B.C. and then presents what he calls the first difficulty that I am to
overcome. "How can a writer," he asks, "claiming to live at that time
make repeated quotations from the writings of Christ's Apostles who
were not born until 600 years after the time when Nephi wrote?" He then
charges that Nephi quotes "passage after passage" from the writings of
Christ's apostles, Matthew, John, Paul, Luke, Peter, etc.; and gives
what he calls just "two or three examples" of such quotations. The
gentleman very much overstates the difficulty he presents, by making
it appear that the alleged quotations are very numerous, when the fact
is that the two or three cases he cites virtually exhaust the alleged
quoted passages so far as the New Testament is concerned. In order that
your readers may see how flimsy the charge here made is, I set down the
quotations in question. (a) Nephi, describing his father's vision of
the future coming of the Messiah, says: "And he spake also concerning a
prophet who should come before the Messiah, to prepare the way of the
Lord; 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. And much spake my father concerning
this thing." To make this appear as a plagiarism from the New Testament
the Unknown puts together two passages: (1) "I baptize with water; but
there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; he it is, who, coming
after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy
to unloose," (John i:26, 27). (2) "In those days came John the Baptist,
preaching in the wilderness of Judea" (Matthew iii). Of course, the
story of the man who said he could prove that the Bible commanded
every one to hang himself may be commonplace; but it illustrates the
methods of the Unknown in making out his case of plagiarism. The proof
was supplied in this way: He quoted the passage, "and Judas went out
and hanged himself." Then from another passage, from another book, he
quoted these words, "Go thou and do likewise." It must be remembered
that the Nephites carried with them into the wilderness the Jewish
scriptures, and Lehi was doubtless familiar with the prediction of
Isaiah concerning this same prophet that should go before our Lord
to prepare the way before him, translated in our English version as
follows: "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye
the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert an highway for our
God." (Isaiah xl:3.) Is it more remarkable that the Lord should reveal
to Lehi what the voice in the wilderness should cry than that he should
reveal it to Isaiah? With reference to the Unknown's charge that on
the same page quoted above, Nephi makes "several quotations from the
writings of Paul in the xi. of Romans, about the 'olive tree,' and the
'branches broken off, with others grafted in,'" etc., the gentleman,
if acquainted with the prophets of Israel ought to know that this
simile is not original with Paul; but that the ancient prophets used
it in illustration of Israel and the judgments that should come upon
the people. Moreover, in addition to our books of Jewish scriptures
the Nephites had some of the writings of the other prophets of Israel,
notably the book of Zenos, in which was given at great length this
simile of the tame olive tree and the branches being broken off and
others grafted in, etc., from which book, unquestionably, Nephi
obtained his ideas.
QUOTATION FROM PETER.
The Unknown charges that Nephi quoted from the words of Peter, which
I give here, followed by the passage from Nephi. Peter: "Whom the
heaven must receive until the time of restitution of all things, which
God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world
began." Nephi: "Behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these
records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our
fathers; and also that we may preserve unto them the words which have
been spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets, which have been
delivered unto them by the spirit and power of God, since the world
began, even down unto the present time." The omissions that are made in
order to bring words together to establish the charge of plagiarism,
will exhibit to what straits the Unknown is driven to make out his case.
One other thing the Unknown seems to have overlooked, viz., that the
Book of Mormon is a translation of the ideas and prophecies of men
deriving their knowledge concerning the Messiah and things associated
with his life either from the old Jewish scriptures, which were in
their possession, or from the revelations of God direct to them; and
that the translator, Joseph Smith, being more or less familiar with New
Testament and Old Testament expressions, in making the translation, at
times used Bible phraseology in representing ideas akin to those found
in Jewish scriptures. See also my remarks under heading No. 3, where
this defense is more fully stated.
THE SHAKESPEAREAN QUOTATION.
2. The Unknown fairly revels in the thought that he has Lehi quoting
Shakespeare many generations before our great English poet was born;
and indulges in the sarcasms which Campbell and more than a score of
anti-Mormon writers have indulged in who have mimicked his phraseology.
Now the fact is there are two passages in Job which could easily have
supplied both Shakespeare and Lehi with the idea of that country "from
whose bourn no traveler returns." That this may appear I give the
passages from Shakespeare, Job and Lehi. It should be remembered always
that the Nephites had the Jewish scriptures with them, including the
book of Job; hence Lehi could have obtained his idea from the same
source whence Shakespeare obtained his.
_Shakespeare:_ "That undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler
returns."
_Job:_ "Let me alone that I may take comfort a little, before I go
whence I shall not return, even to the land of darkness and the shadow
of death." (Job x:20, 21.) "When a few years are come, then I shall go
the way whence I shall not return." (Job xvi:22.)
Lehi: "Hear the words of a parent whose limbs ye must soon lay down in
the cold and silent grave from whence no traveler can return."
It will be observed that the passage from the Book of Mormon follows
Job more closely than it does Shakespeare both in thought and diction;
and this for the reason, doubtless, that Lehi had been impressed with
Job's idea of going to the land whence he would not return, and Joseph
Smith, being familiar with Job, and very likely not familiar with
Shakespeare, when he came to Lehi's thought, expressed it nearly in
Job's phraseology.
FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.
3. The Unknown asks me again how it is that Nephi, living in the sixth
century B.C., can quote numerous 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 2,000 years
after he wrote." When the Unknown says that there are three hundred
quotations from the New Testament alone in the writings of Nephi, if
he meant that, he simply makes a colossal misrepresentation, for there
is no such number of passages in Nephi from the New Testament alone,
nor, in fact, in the whole Book of Mormon. But as I think he must have
meant this assertion to apply to the whole Book of Mormon, I will take
no advantage of his misstatement as to confining that number to Nephi,
but will meet the larger question as to all these passages in the Book
of Mormon which parallel passages in both the Old and New Testament.
Because Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by means of the
inspiration of God and the aid of the Urim and Thummim, it is generally
supposed that this translation occasioned the Prophet no mental or
spiritual effort, that it was purely mechanical; in fact, that the
instrument did all and the Prophet nothing, than which a greater
mistake could not be made. All the circumstances connected with the
work of translation clearly prove that it caused the Prophet the utmost
exertion, mental and spiritual, of which he was capable, and that
while he obtained the facts and ideas from the Nephite characters, he
was left to express those ideas in such language as he was master of.
This, it is conceded, was faulty; hence here and there verbal defects
in the English translation of the Nephite record. Now when the Prophet
perceived from the Nephite records that Isaiah was being quoted; or
when the Savior was represented as giving instructions in doctrine and
moral precepts of the same general character as those given in Judea,
Joseph Smith undoubtedly turned to those parts of the Bible where
he found a translation substantially correct, of those things which
were referred to in the Nephite records, and adopted so much of that
translation as expressed the truths common to both records; and since
our English version of the Jewish scriptures was the one the Prophet
used in such instances, we have the Bible phraseology of which the
Unknown complains, and of which this, in the judgment of the writer, is
the adequate explanation to all of that class of his objections.
4. What the Unknown describes as Nephi giving himself away is based
on my unknown friend's inability to comprehend a very simple fact. He
says that in the 31st chapter of the second book of Nephi, the writer,
forgetting that he was pretending to write in the sixth century B.C.,
treats the baptism of Christ as actual history. That is, he holds,
the writer changes from prophecy to narrative. The fact is that some
time previous to this (see I Nephi, chapter 11) the baptism of Jesus
had been shown in vision to Nephi, hence to him had become as an
accomplished fact, after which, according to this chapter quoted by
the Unknown, the voice of the Son of God (then a pre-existent Spirit)
came unto Nephi, saying "He that is baptized in my name, to him will
the Father give the Holy Ghost like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and
do the things which ye have seen me (i. e., in vision) do." Now Nephi,
with this in mind, points out to his brothers in the next verse how, by
following their Lord and Savior down into the water, "according to his
word" (i. e., given previously in Nephi's vision) promises them that
they shall then receive the Holy Ghost. All of which considerations
demonstrate that the gentleman has not understood the chapter over
which he grows vulgarly hilarious by such expressions as "whooped up,"
"Holy Moses, preserve us!" and his reference to "Boss Tweed."
NO NEW TRUTH
5. The next charge of the Unknown is that the Book of Mormon makes
known no moral or religious truth, no "not one item," and then the
gentleman resorts to a thing which to say the least of it looks
strangely out of place in a discussion of this description, and reminds
one of the methods of a low order of politicians, who, when unable to
maintain their part of a controversy by reason, arrogantly offer a bet,
usually at large odds, that their side will prevail; and if the wager
for any cause be not taken, with turkey-cock pride they strut about,
as if they had demonstrated the truth of their contention. Now I do
not know what our Unknown friend would regard as a spiritual or moral
truth, but here is at least one that I commend to his consideration:
"Fools mock, but they shall mourn." It is quite original to the Book
of Mormon, as are the other quotations which follow, but I will not
trouble the gentleman for his hat, even though it be a Stetson, as up
to date I have been able to clothe my own head without an effort to
win wagers or prizes. Whoever the Unknown may be it stands out pretty
clearly from his article that he is not familiar with great moral and
religious questions. He seems not to be aware that the Jews for many
ages have been asking this same question of the Christian, i. e., they
demand to know what moral and religious truth Jesus taught the world
that was not already taught by Jewish rabbis; and no later than in
the October number of the _Open Court,_ a famous rabbi parallels the
choicest moral aphorisms of Christ's teachings with quotations from
the Talmud; while there has not arisen within the last two centuries
an anti-Christian disputant, but who makes the same claims in behalf
of the moral and spiritual teachings of Buddha; and not only do they
claim that Christ's moral truths were borrowed from more ancient
teachers, but that the principal events of his life also, from his
birth of a virgin to his resurrection as a God, were stolen from myths
concerning Old World heroes and teachings. When Messiah came to the New
World, he had the same announcements to make concerning himself, and
his relations to the world; the same ethical and spiritual doctrines
to teach; and as he had been accustomed to state these doctrines in
brief, aphoristic sentences while in Judea, it is not strange that
the same things were given to the Nephites, in their language, much
in the same order; which Joseph Smith, observing, and finding these
truths substantially stated in our English Bible, adopted, where he
could do so consistently, the language of that book. Still there are
certain statements of moral and spiritual ideas that the Unknown will
find it difficult to parallel from the Bible, a few examples of which
I here give: "Wickedness never was happiness." "The Lord giveth no
commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for
them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them."
"I give unto men weaknesses that they may be humble, and my grace is
sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me." Then let the
gentleman take into consideration the exclusiveness of the Jews, and
of the Christians also, for matter of that, and then contemplate the
following passage which breathes such a spirit of universal charity
and joins the hands of all the great moral teachers among all nations
into one splendid brotherhood: "The Lord doth grant unto all nations,
of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word; yea, in wisdom,
all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that
the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and
true." Then let the Unknown parallel from the Bible the following great
spiritual truth from the Book of Mormon: "Adam fell that men might be;
and men are that they might have joy." A sentence which tells, as it is
told nowhere else, the purpose of man's existence. The limits of this
article preclude the mention of historical and doctrinal truths which
the Book of Mormon makes known to the world. Also, consideration of
the gentleman's efforts to explain away the existence and force of the
prophecies in the Book of Mormon to which I alluded in my Tabernacle
discourse, and which may be found at page 122 of the current edition
of the Book of Mormon. I esteem what he has there said of so little
importance that I shall pass it without comment as its weakness and
inaccuracy will be apparent to all who read it. Indeed at this point
the gentleman makes it quite clear that he is not familiar with the
book he attempts to criticise. In trying to make it appear that Nephi
"jumbles up his own history and contradicts himself" the Unknown
astonishes us with the statement that Nephi was a Jew, and learnedly
tells us that his seed or the remnant of it will inevitably be Jews
and Nephites and not Lamanites, and hence the prophecies concerning
the Lamanites could not apply to the remnant of Nephi's seed. As a
matter of fact Lehi, and hence all of his sons, were of the tribe of
Manasseh, and Nephi was speaking with reference to both his own and his
brother Laman's descendants of whom the Indians are the remnant. When
I reached this part of the gentleman's production I thought I was not
only entitled to know who it was I was to meet in discussion, but also
to have an opponent who at least was acquainted with the subject.
AS TO "SORROW."
A word as to the "sorrow" which the gentleman experiences when he
sees a man of my "ability" (shades of flattery, leave us!) "fooling
away his time and thought in the useless attempt to bolster up as a
divine revelation that which the intelligent millions of the American
people are persuaded is fabrication!" What a jewel was lost to the
anti-Christians of the first or second century by the Unknown being
born in the nineteenth, instead of the first century! What an eloquent
appeal he could have made, for instance, to the misguided Paul, who
wasted his thought and time in an effort (I will not say useless one)
to bolster up such a delusion as the Christian religion was at that
time thought to be! A delusion which the intelligent millions of
civilized Rome regarded as the vilest of all deceptions. Again, how
ostentatiously the Unknown could have said to Paul, if the latter was
really in earnest to know the character of the men who originated this
Christian delusion, that he could learn it from some of the historical
facts and the accepted rumors current at that time about Messiah and
his immediate followers. From such sources he could have learned that
Christ was a blasphemer, a disturber of the peace, a menace to the
authority of Rome, the consort of vile Galilean peasants, an associate
and sympathizer with women of questionable reputation, and who, at
last, for the peace and good order of the community in which he lived,
was duly crucified between two thieves. He was buried and his sepulcher
guarded, but his vile associates bribed the soldier guards, stole
his body, and then gave it out that he was risen from the dead; and
on these falsehoods arose the fabric known as the Christian church!
There would be no resisting such an appeal as this if only some one
had arisen with the intelligence to have advanced it. Undoubtedly Paul
would have ceased his labors, and perhaps Christianity itself would
not have survived such an attack, and hence many anti-Christians may
regret that this Unknown gentleman did not live in the period when his
services would have been so effective. But since the Unknown, through
no fault of his, however, missed his opportunity in that age, he
exerts his abilities in this, and appealingly says to me, if I would
know the real "truth about the Book of Mormon, and the character of
the men who manufactured it," I should read the "'Origin and Progress
of Mormonism,' by that well-informed and reliable historian, Pomroy
Tucker!" Shades of primer days, not to say days of the bib and rattle!
After nearly a century of existence, despite the efforts of its enemies
to destroy it, after surviving as Mormonism has all the floods of
falsehood and absurdity hurled upon it, are we now to turn back to what
Pomroy Tucker has said in order to get the "exact truth" concerning
Mormonism and the character of the men who brought it forth? I must
inform the Unknown, whatever he may think of me, that I must suppose
myself utterly incorrigible, for I have read Pomroy Tucker years ago,
and also recently, and if he will call on me I will point out to him
several score of other anti-Mormon writers I have read, of like ilk
with Tucker, and yet I am not reclaimed. Deliberately and proudly, I
take my stand with the people whom these writers have maligned, and
whose doctrines and history they misrepresent, and announce my absolute
faith--notwithstanding even the argument of the Unknown--in the
divinity of the Book of Mormon. Respectfully, B.H. ROBERTS.
Salt Lake City, Utah, Nov. 27, 1903.
III.
The Objector's Second Paper Against the Book of Mormon.
_(Salt Lake Tribune,_ Dec. 6, 1903.)
_Editor Tribune:--_In reply to my article in _The Tribune_ of November
22nd, pointing out, in response to his public challenge, some of the
great difficulties in the way of accepting Nephi as an ancient prophet
of God, and the Book of Mormon as an ancient revelation from God,
Elder Roberts begins by finding fault with me for not writing over my
full signature. But the reasons he intimates for my not doing so prove
altogether too much, and hence, by a logical maxim, prove nothing. For
they would prove that those great and high-minded statesmen, Alexander
Hamilton, Chief Justice John Jay, and James Madison, acted an unworthy
part, and were lacking in courage because, for wise reasons, they
conducted those masterly discussions which made up The Federalist, over
an assumed name.
Then the sarcasms about the rehashing by more recent writers, of
Alexander Campbell's arguments against the Book of Mormon, are "wasted
on the desert air," so far as I am concerned, for I have never seen
any article or treatise by Campbell on the subject. It would be quite
easy to retort and say that if it were not for the writings of Orson
Pratt, the more recent defenders of the Book of Mormon would be without
ammunition. But that style of arguing amounts to nothing.
Elder Roberts' defense seems to raise new difficulties without really
settling any, although it is ingenious and skillful. On general
principles, there is no reason why I should not accept the writings
of Nephi and the Book of Mormon as readily as my opponent, if they
were true. But the reason why I do not, is because of the extent and
variety of the evidence against them, only a few points of which can be
discussed in a newspaper article. Since my main object is to establish
truth, I wish to treat Elder Roberts and his argument in a fair and
candid way.
Let us come now to the main proposition, which is twofold: Elder
Roberts affirms that Nephi was a prophet of God, living and writing
about 600 B.C.; and that the Book of Mormon is a divine revelation.
The evidence compels me to deny both of these propositions and to
declare that neither of them is true. Now let us try to find some
common ground on which we can stand. As such ground, I offer these
two propositions in reference to books in general, which seem to me
self-evident:
First, any book which professes to have been written in ancient times,
and yet quotes from authors not born until centuries after, is a
spurious book.
Second, any book which professes to be a divine revelation to the
people of the present time, and yet reveals nothing, which it did not
appropriate from some other book or source of knowledge already in the
possession of the people, is a spurious book.
I use the term "revelation" in its ordinary sense, as referring to
divine truth. These are two propositions which I think people of all
creeds can stand upon, for I think they contain nothing which is not
self-evident. The differences of opinion will begin when we come to
apply these two fundamental principles. Still, it is my opponent's
privilege to dissent from these propositions, if he thinks they are not
self-evident. But I think that careful, reasoning people generally,
will accept them. Anyhow, I take my stand upon them and proceed to
apply them.
THOSE QUOTATIONS.
1. As to the alleged Prophet Nephi. If it can be clearly shown that he
quoted passage after passage from the New Testament writers, who were
not born for centuries after he claims to have written, then the first
fundamental principle is violated, and we have demonstrative evidence
that Nephi was simply a pretender, and his writings are spurious.
In my former article I referred specially to three direct quotations
by Nephi, from the New Testament writers, taken from Acts iii:21, John
i:26-27, and Romans xi:17-24, and found in I Nephi iii:20, x:8, and
x:12-14. I also, under discussion of the third point, referred to two
other quotations from Ephesians v:18, and Revelations xv:3. It did not
seem necessary to quote other passages, for I deemed these sufficient
to establish the point.
The words in I Nephi x:8, "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" is a clear plagiarism from John i:26-27, which
reads: "But there standeth one among you, whom ye know not, He it is
who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am
not worthy to unloose."
The first part of Nephi x:8, is: "Yea, even he should go forth and cry
in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths
straight." This is quoted from Matthew iii:3. The reference of Elder
Roberts to Isaiah x:3, from which the thinks Nephi might have quoted,
instead of from Matthew, is irrelevant, because, while the two passages
are somewhat similar, the phraseology is different, and the careless
Nephi failed to help my opponent out of the difficulty, for he quotes
from Matthew and not from Isaiah, demonstrating what a smart fellow he
was by quoting from an author that hadn't been born!
So Elder Roberts' reference to the fact that the olive tree is used
figuratively by some of the Old Testament prophets is irrelevant,
because Nephi quotes Paul's exact phrases, and does not quote from
the prophets. Now, in reference to these quotations by Nephi from the
New Testament writers, Elder Roberts says: "The gentleman very much
overstates the difficulty he presents, by making it appear that the
alleged quotations are very numerous, when the fact is that the two of
three cases he cites virtually exhaust the alleged quoted passages so
far as the New Testament is concerned."
I am not a little surprised at such a statement, as Elder Roberts
rather prides himself on his knowledge of the Book Of Mormon, and in
his article, near the close of his discussion of the fifth point,
laments that he is obliged to carry on this discussion with an opponent
who does not seem to be much acquainted with the subject. Well, my
friend, I don't boast about my knowledge or superiority to other men;
I don't assume "to know it all." But I think I know enough about the
Book of Mormon to prevent me from making any such careless and utterly
inaccurate statements as the above, "that the two or three cases he
cites virtually exhaust the alleged quoted passages." Verily, I begin
to wonder whether my friend has ever read the books of Nephi through!
If he will now follow me for a little, perhaps he may learn something
new about them. Let us see whether "two or three passages exhaust the
quotations." In my former article I referred to five quotations from
the New Testament writers. Let us go on with the count:
6. In Nephi v:18, the expression, "all nations, kindreds, tongues and
people," is from Revelations xiv:6.
7. In Nephi x:17, the words, "by the power of the Holy Ghost," are from
Romans xv:13.
8. "For he is the same, yesterday, today and forever," in Nephi x:18,
is taken from Hebrews xiii:8.
9. The words, "caught away in the Spirit of the Lord," are from Acts
vii:39.
10. In Nephi xi:21, "Behold the Lamb of God," is from John i:36.
11. In Nephi xi:27, the words, "and after he was baptized, I beheld the
heavens open, and the Holy Ghost came down out of heaven, and abode
upon him in the form of a dove," are taken from Matthew iii:16, and
from John i:32.
12. In Nephi xi:35, the strange expression, "the twelve apostles of the
Lamb," is taken from the only place in the world where it originated,
Revelation xxi:14.
13. In Nephi xi:22, the words, "Yea, it is the love of God which
sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men," are taken
from Romans v:5.
14. In Nephi xii:11, "And the angel said unto me, These are made white
in the blood of the Lamb," is from Revelations vii:14.
15. In Nephi xiv:1, the repeated expressions, "mother of abominations"
and "mother of harlots," are taken from Revelation xvii:5.
These fifteen quotations have been taken from the first fourteen
chapters of I Nephi, leaving eight chapters more in this book and
thirty-three chapters in II Nephi for other quotations. I have jotted
down on the fly-leaf of my copy of the Book of Mormon forty-four
different quotations from the New Testament writers by this alleged
prophet. These quotations are largely in the Sidney Rigdon-Nephi style
of inaccuracy. Nephi is just about as inaccurate in quoting scripture
as in quoting Shakespeare. Then a large per cent of the language in
the books of Nephi is a mere paraphrase, and often a parody, of the
language of the New Testament. I have quoted nothing from III Nephi,
whose thirty chapters and sixty-eight pages are largely in the direct
language of the New Testament, three whole chapters being quoted,
although the New Testament was not written for fifty years afterward.
I have not quoted from this book, for I understood Elder Roberts to be
referring to the first two books.
The explanation of Elder Roberts that Nephi had a vision of Christ some
fifty years before, which made Christ real to him, is no explanation
of the fact that there are eight quotations from three New Testament
writers in II Nephi 31.
AS TO SHAKESPEARE.
2. Concerning Nephi's quotation from Shakespeare, Elder Roberts thinks
he has found a way of escape for Nephi from this fatal blunder.
He cites a passage from Job from which he thinks Nephi might have
quoted, for he says "the Nephites had the Jewish Scriptures with
them, including the book of Job." But now observe that this suggested
escape for this ancient prophet is out of the Nephite frying-pan into
the Lamanite fire. For Shakespeare died in 1616, and the King James
English version of the Bible was published in 1611. Now, so far as the
argument against the ancient Nephite is concerned, what difference does
it make whether he quoted from Shakespeare or our English version of
Job, which is the one Elder Roberts alludes to, and which is the only
one containing any resemblance either to the passage in Nephi or in
Shakespeare. The only way, therefore, to lift Nephi out of this fatal
situation is for Elder Roberts to show that he had, in addition to the
Jewish Scriptures, a copy of our English Bible with him back there in
the wilderness 600 B.C., or else a copy of Shakespeare. Or else let Mr.
Roberts agree with me, according to the evidence, that Mr. Nephi was
simply a very modern gentleman from New York or Pennsylvania, having in
his possession both the Bible and Shakespeare, and then the difficulty
is solved.
SECOND PROPOSITION.
Now we come to the second proposition which is, that the Book of Mormon
is a divine revelation to the people of the present time. A large
part of what has been said in proof of the spurious character of the
books of Nephi applies to the Book of Mormon as a whole. But there are
overwhelming special difficulties in the way of accepting it as a new
and divine revelation, only three or four of which I can now briefly
touch upon.
1. The book claims that the plates, from which it was translated by
Joseph Smith, were sealed up and hidden in the hill of Cumorah, New
York, about 400 A. D. No one upon this continent ever saw these plates
prepared by Mormon except himself and his son, Moroni. They were
prepared specially for the people of our time, in this country. After
being hidden about 1400 years Joseph Smith claims that the angel Moroni
came and disclosed them to him. And the wonderful revelation contained
in the plates, about "the restoration to the earth of the everlasting
gospel," Elder Roberts says Joseph Smith translated "by means of the
inspiration of God and the aid of Urim and Thummim." And, behold, when
we come to read this wonderful new revelation and this new everlasting
gospel which it discloses, we find that it is simply a feeble and
diluted imitation of the Bible revelation and the gospel which had
already been in the possession of the Christian people of this country
for over two hundred years, and in the possession of their ancestors
for over twelve hundred years.
If this duplicate, pretended revelation had been brought out among
the benighted people of China or India, or some other heathen country
who were without these Bible teachings, it would not have been such
a complete "give away." But, with a great flourish of trumpets, to
give to the Christian people of this country a weak and poor copy of
the revelation and the gospel whose bright and radiant original had
been in their possession for hundreds of years, seems to me so absurd,
and so transparent as a deceiving scheme, I do not wonder that the
overwhelming majority of intelligent people utterly reject it. And just
because this book, while so loftily pretending to be a new and divine
revelation, reveals absolutely nothing which the people did not have
before in much better form, how can we avoid concluding that it is a
counterfeit book? I will attend presently to the specimens of new truth
which Elder Roberts finds in it.
2. There are at least twelve persons, worthy and reliable so far
as I can discover, who testify that the substance of this Book of
Mormon, with all its queer names of places and persons, its strange
history, its battles and slaughters, its continual imitation of Bible
phraseology, they had heard read several years prior to the publication
of this book, from a religious romance. It was in this romance that
the Nephites and Lamanites originated, and also the pretended ancient
books of Nephi, Alma, Mosiah, Mormon and the rest. I can find no-proof
whatever that the above peoples and books ever existed except in the
imagination of the writer of the religious romance. And I have never
been able to see why the testimony of the above twelve witnesses, who
had nothing to gain by their testimony, should be arbitrarily brushed
aside, and the testimony of the eleven interested witnesses, who
declare that they saw and "hefted" the plates, should be gulped down at
one swallow. Even if they did see the plates, that proves absolutely
nothing essential to the case. They were all ignorant men, and knew
nothing about what was written on the plates. Other men saw the famous
Kinderhook plates, but what of it?
3. The Book of Mormon, though sealed up and hidden away about 400
A.D., is filled up, from beginning to end, with the phraseology of our
English Bible. Not only that, it contains hundreds upon hundreds of the
exact phrases and sentences, and about twenty whole chapters from our
English Bible which was not published for about twelve hundred years
after the Book was hidden away. In my former article, I intended to
state that there are in the Book of Mormon about 300 quotations from
the New Testament, and I am obliged to Elder Roberts for interpreting
my meaning in that way, for I did not intend to say that the two books
of Nephi contain so many quotations.
A VITAL POINT.
Now we come to a vital point. I asked Elder Roberts to explain how the
above quotations could possibly have been made if the Book of Mormon
is honest in its claim of being an ancient book. And here is his
explanation:
"Because Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by means of the
inspiration of God and the aid of Urim and Thummim, it is generally
supposed that this translation occasioned the prophet no mental or
spiritual effort, that it was purely mechanical; in fact, that the
instrument did all and the prophet nothing, than which a greater
mistake could not be made. * * * Now when the prophet perceived from
the Nephite records that Isaiah was being quoted, or when the Savior
was represented as giving instructions in doctrine and moral precepts
of the same general character as those given in Judea, Joseph Smith
undoubtedly turned to those parts of the Bible where he found a
translation, substantially correct, of those things which were referred
to in the Nephite records, and adopted so much of that translation as
expressed the truths common to both records."
Now, it seems to me that the above defense and explanation of Elder
Roberts are fatal to his position and that of the defenders of the book
generally, that it is a thoroughly accurate translation of the Nephite
plates, "by means of the inspiration of God and the aid of Urim and
Thummim." And it seems fatal for two reasons:
First--This defense places Mr. Roberts in opposition to his own
witnesses. For two of the famous "three witnesses" wholly differ from
Mr. Roberts as to the method of translating the plates, and point out
that Joseph Smith had nothing whatever to do except simply to read the
English sentences as they appeared in translation. Martin Harris says:
"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 correctly written it remained
until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on
the plates."
Here is the testimony also of David Whitmer, another of the three
witnesses. After stating that Joseph put the seer stone into a hat,
he says: "A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, 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 Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and
when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it
were correct, then it would disappear and another character with the
interpretation would appear."
Nothing is said by these witnesses about any Urim and Thummim. That was
evidently an afterthought. Nothing is said about any great mental and
spiritual effort on Joseph's part.
Second--The above defense seems to me fatal to Elder Roberts' position,
because if Joseph Smith turned aside to quote from our English Bible,
as Elder Roberts admits that he did, then what was to prevent him
from putting into the Book of Mormon, when it suited him, quotations
from other English books, from Shakespeare, from books on geography
and history? What prevented him from putting into the Book of Mormon
the peculiar and well-known views of Sidney Rigdon, with which the
book is saturated? What prevented him from putting in his own views?
Undoubtedly, that is just what he did, for the book gives abundant
evidence of being a modern compilation, and the evidence that it is
an ancient book utterly fails. The statement and admission of Elder
Roberts give us all the light we need as to its modern origin and
spurious character.
Just a few words now as to the specimens of new truth from the Book of
Mormon, of which Elder Roberts presented six:
First--"Fools mock, but they shall mourn." I see nothing new about
that. Everybody mourns sooner or later, and fools with the rest. In
Proverbs xiv:9, we read: "Fools make a mock of sin."
Second--"Wickedness never was happiness." I think the prophet Isaiah
expresses this idea far better when he says in lvii:21, "There is no
peace, saith my God, to the wicked."
Third--"The Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save
he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing
which he commandeth." Certainly that is not new truth. The very fact
that God gives us commandments implies that the way will be open for us
to keep them. Perhaps it was suggested by I Cor. x:13.
Fourth--"I give unto men weaknesses that they may be humble, and my
grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me."
This idea seems to have been appropriated from II Cor. xii:9: "And he
said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made
perfect in weakness."
Fifth--"The Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and
tongue, to teach his word." I do not quote the rest of this verse,
for I think this first statement is not true. Many nations are in the
darkness of heathendom and do not teach the word of God.
Sixth--"Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have
joy." I think both statements in that sentence are wholly untrue. Adam
fell because he disobeyed God and became a sinner. Two-thirds of the
human race are in heathenish darkness, sufferers from cruelty, want,
oppression and idolatry and without joy.
In conclusion, I am sorry to spoil my opponent's concluding paragraph,
for I admit that it is well written. But it seems to me illogical,
for in expressing his regret that I could not have lived in the days
of Paul, so that those opposed to Paul and the Christians might have
availed themselves of my suggestions, he has to class me with the
anti-Christians. In this he is illogical, for I do not belong to that
class. Suppose that I should express regret that he did not live in the
eighteenth century, so as to help the infidels of that day in their
contest with Bishop Butler and the other great Christian scholars of
that time. My supposition would be illogical, for my opponent does not
belong to the infidel class. Now, I have tried to treat my opponent
and his arguments with fairness and in a kindly way. I certainly have
nothing but good will toward him and to all who are sincere in their
opinions. Unless some new phase of the subject should come up I see no
reason why I should continue the discussion any further. _M_.
Salt Lake City, Dec. 4, 1903.
IV.
The Second Reply.
_Editor Tribune:_--The most impressive thing in the second
communication of the Unknown "M" is its very striking difference
of spirit as compared with the first. His arrogance, if not his
confidence, seems to have left him, and he writes in a spirit more
in harmony with the nature of the subject. I congratulate him upon
the improvement. When a book which is sacred to tens of thousand of
intelligent people, and which is accepted by them as a revelation from
God, is to be criticised, a decent regard for propriety requires that
it should be discussed in a respectful manner, and all the more so if
the critic regards those who accept the book as deceived, and would
lead them from their delusion.
In this connection also I desire to say a word on an incidental matter
on which the Unknown lays some stress, viz., that "the reading,
thinking, truth-loving millions of this country" have come to the
conclusion that the Book of Mormon is fiction. This carries with it
the idea that these "millions" have examined the Book of Mormon and
intelligently judged it to be fiction--an impression most erroneous,
for out of the ninety millions of the people of our country it is safe
to say not more than two or three millions have ever read the Book
of Mormon, this in the most superficial manner, and with their minds
prejudiced by the misrepresentations made concerning it. In fact,
because of these misrepresentations, contempt has preceded examination,
a circumstance which keeps men ignorant of the Book of Mormon. This
much to remind the reader that there is no force in the appeal of the
Unknown to the supposed condemnation of the Book of Mormon by "the
reading, thinking, truth-loving millions of this country."
TWO CANONS OF CRITICISM.
At this point the gentleman proceeds with a show of orderly argument
to lay down what he considers two self-evident canons of criticism on
which he takes his stand in repeating his objections to the Book of
Mormon: The first of these he states in the following terms: "Any book
which professes to have been written in ancient times and yet quotes
from authors not born until centuries after, is a spurious book."
This canon of criticism, however serviceable when applied to books in
general, can in no sense be made to do service against the Book of
Mormon. When he formulated his canon of criticism, as throughout the
discussion, the Unknown fails to recognize the fact that while the
Book of Mormon is an ancient book, it is largely a prophetic book; and
the strongest complaint that can be made against it along the line of
the Unknown's criticism is that some of its prophecies are here and
there translated in phraseology somewhat similar to that of writers
living subsequent to the period in which it was written. In explanation
of this fact I have urged that the translator, Joseph Smith, being
acquainted with the New Testament writings, and his diction influenced
by the phraseology of those writers, sometimes expressed the thoughts
and predictions of the ancient writers in New Testament phrases. So
that the question at issue at this point of the discussion is, first,
whether the ancient writers in the Book of Mormon could have been
acquainted with the events, to them then future, found in the Book
of Mormon, and is the theory reasonable that in translating their
statement of these events Joseph Smith's diction would be influenced by
the phraseology of the New Testament? In dealing with the question of
the New Testament phraseology in the Book of Mormon it is Joseph Smith
that the Unknown has to deal with, not Nephi; with the translator, not
with the original writer. A distinction which he persistently refuses
to recognize.
A PROPHETIC HISTORY.
And now as to the point whether the writers of the Book of Mormon could
be acquainted with the events, ideas and doctrines which Joseph Smith
translated here and there in New Testament phraseology. The Unknown
appears ignorant of the great truth that prophecy is but history
reversed. He forgets that known unto God are all his works and words
from the beginning to the end, and that he has at various times made
known future events in the clearest manner to his prophets who, under
the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, have recorded them. The Prophet
Isaiah, 150 years before the birth of Cyrus, foretold that celebrated
ruler's name; declared that he should subdue kingdoms, including
Babylon, set free the people of God, held in bondage there and rebuild
the House of the Lord at Jerusalem. And all this as clearly as the
historians could write it after the events themselves took place.
To Daniel he revealed the rise, fall and succession of the leading
empires and nations of the world, even to the time of the establishment
of God's kingdom in power to hold universal sway in the later days,
an event not yet fulfilled. To the prophets of Israel nearly every
important event in the life of the Savior was made known, and that,
too, in the language of accomplished fact--a complaint often made
against the prophecies of the Book of Mormon. They foretold that he
would be born of a virgin; that his name would signify "God with us;"
that Bethlehem would be the place of his birth; that he would sojourn
in Egypt with his parents; that he would reside in Nazareth, for "he
shall be called a Nazarene;" that a messenger would prepare the way
before him; that he should ride in triumph into Jerusalem upon a colt,
the foal of an ass; that he would be afflicted and despised; that he
would be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; that he would be
despised and rejected of men; that men would turn their faces from him
to his affliction; that he would be esteemed as stricken and smitten of
God; that he would be wounded for our transgression, bruised for our
iniquities; that the chastisement of men would be laid upon him, and
by his stripes would they be healed; that upon him would God lay the
iniquity of us all; that for the transgressions of God's people would
he be stricken; that he would be oppressed and afflicted, yet open not
his mouth; that as a sheep before her shearer is dumb, so would he be
silent before his judges; that he would be betrayed for thirty pieces
of silver; that men would divide his raiment and cast lots for his
vesture; that they would give him gall and vinegar to drink; that not
a bone of him should be broken; that he should be taken from prison
and from judgment, and be cut out of the land of the living; that he
would make his grave with the wicked and the rich in his death; but
notwithstanding this he should not see corruption (i. e., his body
decay), and that on the third day following his death he should rise
triumphant from the grave. All this and much more was foretold by the
ancient Hebrew prophets concerning the Messiah [and most of it told in
the language of accomplished fact.] This is prophetic history. In like
manner to the Nephites his prophetic history was made known, and is
found in the Book of Mormon in some instances in greater plainness than
in the Old Testament, because the Nephite scriptures have not passed
through the hands of an Aristobulus, a Philo and other rabbis, who by
interpretation or elimination have taken away some of the plain and
precious parts of the Jewish scriptures. Surely if the Lord revealed to
the Jewish prophets these leading events in the history of the Savior
ages before the Messiah's birth, it ought not to be thought a strange
thing (especially by those who believe in the fact of revelation) if
God imparted the same knowledge to the Nephite prophets. In fact it is
but reasonable to suppose that if God gave them revelations at all he
would do so upon this very subject.
OF "FATAL" OBJECTIONS.
There remains to be considered under this head only this question.
Is it a fatal objection to the Book of Mormon because Joseph Smith,
finding the prophetic history of the Savior in the Nephite record,
translated it in phraseology here and there found in the New Testament?
Or in the language of accomplished fact. My contention is that it
cannot be considered a fatal objection, or even a serious difficulty,
especially when one considers upon what slight similarity the Unknown
seizes to make good his objection. For example, where he tries to make
it appear that I was in error when saying that the several passages he
had already quoted practically exhausted the instances of New Testament
phraseology in the writings of Nephi, he gave us such cases as these:
Nephi--Lehi prophesied that "these plates of brass should go forth unto
all nations, kindreds, tongues and people who were of his seed."
Revelations--An angel should bring forth the gospel to be preached "to
every nation and kindred and tongue and people."
Nephi--For he is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Hebrews--Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.
Nephi--I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord.
Acts---The Spirit of the Lord caught Philip that the eunuch saw him no
more.
"In Nephi xiv:1," says the Unknown, "the repeated expression "mother
of abominations" and "mother of harlots" are taken from Revelations
xvi:5." I here quote Nephi, xiv:1: "And it shall come to pass that if
the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he
shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very
deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks." After reading it
I wondered where the Unknown found in it his "mother of abominations"
and the "mother of harlots." Of course, the gentleman may have given
the wrong reference, and I will not press his errors too hard upon him,
but how ridiculous to urge the rejection of the Book of Mormon on so
flimsy an argument, even if he should find somewhere else his "mother
of abominations" or his "mother of harlots."
THE "VITAL POINT."
Passing over some intervening matter in order to consider this whole
question of translation together, I next refer to what the Unknown says
under the heading, "A Vital Point." I accounted for the imperfections
of the language of the Book of Mormon on the ground that while the
translator obtained his ideas from the Nephite record, he was left
to express that thought in such language as he was master of, and
as he was uneducated, that language was here and there faulty, and
I accounted for the existence of some passages of the Bible in the
Book of Mormon by saying that where Joseph Smith found in the Nephite
records quotations from Jewish scriptures which the Nephites had with
them or when the teachings of Messiah in their order followed his
teachings to be found in the New Testament, Joseph Smith adopted, when
he could do so consistently, the language of our English Bible. This
the Unknown considers is "vital," and he holds that these quotations
would not be found in this translation of the Nephite record if the
Book of Mormon is honest in its claim of being an ancient book.
He urges that if Joseph Smith could thus incorporate these quoted
passages, then there is nothing to hinder him putting into the Book of
Mormon, when it suited him, quotations from other English books, from
Shakespeare, from books of geography and history, and the peculiar
views of Sidney Rigdon, with which the book is saturated, or his own
views; and this, he claims, is just what he did. Well, of course,
there is nothing that would prevent Joseph Smith from following a
course of this kind if he was the unmitigated impostor and scoundrel
that the Unknown tries to make him appear to be, but that is just
what Joseph Smith was not; and hence his own honesty and integrity
prevented his putting in quotations from the Bible or any other book
except just what the facts and statements in the Nephite records
justified him in adopting. And as for the views of Sidney Rigdon being
incorporated in it, that is impossible, since it is a well-established,
incontrovertible, historical fact that Sidney Rigdon never saw either
Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon until six months after the book had
been published.
OF THE MANNER OF TRANSLATION.
The Unknown thinks I run counter to the statement of Martin Harris
and David Whitmer as to the manner in which the Book of Mormon was
translated, as he claims that in their testimony there is nothing said
about Urim and Thummim, and nothing is said about "any great, mental
and spiritual effort on Joseph's part" in obtaining the translation.
True, there is nothing in the statement of Whitmer and Harris quoted
by the Unknown to that effect, but there abounds in the historical
incidents connected with the coming forth of the Book plenty of
evidence that the translation was not mechanical, and in the very
book of David Whitmer's, quoted by the Unknown, it is stated that the
prophet had to be in a very exalted mental and spiritual state of mind
before he could exercise his gift of translation. But we have a better
description of the manner of translation than that given by Whitmer or
Harris. In the course of translation Oliver Cowdery became desirous to
translate, and in a revelation the Lord promised him that power.
"Yea, behold I will tell you (i. e., the interpretation) in your mind,
and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you, and
which shall dwell in your heart." Oliver made the attempt to translate
and failed; whereupon the Lord in a subsequent revelation gave this as
the reason of his failure: "Behold you have not understood; you have
supposed that I would give it (i. e., the translation) 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;
therefore you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you
from me." (Doc. and Cov., Sections 8 and 9.)
This is the Lord's description of how Oliver could have translated had
he persevered, and beyond question it is the manner in which Joseph
Smith did translate. This is sufficient to establish the fact that the
Unknown is speaking upon a subject with which he has but a very slight
acquaintance, and further I may not enter into it here, because of the
necessary limits of this article.
SECOND CRITICISM
Having disposed of the question relating to translation, I take up the
Unknown's second canon of criticism, which he states in these terms:
"Any book which professes to be a divine revelation to the people
of the present time, and yet reveals nothing which it does not
appropriate from some other book or sources of knowledge already in
the possession of the people, is a spurious book."
The Book of Mormon reveals the fact that there existed two great
civilizations on the American continent. The first was established
by a colony which left the valley of the Euphrates in very ancient
times, established themselves in the North American continent, and
in time grew to be a great nation far advanced in civilization.
This race passed through all the vicissitudes incident to national
existence; periods of prosperity, times of disaster; periods of great
righteousness, when prophets with their divine message influenced the
people to keep the commandments of God, followed by long periods of
moral and spiritual depression, and ultimately succumbed to the fate
which overtakes all nations that depart from truth and righteousness.
The second civilization resulted from two colonies which came from
Judea; one led by Lehi, landing in South America; the other colony
was led by Mulek, who escaped from Palestine after the overthrow of
Jerusalem by the Babylonians. This colony landed in North America.
These colonies subsequently united and formed one great nation. This
nation, like others, followed the beaten track of the history of other
nations. In periods of righteousness they advanced in civilization.
They had their prophets, philosophers, statesmen, patriots, traitors,
and passed through all the experiences incident to national existence.
Their history is the poet's moral of all human tales:
"'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past:
First freedom, and then glory--when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption--barbarism at last;
And history with all her volumes vast hath but one page!"
After he had completed his ministry in Judea, the resurrected Messiah
appeared among the Nephites, in fulfillment of his promise to their
fathers by the prophets. He announced his divinity, taught them the
gospel, conferred divine authority upon certain men whom He chose among
them, authorized the establishment of the Church for their instruction
and development in righteousness. He taught them every moral truth
which He had imparted to those living on the eastern hemisphere. He
fulfilled all the prophecies relating to him up to this point in the
Jewish scriptures, which their fathers had carried with them from
Jerusalem. He assured them of the reality of life beyond the grave,
and, in a word, planted here the whole system of truth which makes for
the salvation of men, and is called the fulness of the everlasting
gospel. The Book of Mormon gives a voice to the ruined cities and
half buried monuments upon this land of America. It confirms all the
revealed truths made known in the Jewish scriptures. In sustaining the
truth, inspiration and authenticity of the Bible, the Book of Mormon is
more valuable than a thousand Rosetta Stones; it is superior to all the
clay tablet libraries found in old Babylon and Egypt; it is the voice
of sleeping nations speaking as from the dust of ages, bearing witness
to the existence of God, the divinity of Messiah, and to the truth
of the Gospel as the power of God unto salvation. It vindicates the
justice of God in that it reveals the fact that he did not leave untold
millions of people to perish on this western hemisphere without the
knowledge of God and the means of salvation. It banishes from the minds
of men that narrow, sectarian dogma of an apostate Christendom which
undertakes to limit the word of God to the few books contained in the
Bible. The coming forth of the Book of Mormon contradicts that equally
erroneous sectarian notion that God had ceased to give revelations to
men and had spoken for the last time to his children. And yet in the
presence of this array of great facts and truths which the Book of
Mormon makes known, and which are made known nowhere else (and the half
has not been told here), men of the order of intellect of this Unknown
critic stand chattering like parrots about there being nothing new or
of value in the Book of Mormon, and seek to cast discredit upon it by
their carping criticisms upon the defects of the language in which
it is translated, and because its translator has couched some of its
glorious truths in the New Testament phraseology familiar to him. How
puerile all such criticism seems, and how refreshing it is to hear God
saying, "He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully, for
what is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord," (Jeremiah xxiii:28).
The letter still killeth. It is the spirit that giveth life.
THE SPAULDING THEORY.
In the background of the Unknown's discussion one may see the influence
of what is called the Spaulding theory of the origin of the Book of
Mormon, and in his second communication he indirectly refers to it by
saying that "there are at least twelve persons, worthy and reliable so
far as I can discover, who testify that the substance of this Book of
Mormon, with all its queer names of places and persons, its strange
history, its battles and slaughters, its continual imitation of Bible
phraseology, they had heard several years prior to the publication of
this book, from a religious romance (The Spaulding Story). It was in
this romance that the Nephites and Lamanites originated, and also the
pretended ancient books of Nephi, Alma, Mosiah and Mormon," etc. And
later the gentleman says that he cannot see why the testimony of these
twelve witnesses should not be received, etc. In all this the gentleman
shows what a "back number" he is in the mater of controversy relating
to the Book of Mormon. He seems not aware of the fact that Spaulding's
manuscript has been found and published now these several years,
and is safely lodged in the library of Oberlin College, Ohio. There
appears upon this manuscript the endorsement of Aaron Wright, Oliver
Smith, John N. Miller and D. P. Hurlburt (who, by the way, are among
the twelve witnesses to whom "M" alludes) as being the very manuscript
from which they affirmed that the Book of Mormon had been written.
And now comes L. L. Rice, an anti-slavery editor, for many year state
printer of Columbus, Ohio, who says: "Two things are true concerning
this manuscript. * * * * * First, it is a genuine writing of Solomon
Spaulding, and second, it is not the original of the Book of Mormon. *
* * * It is unlikely that any one who wrote so elaborate a work as the
Mormon Bible (Book of Mormon) would spend his time in getting up so
shallow a story as this." While President James H. Fairchild of Oberlin
College says over his own signature: "Mr. Rice, myself and others
compared it (the Spaulding manuscript) with the Book of Mormon, and
could detect no resemblance between the two in general or in detail.
There seems to be no name or incident common to the two. * * * * * Some
other explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon must be found."
The truth of President Fairchild's statement can be verified by any one
who will compare the two.
NEPHI AND SHAKESPEARE.
The Unknown has certainly plunged into the fog respecting his alleged
connection between Nephi and Shakespeare, and by some sort of mental
contortion utterly inexplicable, has arrived at the conclusion that we
must suppose that Nephi had a copy of our English Bible as well as the
Jewish scriptures, and also a copy of Shakespeare, in order to account
for the passage in the Book of Mormon which he alleges is a quotation
from the English poet. I must come to the rescue of the Unknown in this
matter: I begin to have some degree of commiseration for him in his
mental struggle to comprehend even this very simple matter. Attend,
then: Lehi lived in Judea in the seventh and sixth century, B.C. He
was acquainted with the Hebrew scriptures, including the book of Job,
and when he departed from Jerusalem for the western world his colony
took with them those same scriptures. Through them he became familiar
in the Hebrew with Job's--"Let me alone, that I may take comfort a
little before I go whence I shall not return." Also Job's--"When a few
years are come, then I shall go the way whence I shall not return."
When Lehi's own hour of departure hence had come, impressed with this
solemn thought of Job's, he gave expression to it in Hebrew. The saying
was recorded by his son Nephi in the Egyptian characters employed by
him in making his record. Observe that we have traced these ideas
of the "land whence I shall not return" into the Nephite records
without the aid of the English Bible or Shakespeare. When Joseph Smith
came to this thought in Nephi, the thought, mark you, he translated
it into the English, and being familiar with the book of Job, his
translation followed somewhat the phraseology of Job in our English
version. Shakespeare nowhere appears in all this, and if he did, if
Joseph Smith had expressed this old Hebrew and Nephite thought in
Shakespeare's exact phraseology instead of that of our English version
of Job it would have been no valid objection to the Book of Mormon,
for Shakespeare died in 1616, and the English version of the Bible was
published in 1611, only five years before the poet's death! Are we to
infer from this that "M" thinks Shakespeare had no English Bible from
which to paraphrase this passage? If so--and I can see nothing else in
his reference to these dates--then I would inform the gentleman that
as there were brave men before Agamemnon, so were there English Bibles
before the 1611 edition; Wycliff's English Bible, 1380-1384; Tyndale's
English translation, 1530; Miles Coverdale's English translation,
1535, dedicated to Henry VIII, and for a time issued under the royal
sanction. From any of these versions Shakespeare could have paraphrased
Job's words.
The Unknown seems somewhat distressed in his efforts to account for the
few original and moral religious truths, I quoted him from the Book
of Mormon. Especially "Fools mock, but they shall mourn." He "sees
nothing new in that," since in Proverbs it is said "fools make a mock
of sin." True, but it appears from the context where the Book of Mormon
passage occurs that the particular "fools" the writer had in mind were
those who mocked at righteousness and truth, and hence he predicts that
they shall come to grief; while Solomon's "fools" mock at sin, and the
consequences are not stated, at least not in that passage. I trust,
however, the Unknown will not worry over much. The star of hope may yet
appear above life's horizon for him. The javelin-like sentence, "Fools
mock, but they shall mourn," is immediately followed by "My grace is
sufficient for the meek;" and it appears to me if this discussion
continues through a few more papers, and there should continue to be
manifested as much difference between each succeeding communication of
"M's" as there is between the arrogance of his first letter and the
humility of his second, in time I am sure he would be prepared to enter
a contest even with Moses for the distinction of being the meekest of
men.
As to the rest that "M" says of these matters, the limits of this
writing preclude further comment. Neither is it necessary, for it is
all as shallow, not to say as silly, as what he says upon the passage
here criticised.
CONCLUSION.
Just a word in conclusion, not to the Unknown, but to the readers of
these papers. I would have them remember that in this discussion the
evidence that can be marshaled to sustain the truth of the Book of
Mormon has not yet been presented. The manner in which the discussion
began made this impossible. There was before the reader no evidence on
the positive side concerning the Book of Mormon when the discussion
began, and the paper of Unknown was on the negative side of the
question. A proper discussion of the Book of Mormon would require
that we who affirm its divine origin should have the opportunity of
presenting the affirmative evidence, followed by an argument against
that evidence, with answer and rejoinder to follow. All of which, of
course, are in no way a complaint as to the present opportunities
presented to the writer by _The Tribune,_ as to him has been extended
equal opportunity and courtesy with his opponent, for which I desire
to express my appreciation. I am satisfied with this discussion, but
merely desire to call attention to the enforced limits of its scope.
Respectfully yours, B.H. ROBERTS.
III.
"The Fifth Gospel."
FOREWORD.
The occasion which gave rise to the following discourse, delivered
in the Granite Stake Tabernacle, Sunday evening, May 29th, 1904, is
sufficiently explained in the body of the text. The discourse deals
only with one of three of Rev. Paden's discourses delivered against the
Book of Mormon, and that the third--"Gospels Apocryphal and Real." Of
that discourse nothing here need be said, as a full synopsis of it is
given in the text of the answer to it. But there may be some curiosity
to know something of the other discourses of Mr. Paden's against the
III Nephi--the "Fifth Gospel." In the first discourse a general charge
of plagiarism from the Bible was made, the claim being that material
for the most valuable parts was to be found in the Gospel or Revelation
of St. John in the Psalms, and in the Gospel according to St. Matthew.
"His general conclusion was," according to the published synopsis of
the discourse--furnished by Dr. Paden to the press quoted--"that there
was nothing in the book to indicate that it was inspired, except as it
was plagiarized from the Bible."
In Dr. Paden's second discourse the charge of plagiarism was emphasized
and amplified; and the further charges made that the book lacked in
"local color." "We find almost nothing," he said, "which would fit
with a tropical climate; in fact the general description would better
coincide with Pennsylvania or New York. * * * * The whole attempt
to account for the vagaries of Nephite geography, or its seeming
disagreement or failure to connect with tropical South America, is an
exposition of the weakness of the claim made by the Book of Nephi and
the whole Book of Mormon to be a trustworthy document. Indeed the whole
history and make-up of the story seems to indicate a determination to
put its claims beyond the touch of realistic teaching."
I mention here these points in the discourses of Dr. Paden, in order
to direct the reader's attention to the fact that these with other
objections urged by this gentleman in the discourses referred to, are
considered, in part, in preceding papers of this book, and at length in
my treatise on the Book of Mormon in the Young Men's Manual for 1905-6,
and will also be found in "New Witnesses for God," Vol. II, soon to
issue from the press; and for the reason that they are considered in
those works they are not reviewed here.
"Fifth Gospel."
During the month of March of the present year a sectarian minister of
high standing in our community preached several discourses in Salt Lake
City--three, I think--against the third book of Nephi, contained in the
Book of Mormon. This third Nephi the reverend gentleman has happily
called the "Fifth Gospel." I am sorry that descriptive term did not
occur to me, or to some other Elder in Israel. Had I coined the title
I should have been very proud of it, for I think it a most fortunate
one. Of course, the other four gospels are contained in our Hebrew
scriptures. They are the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We
speak of them as the four gospels. And this reverend gentleman refers
to III Nephi as the "Fifth Gospel." I call it the "American Gospel,"
for I so regard it. Of course, after stating the title the gentleman
then questions the book's right to it. The subject of his three
discourses is the consideration of the question whether this Nephite
book is worthy to be classed at all with the four gospels of the Hebrew
scriptures. He decides the question on the negative.
I shall not attempt in the remarks I make tonight to deal with all
three of the gentleman's discourses. I shall content myself with
alluding to one, and that the third, called "Gospels, Apocryphal and
Real." A word of explanation about the term "apocryphal gospels."
During the first and second centuries of the Christian era there was a
world of myth and legend that grew out of the history of the Savior.
The four gospels leave undescribed, as you know, his infancy and
youth. Between the time his earthly guardians took up their residence
at Nazareth in his infancy to the time when he commenced his public
ministry--in all that period we get but one glimpse of him, that was
when he was twelve years of age, and then we learn of him being in the
temple disputing with the doctors--doctors of philosophy and doctors
of theology--both asking and answering questions. What sober history
failed to record fable and legend sought to supply, hence we have a
collection of books called the Apocryphal New Testament, that deals
with him and his sojourn in Egypt and in his childhood days called the
Gospel of the Infancy, two books; the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, a
number of epistles--about fifteen or twenty books, all told. They are
so extravagant in statement, so wonder-creating in their nature, that
they are generally discredited by Christians and called "apocryphal"
books about Jesus and the early days of Christianity. Our reverend
friend classes the "Fifth Gospel" with this order of apocryphal books,
and says that it deserves no higher rank than those books to which I
have here briefly alluded.
I shall at this point read to you the synopsis of the reverend
gentleman's discourse; and while the synopsis cannot be so satisfactory
as the whole discourse would be, still I think likely he has mentioned
his chief objections to the book in the synopsis, as I am informed that
he himself prepared it for the public press; so that what I quote is
his own representation of the discourse, and doubtless contains all the
points he scored against our III Nephi.
SYNOPSIS OF DR. PADEN'S DISCOURSE.
"'Gospels Apocryphal and Real,' was the title of Dr. William M.
Paden's sermon last night. It was in a way a continuation of his
sermons on the book of Nephi, and again a large congregation
assembled to hear him. He first gave an account of the apocryphal
gospels of the infancy, Nicodemus, the birth of the virgin, and
others. These he compared and classed with the gospel according
to Nephi, which he had explained and dealt with the two preceding
Sundays. Much in these so-called gospels anyone could quote or
gather from the real gospels; the greater part of the rest of the
matter, of the rest that is not [so] copied, anyone could write.
After this Dr. Paden went on to speak of the manner in which our
real gospels added something of real worth to the pictures of
Christ. Thus Matthew improved on Mark, Luke on Matthew and Mark,
and John on them all. Does III Nephi add anything worth while to
the picture? he asked. Luke gives us the story of the prodigal,
John the story of the good Samaritan. Matthew has given us many
parables. What does Nephi add which deserves to be classed with
such revelations? How does it come that this so-called fifth gospel
gives us no new parables? One real, original parable of the class
that is found in the gospel according to Matthew would give it the
necessary standing. One grand new chapter like the 15th of Luke,
or the 3rd of John, would be as great a surprise in this gospel
according to Nephi as a Psalm like the 23rd would be in the early
part of the Book of Mormon.
"Concerning the authenticity of the would-be fifth gospel, Dr.
Paden made use of a very appropriate and telling simile. He said
the question is not where do men say they got it, but, is it gold?
These four nuggets, (i. e., the four Hebrew gospels), are gold. If
your supposed nugget is not, it matters little where you got it;
your father and grandfather may have been mistaken--you must submit
to the gold test."
THE QUESTION STATED.
You will observe that the primary consideration in the reverend
gentleman's discourse is, Does III Nephi add anything to the picture of
Christ? Is our Christian knowledge increased by it? It is that question
that I propose to consider.
To begin with, I answer the question in the affirmative, and most
emphatically say, Yes, III Nephi does add something to the pictures of
Christ, and does add something to our testimony of Christian knowledge.
I marvel that the gentleman should have propounded such a question in
the face of the facts which stand out so prominently in III Nephi. I
should have thought that one great truth, that is announced in III
Nephi, would have arrested his attention, namely, the one truth that
Jesus appeared in this western world and so ministered to a people
that two great continents, to be filled subsequently with nations of
people, might come to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and of the gospel of
salvation which he taught,--I should have thought that one fact would
have been a complete answer to the gentleman's inquiry. The fact that
the justice and mercy of God in our conception are broadened by this
great truth adds considerable to our Christian treasury of knowledge.
For instead of God's mercy and the labors of his Son being confined to
the eastern hemisphere, we learn from this Fifth Gospel that God sent
his Son on a special mission to those inhabiting this western world,
and that he presented to them the same great truths upon which his
gospel is based that he had presented to those of the eastern world;
and that, moreover, while here he gave the Nephites the information
that his labors in Judea and among them were not all the labors he was
required to perform in the interest of humanity and their salvation,
but that he must make his way to the lost tribes of Israel and declare
himself and his message also to them. Thus the horizon of Christ's
mission and labor is enlarged beyond anything that can be learned from
the four gospels, and the knowledge can only be found in the Fifth
Gospel--the third book of Nephi.
That, however, is too general a view of the subject to be content
with. I propose getting into closer quarters with this matter, and
enquiring into it in some detail. First let me call your attention to
the conditions existing at the opening of this Fifth Gospel. It opens
with the ninety-first year of the reign of the Judges--a time which
corresponds to our year one of the Christian era. At that time the
Nephites everywhere were more or less expectant of the birth of the
Son of God, for the Lord had not left himself without witnesses among
the ancient inhabitants of this great land, but as in Judea, he raised
up prophets who foretold the coming of Messiah and the conditions that
would attend upon his birth into the world. Some five years before the
opening of this period we are to consider, a Lamanite prophet appeared
among the Nephites and prophesied in a marvelous manner concerning
events nearing the doors of the people, declaring that within five
years from the time he spoke there should be given a sign unto the
people of this western world that Messiah had been born. That sign
should be the continuance of the light of day through two days and a
night; that though the sun should sink as usual beyond the western
horizon the light of day should still continue through all the time of
night; the sun should rise again on the morrow according to his order,
and they should know that there had been this strange phenomenon of
continuous light, notwithstanding the absence of the sun; and a new
star should appear also.
Does that add anything to the picture in the career of Messiah? Is it
nothing that the inhabitants of the western world should see in the
heavens a most beautiful sign that Jesus had been born, and by that
sign, in the fulfillment of the prediction that had been made by the
prophets, they should receive from God a testimony that his Son had
come into the world to bring to pass the redemption of the race? I
think it adds a beautiful picture in the life of Jesus Christ, and one
on which the four gospels are silent.
This same prophet predicted also the signs that should attend upon
Messiah's death; for through prophesy the Nephites had been made
acquainted with the fact that though Jesus was the Son of God, yet
must he die and be buried in order that he might by that act meet the
just claims of inexorable law under which mankind were banished from
the presence of God and made subject to death. This Lamanite prophet,
Samuel, declared that during the time that the Son of God should be
immolated upon the cross this western hemisphere should be mightily
shaken by the throes of physical nature; that great valleys should
undergo upheaval and be thrown into mountains; that many high places
and mountains should be shaken down; that many parts of the land should
sink and the sea cover them; that-some cities would thus be destroyed;
in other cases great mountains of earth should cover wicked cities
from the sight of God; and thus should there be upheaval, cataclysm,
earthquakes and tempests, fierce and vivid lightnings, and all the
elements should give witness that the Son of God was undergoing the
pains of death. Moreover, that this period of cataclysms and changes
in the earth should be followed by three days of intense and complete
darkness, until men should be unable to see, being deprived of the
light of the sun so precious to man and so necessary to life.
Both these events--the signs of Messiah's birth and the signs of his
death--were given as foretold.
I pause again to ask this reverend gentleman if the signs of Messiah's
death on this continent do not add something to the picture of Christ's
life.
In passing, let me call your attention to this fact also: I think I
see something very beautiful and appropriate in these marvelous signs.
I think it is fitting that he who is described in the four gospels
as well as in the fifth as the "Light and Life of the world," should
have his entrance into earth life proclaimed by a night in which there
should be no darkness, and that a new star for a season should appear
in the heavens, to be a witness to the people that "the life and light"
which was to bring life and light to mankind had indeed come into the
world. And equally appropriate is it that when he who is described as
the Life and Light of the world is laid low in death, the world should
have the testimony of light eclipsed. I see a beautiful appropriateness
in these signs, and in them I see added pictures in the life and career
of the Lord Jesus Christ.
One other thing--which, however, I can only throw in sight--is this:
The traditions held by the native American races prove the fact that
something like this described in the Book of Mormon-these cataclysms
and the darkness which followed--was vividly remembered by the ancients
and is apparent in the traditions of the native Americans. For example,
Mr. Bancroft, the great compiler of native traditions and myths, after
speaking concerning native traditions about the flood, creation, the
building of the Tower of Babel, the confusion of tongues and the
dispersion of mankind, and of a certain revision that took place in the
native calendar, says:
"One hundred and sixteen years after this regulation or invention
of the Toltec calendar, the sun and moon were eclipsed, the earth
shook, and the rocks were rent asunder, and many other things
and signs happened. This was in the year Ce Calli, which, the
chronology being reduced to our system, proves to be the same date
that Christ our Lord suffered"--33 A. D.
Again, speaking of a certain division made in the Quiche kingdom,
Bancroft, quoting from the History of Guatemala by the native author,
Juarros, says:
"This division was made when three suns were seen, which has caused
some to think that it took place on the day of the birth of our
Redeemer, a day on which, it is commonly believed that such a
meteor was seen."
The day when three suns appeared would doubtless figuratively and
very clearly express the time when they had two days and one night of
continuous light on the continent.
Again, Nadaillac, in his Prehistoric America, after speaking of certain
creation and flood traditions, adds:
"Other traditions allude to convulsions of nature, to inundations,
profound disturbances, to terrible deluges in the midst of which
mountains and volcanoes suddenly rose up."
I now turn to a passage I shall read to you from III Nephi, describing
the appearance of Jesus on this land. After these cataclysms had taken
place a company of men, women and children in the land Bountiful,
numbering some 2,500 souls, were assembled together near a temple that
had escaped destruction, and they were speaking of the great events of
the recent past and the change that was apparent in the whole face of
the land. As they were speaking of these signs that had been given of
Messiah's birth and death, and conversing concerning Messiah himself,
they heard a voice. What was said they could not at first determine,
and whence the voice came they could not tell. It grew, however, more
and still more distinct, until at last, they heard the voice say:
"Behold my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have
glorified my name: hear ye him.
"And it came to pass as they understood, they cast their eyes up
again towards heaven and behold, they saw a man descending out of
heaven: and he was clothed in a white robe, and he came down and
stood in the midst of them, and the eyes of the whole multitude
were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even
one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was
an angel that had appeared unto them.
"And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake
unto the people, saying:
"Behold, I am Jesus, whom the prophets testified shall come into
the world:
"And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; I have drunk
out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have
glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in
which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the
beginning.
"And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, the
whole multitude fell to the earth, for they remembered that it had
been prophesied among them that Christ should show himself unto
them after his ascension into heaven."
This reverend gentleman, whom I am reviewing, complains that III Nephi,
or the Fifth Gospel, adds no new parable to the collection of parables
we have in the four gospels. But can any man read this simple yet
sublime account of Messiah appearing to the inhabitants of this western
world, and then say the Fifth Gospel adds nothing to the treasury of
Christian knowledge? Is there, I ask you, any parable, or any hundred
parables, that could be given that would be equal to these grand
revelations concerning the Lord Jesus Christ and his mission to this
western hemisphere?
Complaint is also made that in his subsequent teachings Messiah merely
repeated the ideas, and for that matter the words of his sermon on
the mount; so wanting in originality, claim those who object to the
Book of Mormon, were the authors of the book that they could not trust
themselves to give Jesus the opportunity of preaching an original
discourse to the inhabitants of this western part of the world. I ask
these Christian objectors to consider just this: Suppose the Book of
Mormon were not in existence at all; suppose that we begin to reflect
on the empires and nations which beyond all question did occupy this
land of America in ancient times, and were civilized, intelligent
people--God's children; suppose that it began to occur to some of our
Christian friends that it would have been a grand idea if the Son
of God had come and made proclamation of the gospel to a people who
were destined to be for so many centuries separated from the eastern
hemisphere, where the gospel had been planted. Now then, suppose these
conditions, and suppose further that Jesus came here, what would be the
nature of his mission? What should he first do? What truth do these
Christian critics hold to be the most important truth to mankind? Would
it not be the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer of the world,
the one who is to bring life and immortality to light through the
Gospel? Would not that be the most important thing to have declared?
I believe all Christians must necessarily say yes. Well, that is just
what happened. The voice of God broke the stillness of this western
world, and said to a company of people, "This is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." Then Jesus stands forth and
declares himself and his mission. The most important truth that the
Christian mind, at least, can conceive! The Fifth Gospel starts with
that sublime, important truth. Then after that, what would be the next
most important thing? Would it not be to teach man his moral duty?
His relationship to God and to the Savior having been fixed by the
first revelation, what next? Why, the ethics of the gospel of Christ,
the moral law, which is to take the place of the old law, Christian
principles for right living. And so Messiah starts out with the same
doctrines that he taught upon the mount. Now, there are not wanting
respectable Christian authorities for the assertion that that discourse
called the sermon on the mount was not a single discourse, but that
into it was crowded from the recollection of the Apostles all the great
ethical truths that Jesus had taught from time to time, and that here
they are grouped together and appear as one discourse. Moreover, the
Savior declared to the Nephites while he was yet with them that these
truths which he had been teaching them were the same that he had taught
in Judea. "Behold," said he, in the course of his explanations, "ye
have heard the things which I have taught before I ascended unto my
Father."
But in answer to these complaints that the Book of Mormon adds nothing
new to the treasury of our Christian knowledge, I want to show you,
though I shall have to do it briefly, that the Book of Mormon version
of these ethical doctrines of Jesus Christ does throw some additional
light upon this sermon on the mount.
Right here I must complain just a little of the gentleman,
notwithstanding I believe he intended to be fair.
Speaking of this version of the sermon on the mount in the Book of
Mormon, I think he sneeringly asserts that there is "one new beatitude
added." And that is, the first verse in the Savior's discourse to the
Nephites opens with this statement--which was given to the multitude
after he had chosen twelve special disciples to be teachers of his
gospel:
"Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these
twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and
to be your servants."
The gentleman says that is a new beatitude. Well, is there any proper
complaint to be made against that? Suppose Jesus had said to a
multitude in Judea, when he presented the Twelve Apostles before them,
since he was going to bestow upon them, not only divine authority
to act in his name, but was going to accompany them always by the
presence of his Spirit--would it have been out of place or an improper
"beatitude" if he had said to the multitude, "Blessed are ye if ye
shall hearken unto the words that these Twelve shall say unto you"? It
is scarcely becoming in a Christian minister to make light of God's
request of a multitude that they shall have respect unto the teachings
of his servants, and tells them that they shall be blessed if they
hearken unto them.
But to continue. The first beatitude as given in Matthew is as follows:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven."
A very beautiful, terse expression, and no doubt true. But in III Nephi
it stands thus:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit _who come unto me;_ for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven."
It is not enough for men to be poor in spirit. Not on that hinges
salvation. A man can be poor in spirit and still fail of salvation. But
"Blessed are the poor in spirit _who come unto me;_ for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven."
I think that throws a little light upon the sermon on the mount that is
worthy the consideration of this Christian clergyman.
Another expression in the sermon on the mount in our English version of
the New Testament, is:
"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness;
for they shall be filled."
Filled with what? Well, the Book of Mormon version of it is:
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness; for
they shall be filled _with the Holy Ghost."_
That is more definite, is it not?
But now I come to a more important point, where more light, and light
that is very necessary, is added to this sermon on the mount. I
commence reading from Matthew vi:24.
"No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and
love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the
other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
"Therefore, I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye
shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye
shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than
raiment?"
That is a passage of scripture against which infidels have leveled
their sarcasms ever since it was written. They have denounced it as
instruction utterly impractical; as false in theory, as it would be
impossible in practice; and as giving the evidence that Jesus was
a mere idle dreamer, not a practical reformer. For, say they, this
doctrine of taking no thought of the morrow, and taking no thought
respecting food and raiment, if applied to the world's affairs, would
turn the wheels of progress backward, and plunge the world into a state
of barbarism. There could be no civilization under such conditions,
they argue; and man would go back to the condition of the savage. I
have never heard a Christian argument against that assault that has
been an answer to it. But I find the key to the situation in this Book
of Mormon version of the passage. It throws a flood of light upon
this matter that makes the defense of the doctrine of Christ not only
possible but easy. The Book of Mormon tells me that those words were
not addressed to the multitude, nor are they to be followed by all the
members of the Church, nor by the people of the world generally. Jesus
confined that instruction in America to twelve men whom he chose from
among his disciples, and especially commissioned to go and preach the
gospel; and to so completely dedicate themselves unto the Lord that
they would give no thought to temporal things, but put heart and soul
into the work of their ministry, and their Father in heaven, who knew
they had need of food and raiment, would open up the way for them, to
obtain such things as they needed, even as he clothed the lilies or
cared for the birds of the air. Thus limited, that doctrine is all
right, is it not? And as Jesus turned from the multitude to deliver
this doctrine especially adapted to the Twelve here in America, so,
doubtless, if we had the fullness of the truth as delivered in Judea I
believe he would be represented as confining those remarks unto the men
whom he had specially called into the ministry in that land.
So I say the Fifth Gospel places in our hands the means of meeting the
scoffs of the unbeliever, and vindicates the doctrines of Jesus Christ
as reasonable now that we have the word of the Lord rightly divided.
I cannot leave this passage without calling your attention to the
closing sentence of the sixth chapter of Matthew: "Sufficient unto
the day is the evil thereof." In III Nephi it stands: "Sufficient is
the day unto the evil thereof." In the first instance you note that
the evil is made sufficient for the day. The fifth gospel has it that
the day is made sufficient for the evil. Don't you think that is
better? Three learned commentators say of that sentence, as it stands
in Matthew: "An admirable practical maxim, better rendered in our
version (King James' translation) than in any other, not excepting
the preceding English ones. Every day brings its own cares, and to
anticipate is only to double them." If they can thus speak in high
praise of the saying of the Savior as it stands in Matthew, how much
more reason they would have for praising it as it is found in III Nephi.
I will now read to you a passage which Elder Francis M. Lyman read
at one of the public meetings of our recent general conference, and
which first suggested to me the thought of taking up this reverend
gentleman's discourse for the purpose of showing, at least to our
young people, that there was something in the Fifth Gospel worth while
considering; that it adds something to our Christian knowledge. Jesus
giving instruction to the Nephite disciples, says:
"Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through
your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise
shall ye baptize them; behold, ye shall go down and stand in the
water, and in my name shall ye baptize them.
"And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling
them by name:
"Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
"And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again
out of the water."
If we had only been so fortunate as to have had such an explicit
statement as this in our four gospels, or in one of them, what a world
of contention would have been avoided, what a world of Christian
persecution of Christians would have been avoided, and what unity and
harmony there would have been upon a great Christian ordinance upon
which Christians are now unhappily divided. Aside from this statement
and the revelations that God has given in these days, there is nothing
that definitely instructs the world on the subject of how baptism shall
be administered. Jesus came to the disciples after his resurrection
and said to them, "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Of course,
for some two or three hundred years we have the custom of the Saints
as an interpretation of the manner of baptism, and that is, they were
immersed; but since Jesus had not specified the manner in which the
ordinance was to be administered, men began to wonder after awhile if
baptism could not be performed in some other way than immersion, and so
they adopted the method of sprinkling, or of pouring the water on the
person. And from that departure from the true gospel grew up the varied
methods of baptism as we have them today. The Greeks still immerse,
and they immerse three times--once in the name of the Father, once in
the name of the Son, and once in the name of the Holy Spirit. We have
an American sect who hit upon what I suppose they consider a happy
thought, and that is, that baptism must not only be thrice performed,
but that the candidate must be pushed face downward into the water;
for, say they, would you have people going into the kingdom backwards?
Of the Protestant sects, some sprinkle and some pour water on the
candidate; and one prominent minister, the late Henry Ward Beecher,
reduced the ordinance to the mere act of moistening the hand and
placing it upon the brow of the candidate, and called that baptism! The
great Catholic Church, backed by its "tradition" and its scholarship,
insists that sprinkling is a proper method of baptism. And so the world
is divided on this great ordinance, which all confess is the visible
sign of entrance into the fold of Christ--part of our birth into the
kingdom of God.
What parable, what dozen parables, could be so precious in their
importance to the Christian world as this explicit statement of how the
ordinance of baptism shall be administered, if they would but accept it!
In addition to this doctrine of baptism you will find (though I shall
not take time to point it out at length on this occasion) in the
Fifth Gospel instructions given by the Savior on the subject of the
Sacrament and the purposes for which it was given, which afterwards
were crystalized in the prayer of consecration of the emblems, and
because they are so crystalized, and therefore briefer, I shall read
that instruction to you as it is found in the prayer. The prophet is
explaining how the Sacrament was administered after the people received
this institution from Jesus:
"And they did kneel down with the church, and pray to the Father in
the name of Christ, saying:
"O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy Son
Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of
all those who partake of it, that they may eat in the remembrance
of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal
Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy
Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he
hath given them, that they may always have his spirit to be with
them. Amen."
If the four gospels had contained the instructions of Jesus Christ on
this subject as found in the Fifth Gospel, and finally crystalized
those instructions into this beautiful and appropriate prayer of
consecration, the Christian world would have escaped one of its
bitterest religious controversies, and the Roman Catholic church today
would not ask men to be so untrue to their intellectual consciousness
as to believe that the wafer which they place upon the tongue of the
communicant is the actual body and the actual blood of Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, the Protestant world would not be divided and
subdivided, upon this question, but they would have instruction which
would enable them to properly hold the great atonement of Jesus Christ
in true and objective remembrance in the Sacrament.
I undertake to say now that there cannot be produced from the
literature of the world, sacred or profane, a prayer that is the equal
of this prayer of consecration, excepting only the Lord's prayer. With
that exception, this prayer, for completeness, for a succession of
solemn thoughts, fitly spoken, and crystalized into a form from which
you can take nothing and to which you can add nothing without marring
it, stands alone; and it adds something to our Christian knowledge. It
is an important item of Christian instruction and doctrine, and one
that the world much needs; you will find its scattered rays in the
Fifth Gospel, in the form I have quoted it, it is given by Moroni.
Now, I must pass on hurriedly. There is a singular passage of scripture
in John, the 10th chapter and 16th verse, which rather puzzles
expounders of the scripture.
"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I
must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one
fold, and one shepherd."
Ask the Christian ministers to explain this passage, and they always
answer that Jesus had in mind the Gentiles. If so, how do you harmonize
this fact, which I now point out to you, with that statement, namely:
Jesus was once passing through a crowded street and a woman of Canaan,
of race upon whom the displeasure of God had fallen in very ancient
times,--perhaps their spirits warranted just the conditions that
they came into this world to meet. This woman, of this race, came to
Jesus, asking that he would heal her child, but he heeded her not. Her
importuning attracted unpleasant attention, and so the Apostles said
to him, "Master, send her away; for she troubleth us." He said, _"I am
not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."_ Therefore,
when he said, "Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them
also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice," he had reference
to some branch of the house of Israel, and not to the Gentiles; for
as he explains, I think, in this Fifth Gospel, the Gentiles should
receive the gospel through the ministrations of the Holy Spirit in
his servants, and not by his personal ministry to them. His personal
ministry was confined to the house of Israel. In this Fifth Gospel we
learn that Jesus told the Nephites that they were the people he had
in mind when he uttered this singular scripture we are considering;
but his disciples in Judea understood him not; and because of
stiffneckedness and unbelief Jesus was commanded of the Father to say
no more to them upon the subject.
Do not these facts throw some light upon our knowledge of Christian
truth?
Moreover, in this same connection, Jesus informed his Nephite auditors
that not only would he minister to them, but so soon as he was through
with his ministrations to them, behold, he would go to the lost tribes
of the house of Israel and minister to them also. He spoke as follows:
"And verily, verily, I say unto you, that I have other sheep, which
are not of this land; neither of the land of Jerusalem; neither in
any part of that land round about, whither I have been to minister.
For they of whom I speak are they who have not as yet heard my
voice; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them. But
I have received a commandment of the Father, that I shall go unto
them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered
among my sheep that there may be one fold, and one shepherd;
therefore I go to show myself unto them. And I command you that ye
shall write these sayings, after I am gone, that if it so be that
my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me, and been with me
in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may
receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, and also of the other
tribes whom they know not of, that these sayings which ye shall
write, shall be kept, and shall be manifested unto the Gentiles,
the remnant of their seed, who shall be scattered forth upon the
face of the earth, because of their unbelief, may be brought in,
or may be brought to a knowledge of me, their Redeemer. And then I
will gather them in from the four quarters of the earth; and then
will I fulfill the covenant which the Father hath made unto all the
people of the house of Israel."
Again, in his discourse on this occasion, Jesus takes up the matter of
the Gentiles, who in time should come to this land and take possession
of it for the falling away of the Nephites was predicted, and the fact
of the coming of the Gentile races to this land was made known to the
Nephite people. The Lord Jesus took occasion to say that the Gentiles
should be greatly blessed upon this land, and should be fortified
against all other nations; and if they would not reject the gospel that
should be brought forth amongst them, great would be the blessings of
the Lord upon the Gentiles; that they should be numbered with the house
of Israel, and should assist in building up the New Jerusalem upon this
continent. I quote these several important passages:
"And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in
and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them, of me and of the
Father. * * * * But if the Gentiles will repent, and return unto
me, saith the Lord, behold they shall be numbered among my people,
O house of Israel; * * * * And behold, this people (descendants
of the Nephites addressed) will I establish in this land unto the
fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob; and
it shall be a New Jerusalem. And the powers of heaven shall be in
the midst of this people; yea, even I will be in the midst of you.
Behold, I am he of whom Moses spake, saying, A prophet shall the
Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me,
him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that
prophet, and who will not repent and come unto my beloved Son, them
will I cut off from among my people, O house of Israel; and I will
execute vengeance and fury upon them, even as upon the heathen,
such as they have not heard. But if they will repent, and hearken
unto my words, and harden not their hearts, I will establish my
church among them, and they shall come in unto the covenant, and be
numbered among this the remnant of Jacob, unto whom I have given
this land for their inheritance. And they shall assist my people,
the remnant of Jacob, and also, as many of the house of Israel as
shall come that they may build a city, which shall be called the
New Jerusalem; and then shall they assist my people that they may
be gathered in, who are scattered upon all the face of the land,
in unto the New Jerusalem. And then shall the power of heaven come
down among them; and I also will be in the midst."
All this is contained in the Fifth Gospel. It contains, you will
see, these promises of deep and mighty import to the Gentile races,
a promise that they might become as fathers and mothers to the house
of Israel, and so great should be their reward and blessing that they
should be completely identified with the Israel of God upon this land,
and join in building up Zion--that Zion from which Isaiah declared the
law should go forth in the last days, while the word of the Lord should
go forth from Jerusalem; indicating the two capitals on the earth, one
in the eastern and one in the western hemisphere. But if, on the other
hand, the Gentiles should reject the gospel of Christ and no longer
honor the God of this land, who is declared to be Jesus Christ, then
the hand of God would be upon them, and that in judgment; and that,
proud, great and strong as they are, yet should they be humbled.