
Holy Ghost,' though inspired by the same spirit, expressed that
which was given to them in their own way and with those distinctive
peculiarities they each possessed. They were not acted upon against
their own will, or as automatons. As Paul has it, 'The spirits of
the prophets are subject to the prophets.' Any one who has enjoyed
the spirit of revelation, either in prophecy, in testimony, in
preaching, in interpretation of tongues, or in other spiritual
gifts, knows what it is to receive light and truth by the power of
God, which he speaks in his own language and in his own manner-and
style. He who has not been thus inspired, may not be able to
understand how the meaning of the characters on the plates was made
clear to the translator so that he could express it in his own
language.
"But the important fact in this important matter is, that Joseph
Smith really received these ancient records, containing much of
the history of this continent and an account of the dealings of
God with the early inhabitants thereof; that he translated them
into the English language; and that, according to the testimony
of the three witnesses--Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin
Harris--the voice of the Lord declared that they were translated
"by the gift and power of God," and therefore they were translated
correctly. As to the exact _modus operandi,_ there is nothing on
record that we know of as coming from the Prophet himself.
"The great truth remains, that we have the Book of Mormon, written
in simple language, and that such imperfections as may be found in
it are, as it declares itself, 'the mistakes of men,' and these
are simply errors of language, of such small importance that the
meaning is not obscured, but whoever reads may also understand.
It gives a plain and succinct account of the manner in which
this continent was peopled in early times, shows the origin of
the present tribes of so-called Indians, unfolds the purposes of
the Almighty concerning this hemisphere, expounds the principles
of the everlasting gospel, by obedience to which mankind may be
saved, and testifies that Jesus of Nazareth was in very deed the
Son of the Eternal God and the Redeemer of the world. These great
truths are invaluable, and the question concerning the exact
manner of the translation of the Book is comparatively of little
moment."--_Deseret Evening News,_ January 31, 1906.
I think it proper at this point, also, to say, by way of personal
explanation, and perhaps to some extent by way of defense against
unkind criticisms that have been made of the writer of the Manual,
because of the theory of translation therein advanced--I think it
proper to say, I repeat, that the present writer did not upon his
own responsibility, and without consultation with those somewhat the
guardians of these matters, set forth the theory of the Manual on the
translation of the Book of Mormon. Chapter VII of the Manual, the one
setting forth the Manual theory of translation, was submitted to the
First Presidency, and several of the Apostles met together to consider
the chapter, and to listen to the reasons which, in the writer's
opinion, demanded that such an explanation of the translation should
be given. After listening to Chapter VII, and hearing the reasons for
making such explanations therein contained, it was moved and carried
that such chapter be published in the Manual, and it was published
accordingly.
This statement is not made with a view of making the First Presidency
and the Twelve, who were present and voted upon the subject,
responsible for the ideas advanced; the motion then taken carried with
it no such consequences. It meant only that the brethren then consulted
were willing that the present writer should publish those views in the
Young Men's Manual; but primarily he, the writer, stands responsible
for the views there expressed--a responsibility, by the way, which he
is very willing to carry; but he is anxious to have the Latter-day
Saints understand, and especially the young men in Israel, that in
setting forth the Manual theory of translating the Book of Mormon, the
writer was not seeking to gratify his personal vanity by advancing some
novel theory, and pushing it to the front regardless of the opinions of
others, or the general interests of the work. The same correspondent
also says:
"The theory of the Manual is having a bad effect upon our best Book
of Mormon students."
With all due respect to the gentleman's opinion, I desire to say to him
that he is entirely mistaken. The "Manual theory" of translation is
having no such effect; but, on the contrary, Book of Mormon students
everywhere are rejoicing in the fact that the "Manual theory" of
translation gives them a rational defense against the criticisms that
are urged against the faulty language of the English translation of
that book. Many errors, verbal and grammatical, have already been
eliminated in the later English editions, and there is no valid reason
why every one of those that remain should not be eliminated, since it
is the thought, the facts of the book, that one should be concerned in
preserving, not the forms in which they happen to be cast. There is no
good reason why we should not have just as good a Book of Mormon in
the English language as they now have in the French, the German, the
Swedish and the Danish, and (since the recent revision of it) in the
Hawaiian; for in these translations, it has not been thought necessary
to perpetuate the English errors; nor do I believe it necessary to
perpetuate them in our English editions. By making merely verbal
changes, and changes in grammatical construction, without changing the
shade of a single idea or statement, changes that could be legitimately
authorized by the President of the Church--who is the recognized law
giver in Israel, and guardian of the written word--the Book of Mormon
could be made a classic in English, and the present writer hopes that
he will live to see those verbal and grammatical changes authorized.
IV.
INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE MANUAL THEORY OF
TRANSLATION.
April 28, 1906.
_President B. H. Roberts, Salt Lake City:_
DEAR BROTHER:--As a subscriber to the _Era_ I have also received
the _Manual_ from year to year, and I have perused them with much
interest. I have carefully studied the lessons or chapters pertaining
to the translation of the Book of Mormon, and have read your articles,
published in the recent numbers of the _Era,_ written as a defense of
your theory of translation as set forth in the _Manual._
It is not my intention to enter into any controversy with you in
relation to this theory, this would be presumptuous on my part. Neither
do I want to criticize, but inasmuch as we have no _sure_ authority,
no word left us from the Prophet, neither anything revealed putting
this matter beyond a doubt, the field is open for theorizing. I would
readily accept your theory with just one amendment, and to propose that
amendment I write you these lines. While reading one of your articles,
a thought was suggested to me like this: May it not have been that
the Prophet _did see,_ as related, through the Urim and Thummim the
translation of each sentence from the plates into the English language,
but in a so-called word for work or literal translation; and from this
odd rendering, it became his task to put the sentence into readable
English? Taking this view of it, we can account for how the language of
the Book of Mormon is in part _modern_ and in part decidedly ancient.
The Prophet having used partly the words as they appeared, and, in
order to put it into proper form, used or supplied words of his own.
This will account for all errors, and place the responsibility for
them where it must belong, with man and not with God. It would give
due importance and credit to the sacred instruments, and would leave
ample scope for the Prophet to exercise his own mental powers. It would
make the statements of Martin Harris and David Whitmer in relation to
the translation substantially correct, and it would also be in perfect
harmony with what the Lord made known to Oliver Cowdery in relation to
the mode of translation.
I don't know, of course, what objections you may see to this idea, but
shall be pleased, if you are not too busy to do so, if you will write
me a line in relation to it.
With kind regards, your brother,
----------
THE REPLY.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, June 1, 1906.
DEAR BROTHER:--Your esteemed favor of April 28th duly to hand, and
contents read with pleasure; but have not found opportunity to write
you on the subject of your letter until now. The solution you suggest
as to difficulties involved in the alleged manner of translating the
Book of Mormon have been urged upon my attention by others, but,
unfortunately, not always in the clear and temperate spirit of your
communication. I have several letters before me now asking if the
supposition you suggest is not tenable, and would it not relieve us
of whatever remains of difficulties, after accepting the chief ideas
advanced in the _Manual_ theory of translation. I have had a number of
conversations with others on the same subject, and it may interest you
to know that one of the prominent professors in one of our principal
Church institutions of learning very earnestly entertains the same
theory.
Your theory is so clearly and completely stated in your letter that it
need not be restated by me. All you ask is my opinion of it.
Frankly, then, in the first place, I cannot see that it helps us out of
our difficulties at all. In the second place, it still involves us in
the absurdity of supposing some kind of intellectual or mental force in
the transparent stones of the Urim and Thummim. And in the third place,
all the supposed harmonizing effect of your suggestion is already found
in the _Manual_ theory of translation.
Of course, however, the whole point at issue in my consideration of
your suggestion, is the probability of its being true; for if we can
but get at the truth of the matter for once, all other considerations,
in time will take care of themselves,--the difficulties in which
it might seemingly involve us, the harmonizing of all seeming
inconsistencies, all seeming conflict of testimonies of the uncritical
persons who were honored of God in bringing forth the work, etc. So
now, as to the probability of the truth of your suggestion.
First, I must demur somewhat to your remark that we have nothing
"revealed putting this matter beyond a doubt;" I am rather inclined
to think we have. The more I think of the Lord's revelation to Oliver
Cowdery describing the manner in which he might have exercised the gift
of translation by means of Urim and Thummim, had his faith not failed
him (Doc. and Cov. secs viii, ix), the more I am convinced that we have
the Lord's description of the manner in which translation by means
of Urim and Thummim is accomplished. That is the word of the Lord,
to which all theories must conform, whatever becomes of merely human
testimonies. Now with this as the premise, I hold that it is clear that
the power which stands between the Nephite characters seen through the
Urim and Thummim, and the English translation of these, is the inspired
mind of the Prophet Joseph Smith; and not any intellectual or mental
power in the transparent stones of the divine instrument. To suppose
that Urim and Thummim, by some means, and necessarily it must have been
intellectual means, some mental process, made a transliteration from
the Nephite characters in exact though awkward and often meaningless
English equivalents, which Joseph Smith constructs into his unlearned,
yet plainly understood English, (your theory) is to transcend all
human experience and knowledge which God has revealed, and lands us
back into the midst of all the difficulties from which we are trying
to escape. To explain: It nowhere appears from anything which man has
discovered, or that God has revealed, that there is any substance,
from street mud to radium, from a mountain to an atom, or an electron,
aside from _mind,_ that possesses intellectual or mental force, the
only force conceivable as translating the thought crystallized in the
symbols of one language, into thought crystallized into the symbols
of another language--intellectual or mental force alone, I say, must
be supposed to be capable of doing such work as that. If the Urim and
Thummim possessed that intellectual power it must have been conferred
upon it of God, and under that supposition, we are brought face to face
again with all our old difficulties, chief of which is the question:
If God created such an instrument, and conferred upon it the power to
give a transliteration of the Nephite characters, how is it that he
did not give it the power to translate the meaning into reasonable and
readable, not to say perfect English, at first hand, and relieve us of
the awkward supposition that the instrument possessed the mental power
to make the literal translation of words from the Nephite language into
another--and which Joseph Smith was left to construct into imperfect
English? What would be gained by the adoption of this cumbersome and,
pardon me, I think, untenable theory? And again, what occasion for it,
when we have the more simple and reasonable theory of the _Manual_
which is in accord with what God has revealed upon the subject, and
not necessarily contradictory of what Messrs. Whitmer and Harris have
said upon the subject? In order that this may appear, I restate the
_Manual_ theory: The Prophet saw the Nephite characters in the Urim and
Thummim; through strenuous mental effort, the exercise of faith and
the operation of the inspiration of God upon his mind, he obtained the
thought represented by the Nephite characters, understood them in the
Nephite characters, understood them in the Nephite language, and then
expressed the understanding, the thought, in such language as he was
master of; which language, as his mind by mental processes arranged it,
was reflected and held to his vision in Urim and Thummim until written
by his amanuensis. That leaves all the factors involved in the work of
translation in their true relation: The Urim and Thummim an _aid_ to
the Prophet in the work, yet not necessarily, and contrary to human
experience and knowledge revealed of God, endowed with intellectual
power; the mind of the Prophet, touched through his faith by the
inspiration of God, the chief factor; the testimony of Messrs. Harris
and Whitmer that both Nephite characters and the English translation
appeared in the Urim and Thummim, undisturbed and unimpaired.
That I believe to be the truth of the matter, so far as it may be
ascertained, and the certainty of it grows apace. The compromise
suggestion you make--you recognize the fact, of course, that it is
purely conjecture--I do not think can stand, but it indicates an
advancement from the old untenable theory. That old theory cannot
be successfully maintained; that is, the Urim and Thummim did the
translating, the Prophet, nothing beyond repeating what he saw
reflected in that instrument; that God directly or indirectly is
responsible for the verbal and grammatical errors of translation.
To advance such a theory before intelligent and educated people is
to unnecessarily invite ridicule, and make of those who advocate it
candidates for contempt.
Since receiving your letter I have received a communication from Ann
Arbor, Michigan, written by Brother Francis W. Kirkham, of Provo, the
body of which is as follows:
"A paper on 'Mormonism' was recently read before the seminary class
in American History at this university. The writer was very fair,
and I believe tried to be impartial. In the paper the manner of the
interpretation of the Book of Mormon as described by Martin Harris
was brought to its only logical conclusion. Our professor stopped
the reader and asked if 'Joseph Smith had made the statement which
seemed so incredulous.'
"'I am not sure,' was the reply, 'yet this appears to be the Mormon
explanation of the manner of interpretation.'
"Later I gave copies of the last _Manual_ to both our professor
and my fellow classmate. Both myself and another Mormon boy who
listened to the paper, heartily wished that the correspondents you
found it necessary to answer in the last two numbers of the Era
had been seated in the room. We believe a cure would have been the
result."
Desiring something more in detail on this circumstance, Edward H.
Anderson, assistant Editor of the _Era,_ wrote to Elder Kirkham for
further particulars. Following is the body of the letter received in
reply to this request:
"The paper was on Mormonism. In discussing the Book of Mormon,
the reader followed largely the argument of Mr. Frank Pierce in
a number of the _American Archaeologist._ [I can get the exact
reference when I return to Ann Arbor.] I did not read the article
in full, but it quoted from the writings of Martin Harris, and
others. Mr. Pierce claimed he gave the Mormon account of the
interpretation of the golden plates, which is, he said, that Joseph
Smith, Jr., saw the exact words he was to write in the transparent
stone spectacles and that the words would not disappear until the
scribe had written them exactly as the Lord had given them. Mr.
Pierce also gave the testimony of the printer of the original
edition of the Book of Mormon in which he testified that the
'Smiths' would not allow him to change the manuscript in the least,
although he was aware of its crudeness.
"When the reader of the paper had made the above assertions
concerning the interpretation of the Book of Mormon, our professor
spoke up and said: 'Are you sure Joseph Smith said this was the
manner of the interpretation?' 'No,' was the reply, I am not
sure.' 'Well,' continued our professor, 'It is very important
that we know, for, if Joseph Smith did make the assertions you
speak of, there seems to me but one logical conclusion, either the
Lord intentionally made all the mistakes of the first edition and
colored the writings with the provincialisms of New York state, or,
that the Lord was unable to speak correctly or use other than the
phrases and mannerisms of the locality in which Joseph Smith lived.
"I wrote to Elder B. H. Roberts the letter because we regret
it, because we realize that the Martin Harris theory of the
interpretation is contrary to common sense and reason."
It is no use resisting the matter, the old theory must be abandoned. It
could only come into existence and remain so long and now be clung to
by some so tenaciously because our fathers and our people in the past
and now were and are uncritical.[A] They have been and are now--and
to their honor be it said--more concerned with the fact of the divine
origin of the Book of Mormon and the great work it introduced than
to the _modus operandi_ of its translation. Overwhelmed by a divine
testimony of its truth they have paid little attention to the precise
manner by which it was brought forth. It is doubtful if the Prophet
Joseph himself was conscious of the mental and spiritual processes of
translation. It was not his part in the great work to distinguish all
the minutiae of the process by which the word of God came to him. It was
his higher and nobler part to feel and know the word of God in his own
soul; to receive that word through the aids and means provided of God,
and to proclaim that word of God to the world, leaving to others the
less important task of expounding it, unifying its parts, harmonizing
it with previous revelations, proving it true, analyzing it, defending
it when assailed. And in the process of attending to the part of the
work of God the Prophet left to us, we meet with the necessity of
explaining the manner of translating the Book of Mormon, so far as it
can be ascertained, in order to defend the book from assaults made upon
it by mocking unbelievers. One could wish that our own people would
approach the consideration of the matter with less feeling and more
reason than they do; for the whole effort on the part of those who put
forth the _Manual_ theory of translation is merely to ascertain the
truth respecting the matter, and with the view of finding a basis from
which the work may be successfully defended and advocated.
[Footnote A: "It is no use trying to twist facts to suit theories
derived from a past which was destitute of the knowledge we now
possess; what we have to do is to adjust our theories to suit the
facts."_--Hibbert Journal,_ April, 1907, page 197.]
These latter reflections bring to mind some observations I remember
to have read some time ago in the philosophical works of John Fiske
respecting two classes of disciples or partisans in the world of
religious and philosophical opinion, which I think with profit may be
reproduced here. By the way, I see the passage I refer to occurs in
the introduction to _Fiske's Work,_ written by Josiah Boyce, and is as
follows:
"Disciples and partisans, in the world of religious and
philosophical opinion, are of two sorts. There are, first, the
disciples pure and simple,--people who fall under the spell of a
person or a doctrine, and whose whole intellectual life thenceforth
consists in their partisanship. They expound, and defend, and
ward off foes, and live and die faithful to the one formula. Such
disciples may be indispensable at first in helping a new teaching
to get a popular hearing, but in the long run they rather hinder
than help the wholesome growth of the very ideas that they defend:
for great ideas live by growing, and a doctrine that has merely
to be preached, over and over, in the same terms, cannot possibly
be the whole truth. No man ought to be merely a faithful disciple
of any other man. Yes, no man ought to be a mere disciple even of
himself. We live spiritually by outliving our formulas, and by thus
enriching our sense of their deeper meaning. Now the disciples of
the first sort do not live in this larger and more spiritual sense.
They repeat. And true life is never mere repetition.
"On the other hand, there are disciples of a second sort. They are
men who have been attracted to a new doctrine by the fact that it
gave expression, in a novel way, to some large and deep interest
which had already grown up in themselves, and which had already
come, more or less independently, to their own consciousness. They
thus bring to the new teaching, from the first, their own personal
contribution. The truth that they gain is changed as it enters
their souls. The seed that the sower strews upon their fields
springs up in their soil, and bears fruit,--thirty, sixty, an
hundred fold. They return to their master his own with usury. Such,
men are the disciples that it is worth while for a master to have.
Disciples of the first sort often become, as Schopenhauer said,
mere magnifying mirrors wherein one sees enlarged, all the defects
of a doctrine. Disciples of the second sort co-operate in the works
of the Spirit; and even if they always remain rather disciples
than originators, they help to lead the thought that they accept
to a truer expression. They force it beyond its earlier and cruder
stages of development."
I believe Mormonism affords opportunity for disciples of the second
sort; nay, that its crying need is for such disciples. It calls for
thoughtful disciples who will not be content with merely repeating some
of its truths, but will develop its truths; and enlarge it by that
development. Not half--not one-hundredth part--not a thousandth part of
that which Joseph Smith revealed to the Church has yet been unfolded,
either to the Church or to the world. The work of the expounder has
scarcely begun. The Prophet planted by teaching the germ-truths of
the great dispensation of the fulness of times. The watering and the
weeding is going on, and God is giving the increase, and will give
it more abundantly in the future as more intelligent discipleship
shall obtain. The disciples of Mormonism, growing discontented with
the necessarily primitive methods which have hitherto prevailed in
sustaining the doctrine, will yet take profounder and broader views of
the great doctrines committed to the Church; and, departing from mere
repetition, will cast them in new formulas; co-operating in the works
of the Spirit, until "they help to give to the truth received a more
forceful expression, and carry it beyond the earlier and cruder stages
of its development." Another has said:
"The ultimate Truth, no doubt, is one; but Truth as it enters the
world through human lips is always involved in temporary forms,
which subsequent experience enlarges or corrects. No historic
religion, therefore, can ever claim finality; and the work of
religious founders is not so much to create systems of thought as
to impart those impulses of moral endeavor and spiritual affection
which the Christian sums up under the term "life."[A]
[Footnote A: Hibbert Journal, April, 1906, p. 503]
You see once having got started, I have gone beyond the inquiries
of your letter, though I hope not unprofitably so. And, by the way,
since there are a number who are inclined to the view of the manner
of translation suggested by you, is there any objection in your mind,
to publishing this correspondence as a part of the very interesting
consideration now being given to the subject of which it treats?[B]
[Footnote B: No objection was made to the suggestion, and hence the
letters were published.]
Very truly yours,
B. H. ROBERTS.
II.
A Brief Debate on the Book of Mormon.
FOREWORD.
The following brief discussion on the Book of Mormon, while very
limited in its scope, will doubtless be of interest as illustrating
the manner in which answer can be made to objections urged against the
American scriptures on the ground of imperfections in grammar, modern
phraseology, New York localisms, apparent transcripts from King James'
translation from the Bible, etc. Also the discussion may indicate
how helpless one would be in defending the Book of Mormon from such
criticism as is made in "M's" papers, in the absence of such a theory
of translation as is set forth in the Young Men's Improvement Manual
and in the series of papers preceding this brief discussion.
The writer disclaims having issued a "challenge to the world," or
to anybody in it, to debate the question of the divine authenticity
of the Book of Mormon in his remarks in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on
the 8th of November, 1903, or at any other time. The remarks on that
occasion merely dealt with what the writer considers a prophetic page
in the Book of Mormon, page 122 of the current edition, and which is as
follows:
II NEPHI.
"2. For behold, I say unto you, That as many of the Gentiles as
will repent, are the covenant people of the Lord; and as many
of the Jews as will not repent, shall be cast off; for the Lord
covenanteth with none, save it be with them that repent and believe
in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel.
"3. And now, I would prophecy somewhat more concerning the Jews and
the Gentiles. For after the book of which I have spoken shall come
forth, and be written unto the Gentiles, and sealed up again unto
the Lord, there shall be many which shall believe the words which
are written; and they shall carry them forth unto the remnant of
our seed.
"4. And then shall the remnant of our seed know concerning us, how
that we came out from Jerusalem, and that they are descendants of
the Jews.
"5. And the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them;
wherefore, they shall be restored unto the knowledge of their
fathers, and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which was had
among their fathers.
"6. And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is
a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of
darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations
shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and
delightsome people.
"7. And it shall come to pass that the Jews which are scattered,
also shall begin to believe in Christ; and they shall begin to
gather in upon the face of the land; and as many as shall believe
in Christ, shall also become a delightsome people.
"8. And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall commence his
work, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, to bring
about the restoration of his people upon the earth.
"9. And with righteousness shall the Lord God judge the poor, and
reprove with equity, for the meek of the earth. And he shall smite
the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the breath of his
lips shall he slay the wicked;
"10. For the time speedily cometh, that the Lord God shall cause a
great division among the people; and the wicked will he destroy;
and he will spare his people, yea, even if it so be that he must
destroy the wicked by fire.
"11. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and
faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
"12. And then shall the wolf dwell with the lamb, and the [End of
page]."
Here on this one page are at least five very striking prophecies:
1. Many shall believe the Book of Mormon: a thing which seemed most
improbable when the book was in course of publication.
2. They will carry it to the Lamanites--American Indians;
3. The Lamanites by that means will hear the gospel of Jesus Christ,
come to a knowledge of their fathers, will rejoice in the truth, and
finally become a delightsome people;
4. The Jews, after the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, will begin
to believe in Christ, and begin to gather to the lands of their
fathers--Palestine.
5. The work of the Lord on the coming forth of the Book of Mormon will
begin among all nations, in order to bring to pass the restoration of
Israel in the earth.[A]
[Footnote A: These prophecies and their fulfillment are considered at
length in the Y. M. M I. A. Manual for the year 1904-6, No. 9; which
treatise will also be found in the writer's "New Witness for God," Vol.
II, now soon to go to press.]
In the discourse which treated of this "prophetic page" the writer
expressed the opinion that these prophecies and their direct and
remarkable fulfillment could not be accounted for on any other
hypothesis than that the writer of them was inspired of God. And this
was construed into the "Challenge to the World" referred to in the
following papers. If the writer's remarks could fairly be considered
as a challenge, then surely these prophecies and the question of
their fulfillment should have been the main subject of discussion;
but consideration of them forms scarcely any part of the debate which
follows, they are almost ignored, and quite other questions are the
subject of the debate; for which however, the writer is in no way
responsible.
I.
The Objector's First Paper.
(_Salt Lake City Tribune,_ Nov. 22, 1903.)
_Editor Tribune_:--According to the newspaper reports, Elder B. H.
Roberts, in his Tabernacle address Sunday, November 8th, threw out a
sweeping challenge to the world to show that the Book of Mormon is not
of divine origin and authority.
Since Elder Roberts, on the occasion above referred to, confined his
attention mainly to the writings of the alleged Prophet Nephi, we will
do the same. Now the following are some of the difficulties Elder
Roberts will have to explain before he can make any headway toward
setting aside the intelligent belief of the American people generally
that the Book of Mormon in general and the books of Nephi in particular
are fictitious books:
THE "PROPHET" NEPHI.
1. The alleged Prophet Nephi claims to have lived and written between
500 and 600 B.C. For he tells us in chapter 1 and 10 of the first book
that his father was living in Jerusalem in the first year of the reign
of Zedekiah, king of Judah, which reign began not far from 600 B.C.
This professed prophet Nephi pretends to give a summary of the records
made by his father Lehi, about that date, and also "an account of my
proceedings in my days." Now the first difficulty for Elder Roberts
to remove is this: How could a writer, claiming to live at that time,
make repeated quotations from the writings of Christ's Apostles, who
were not born until nearly 600 years after the time when Nephi wrote?
Yet this pretended prophet Nephi quotes passage after passage from the
writings of Christ's apostles Matthew and John and Paul, and also from
the writings of the evangelist Luke, and from the words of the Apostle
Peter, which Christian writers were born about the beginning of the
Christian era. Just take two or three examples of Nephi's quotations,
made at least 500 years before the writers were born from whom he
quotes: In I Nephi 10:8, we read these words, so familiar to English
Bible readers: "Yea, even he should go forth and cry in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for there
standeth one among you whom ye know not; and he is mightier than I,
whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose." This is a direct
quotation from the gospel of John 1:26-7, and also from Matthew 3:1.
On the same page in Nephi are several quotations from the writings of
Paul, in the 11th of Romans, about the olive tree, and the "branches
broken off," with others "grafted in." In I Nephi iii:20 we find the
expression, "which have been spoken by the mouth of all the holy
prophets * * * since the world began." These are the words of Peter
as recorded by Luke in Acts iii:21. The above is an illustration of
the way in which this alleged Prophet Nephi quotes from the writers of
the New Testament. This is fraud No. 1, exposing the false claims of
Nephi, who pretends to write between 500 and 600 years B.C. and yet
quotes from the New Testament writers who were not born until over 500
years later. The Old Testament prophets were genuine. They did, by the
help of God, foretell many important future events. But none of them
pretended to be able, either by the help of God, or their own agility,
to quote passage after passage from writings that did not exist, and
from authors that had not been born. It remained for the favorite
prophet of Elder B. H. Roberts, the robust and agile Nephi, to perform
this feat, beyond the reach of God's genuine prophets.
QUOTES FROM SHAKESPEARE.
2. This alleged Prophet Nephi, pretending to write between 500 and 600
B.C., actually quotes from Shakespeare! This beats the genuine prophets
of the Old Testament even worse than before, and shows that, on a
prophetic long jump, this elastic Nephi could easily take the cake. In
II Nephi i:14, he is writing down the words of his father Lehi, and
represents him as saying, "hear the words of a trembling parent, whose
limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent gave, from whence no
traveler can return."
Every reader of Shakespeare will recognize the last phrase as taken, in
substance, from a sentence in Hamlet's soliloquy. This great Prophet
Nephi (writing, be it remembered, between 500 and 600 B.C.) had
probably loaned his copy of Shakespeare to a neighbor and attempted to
quote from memory, getting about as near the original as the average
Mormon prophet generally does, for example, when attempting to quote
the scriptures from memory. Here is fraud No. 2 perpetrated by this
pretended prophet Nephi, from which Elder Roberts must vindicate his
hero, or else leave us to conclude, as facts seem to show, that the
writer of these books of Nephi was quite a modern deceiver.
3. This brings us to another serious difficulty which we ask Elder
Roberts to elucidate before we can accept his theory that Nephi was a
prophet of God, and that the book of Mormon is a divine revelation.
This alleged Prophet Nephi, professing to write between 500 and 600
B.C., quotes many long passages from a book which did not come into
existence until the seventeenth century of the Christian era. We
refer to the King James English version of the Bible, which was first
published in 1611 A. D. Now, perhaps Elder Roberts can tell us how this
fellow Nephi, pretending to write in the sixth century before Christ,
could quote hundreds of passages, about three hundred, from the New
Testament alone, and whole chapters from our English version of the
Bible, which did not come into existence for more than 2000 years after
he wrote!
This stuffed Prophet Nephi gives himself completely away in the very
first chapter, and shows that he is a very modern writer by using such
well-known expressions as these from our English Bible: "Pillar of
fire," Exodus xiv:24; "Filled with the spirit," Ephesians v:18; "Great
and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty," Revelation xv:3.
These hundreds of passages, and these whole chapters in II Nephi and
elsewhere, from our English Bible, be it observed, are quoted not from
the original, which would not help the matter, for the original of
the New Testament did not exist; but they are quoted from the English
translation of 1611, mistakes and all, even to the filling in of the
peculiar gaps in the way suggested by the English translators.
Now, these hundreds of verbatim quotations, and these whole chapters
from our English Bible, which claim to be quoted over 2000 years before
it was written, should make it quite clear, even to the average mind,
that this pretended Nephi instead of being an ancient prophet was a
very modern one, a pious deceiver and falsifier, living about 1829
of our era. But, perhaps, Elder Roberts can explain it all, and show
us how this modern deceiver in the nineteenth century was an ancient
prophet of God 600 B.C.
GIVES HIMSELF AWAY.
4. This alleged Prophet Nephi gives himself away even worse in the 31st
chapter of the second book by forgetting that he was pretending to
write in the sixth century before Christ and treating the baptism of
Christ as actual history, which it really was. He not only refers to
it in the past tense, but actually indulges in a regular camp-meeting
exhortation to the "brethren," exhorting them, in accordance with the
revival style of 1828, to "repent of their sins," and "follow their
Lord and Savior down into the water," promising that after that they
shall have "the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost."
This is deception No. 4, and shows that Sidney Rigdon Nephi, in 1828,
forgetting that he was an ancient prophet living six centuries before
Christ, broke loose in his regular old camp-meeting style, and just
"whooped up" the brethren, without his deceiver's mask. Nephi, a
divinely inspired prophet of God! Holy Moses, preserve us! If Nephi,
with the above record, or the godless fellow who personated him,
deserves honor as a prophet, then great injustice was done to Boss
Tweed in not electing him President of the American Bible Society. For
clearly he had more religion than this alleged Prophet Nephi with his
conscienceless deception in connection with sacred things.
Come, Brother Roberts, if you can't back up that other alleged prophet,
Joseph Smith, with something more substantial, something less imaginary
and fictitious than these pretended prophetic writings of Nephi, from
which we have been quoting, then you better drop Nephi as a prophet and
fall back on Coriantumr, Shiz or Robinson Crusoe.
WHAT IS NEW IN IT?
5. If the Book of Mormon, as Elder Roberts claims, is a revelation from
God, what moral or religious truth does it reveal which we did not know
before? Not one item. If Elder Roberts will point me to one solitary
item of moral or spiritual truth in the whole Book of Mormon which it
did not take, directly or indirectly, from the Bible, I will present
him with a five-dollar Stetson hat. I know it cannot be done, for it
has been attempted in vain again and again. What sense is there in
calling the Book of Mormon a revelation from God, when it took from the
Bible the only moral truth it contains, and is shown on its face to be
a counterfeit book?
Now, a few words about the pretended prophecies of the wonderful
Nephi, which Elder Roberts claims have been fulfilled. Here is the way
in which prophecies are made and fulfilled in the Book of Mormon: It
either takes the historic record in the New Testament, using the very
words of Scripture, tries to push this history back hundreds of years
and then falsely claims it to be prophetic; or else it deliberately
appropriates the genuine prophecies of the Old Testament. Then, after
mutilating these prophecies more or less, with its peculiar Sidney
Rigdon phraseology and most abominable grammar, it attempts to palm off
these prophecies as original! The prophecy about the restoration of the
Jews to their own land, which Elder Roberts quotes from second Nephi,
and thinks is so wonderful, is simply a case of downright plagiarism.
The conversion of the Jews and their restoration to their own land is
repeatedly foretold by the Old Testament prophets, in such passages
as Jeremiah xxx:3; Ezekiel xxxvii:21; Amos ix:15, and others. Yet the
writer of this book of Nephi does not hesitate to take these prophecies
from the Bible, modify their language, and then try to palm them off as
his own.
As for the two pretended prophecies referred to by Mr. Roberts, in II
Nephi xxx:3, that "Many shall believe the words which are written,"
and that "They shall carry them forth to the remnant of our seed,"
the first is not a prophecy at all, but the simple statement of a
well-known historical fact, yet perverted by the attempt to make it
bolster up this modern book. In saying that it is the statement of a
historical fact, we mean this: The Book of Mormon, as shown above, is
made up of hundreds upon hundreds of Bible phrases and verses, and many
whole chapters taken from our English Bible. As a matter of course,
these Bible quotations which form such a large per cent of the Book
of Mormon, are accepted and believed by the 400 millions who make up
Christendom.
The other passage Mr. Roberts misreads and misinterprets by making "the
remnant of our seed" refer to the Lamanites. Then he assumes, without
one item of proof, that the Lamanites are the same as our Indians.
According to Nephi, the Lamanites were the descendants of his brother
Laman, and were consequently Jews, for Laman was a Jew. Now Ridpath,
the American historian, in the second paragraph of his history of the
United States, sums up the evidence concerning the connection between
the Indians and the Jews in this one sentence: "The notion that the
Indians are descendants of the Israelites is absurd."
Furthermore, the writer of the book of Nephi jumbles up his own history
and contradicts himself in appearing to make "the remnant of our seed"
refer to the Lamanites, as in 2 Nephi xxx:6. Nephi writes as a Jew, and
his seed or the "remnant" of it, will inevitably be Jews and Nephites,
and not Lamanites. The latter descended from Laman and not from Nephi,
and hence could not be the "remnant" of Nephi.
But what is the use of talking seriously about the Nephites and the
Lamanites when no such people ever existed in this country except in
the wild imagination of the writer of a piece of fictitious stuff,
out of which this Book of Mormon was manufactured. The Nephites and
Lamanites never had one whit more reality than the peculiar inhabitants
of the famous island of Lilliput, as described by that model Mormon
historian, Lemuel Gulliver, whom Dean Swift portrays.
NOT AN ANCIENT BOOK.
Abundant proof has been given above that the Book of Mormon is not an
ancient, but a very modern book, and not only a modern book, but a
modern imposition by pretending to be an ancient book and revelation
from God, when it reveals nothing in the way of moral truth which it
did not steal from the Bible.
We are sorry to see a man of Mr. Roberts' ability fooling away his time
and thought in the useless attempt to bolster up as a divine revelation
that which the intelligent reading millions of the American people are
persuaded is fabrication. If the fact that 200,000 people, more or
less, believe in the Book of Mormon, proves that a false book is a true
one, then Mrs. Eddy's book far outranks the Book of Mormon in merit,
for her 'book has a million supporters. But Mr. Roberts is correct in
one statement, namely: that if the Book of Mormon is a false book, then
it would follow that "the great prophet of the Latter-day movement is
a fraud." Well, if there is any one fact which is generally accepted
and believed by the reading, thinking millions of this country, without
regard to party or creed, it is that Joseph Smith was not a prophet.
And they believe this because of the abundant and varied evidence in
regard to his life and conduct.
If Mr. Roberts is really in earnest in desiring to know the actual
origin of the Book of Mormon, the character of the men who manufactured
it and the kind of pretenders they were, socially and morally, let
him read the first eleven chapters of the "Origin and Progress of
Mormonism," by that well-informed and reliable historian, Pomeroy
Tucker of Palmyra, New York. He was well acquainted with Martin Harris,
Oliver Cowdery and other Mormon leaders of that early time, and was for
a dozen years near neighbor to the founder of Mormonism and all his
family. Mr. Tucker was the editor and proprietor of the Wayne Sentinel,
on whose press the first edition of the Book of Mormon was printed,
Mr. Tucker himself correcting the proof sheets. His book was published
by D. Appleton & Co., New York, in 1867. Mr. Tucker sets forth the
character of the false prophet and those associated with the latter at
that time from personal acquaintance and knowledge, and his book has
been generally accepted as thoroughly honest and reliable.
THE DILEMMA.
Now if Mr. Roberts can read the facts as set forth in Mr. Tucker's
book, which have been confirmed by scores of reliable witnesses also
acquainted with the facts, and still stand up in public and declare
it to be his belief that Nephi was a prophet of God and the Book of
Mormon is a revelation from God, he will force the general public to
conclude rather that he is not a sincere man, or else that his peculiar
training prevents him from distinguishing between true reasoning and
false, between facts and fiction, between honesty and fraud, between
true revelation and that which is counterfeit. Because the facts in Mr.
Tucker's book, confirmed by scores of witnesses of worthy character,
have been amply sufficient to convince the reading, thinking,
truth-loving millions of the American people generally that the Book
of Mormon is fiction in pretending that a part of it was written 2400
and the rest 1500 years ago, when the proof that it is a modern book is
shown on almost every page. The facts in Mr. Tucker's book have also
convinced the American people generally that the alleged prophet was
not a prophet.
The above has been written with entire good will, in the interests of
truth and historic facts. And when Mr. Roberts squarely meets the above
difficulties, contradictions and absurdities in the Book of Mormon, not
by wordy evasion and logical hair-splitting, however ingenious, but in
a way that shall be satisfactory not only to his own mind but also to
intelligent, reasoning, truth-loving minds generally, then perhaps he
will be entitled to issue another sweeping challenge in behalf of a
book which the American people generally, without regard to party or
creed, believe to be a fabrication._M_.
Salt Lake City, November 18, 1903.
II.
The First Reply.
(_Salt Lake Tribune,_ Nov. 29, 1903.)
_Editor Tribune:_--If any words of mine in the remarks made in the
Tabernacle on the 8th of November could be construed into a "challenge"
to a public discussion of the Book of Mormon--as the writers of
headlines on some of the morning papers seem to think they could
be--when the challenge was accepted, the courtesy of debate would
certainly require that the acceptance of the challenge should be
otherwise than from ambush. I mean that I am entitled to know the
name of my opponent, that I may judge somewhat of his character and
standing. And why should the gentleman remain in cog? Is he ashamed to
be known as engaging in such a discussion? Or is it a precaution he
takes so that if his argument does not rise to the expectation of his
friends, he may remain unknown behind the mystery of a single initial.
If the first supposition be true, it is a difficulty he could easily
have avoided; if the second suggestion be the true reason for his
remaining unknown, he is to be commended for his cunning. I need say
nothing of his courage.
When on Saturday my attention was called to the editorial announcement
that the alleged "challenge" had been accepted, and an article against
the Book of Mormon would appear in _The Tribune's_ Sunday issue, I
remarked to a friend that I thought I could write an answer to the
much heralded article without seeing it; and when on Sunday I read
the Unknown's production I felt I had not been over-confident in the
assertion, so closely has he followed in the well-beaten, not to
say worn out, path of anti-Mormon argument. What a world of trouble
Alexander Campbell would have saved many inferior disputants had he
only stereotyped the objections he urged against the Book of Mormon in
1831! They then could have pointed to his utterances and said: "Them's
my arguments." For from the days of Mr. Campbell until now, anti-Mormon
geniuses have but rehashed the great man's arguments, with a uniform
decadence in their strength, in proportion to the distance in time from
which they are removed from him who first fashioned them. But now to
the Unknown's "arguments."
THE TIME OF WRITING.