NEW WITNESSES FOR GOD
II.
THE BOOK OF MORMON
By B. H. Roberts,
Author of "The Gospel," "Outlines of Ecclesiastical History," "Mormon Doctrine of Deity," "Defense of the Faith and the Saints," "The Prophet-Teacher," etc., etc. IN THREE VOLUMES
VOL. III.
THE DESERET NEWS
Salt Lake City
1909
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PART III. (Continued).
THE EVIDENCES OF THE TRUTH OF THE BOOK OF MORMON, (CONTINUED)
Indirect External Evidences (Continued).—American Traditions 3
I. The Signs of Messiah's Birth
II. The Signs of Messiah's Death
Indirect External Evidences—American Traditions (Continued)
I. Messiah in the Western Hemisphere
II. The Culture-Heroes of America
III. The Peruvian Tradition of the Messiah
IV. Topilitzen Quetzalcohuatl
External Evidences—The Hebrew Origin of the Native American Races—Hebrew Relics
I. Garcia
II. Lord Kingsborough's Views
III. Adair's Evidences
The Discovery of Hebrew Relics
I. The Pittsfield Hebrew Parchment
11. The Newark Hebrew Tablet
The Discovery of Relics Other Than Hebrew
I. Cincinnati Gold Plate
II. The Kinderhook Plates
III. The Tuccabatchey Plates
External Evidence—Minor Coincidences—Race Unity
I. Central and Western New York an Ancient Battle Field
II. Miscellaneous Book of Mormon Historical Incidents and Nephite Customs Found in the Native American Traditions
III. Human Sacrifices. Cannibalism
IV. Burying the Hatchet
V. Hagoth's Marine Migrations Preserved in Native Legends
VI. Native American Race Unity
VII. Did the Book of Mormon Antedate Works in English on American Antiquities Accessible to Joseph Smith and His Associates
VIII. The Value of the Evidence Supplied by American Antiquities
External Evidences (Continued).—Evidence of the Bible
I. The Place of the Patriarch Joseph in Israel.—The Promises to Him and His Seed
II. The Prophecies of Isaiah on the Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon 109
III. The Prophecy of Messiah in Relation to "Other Sheep" than Those in Palestine that Must Hear His Voice
External Evidences (Continued.)—The Evidence of the Church to the Book
Internal Evidences—The Book of Mormon, in Style and Language, is Consistent with the Theory of its Construction
I. Of the Unity and Diversity of Style
II. Characteristics of an Abridgement
III. Originality in Book of Mormon Names
IV. Of the Nephite Custom in Naming Cities and Provinces Being Ancient 139
V. Of the Nephites, Like the Jews, Being a Mononymous People
Internal Evidences (Continued).—The Book of Mormon Forms of Government Consistent with the Times and Circumstances under which they Existed
I. Monarchies
II. Reign of the Judges—Republic
III. Ecclesiastical Government
IV. The Events to which Importance is Given in the Book of Mormon are in Harmony with the Character of the Writers
V. Complexity in the Structure of the Book of Mormon in Harmony with the Theory of its Origin
Internal Evidences (Continued).—The Originality of the Book of Mormon an Evidence in Support of its Claims
I. Originality of Structure
II. Originality in Names
III. In the Manner of its Coming Forth
IV. Its Accounting for the Peopling of America
V. The Nativity of Ancient American Peoples
VI. Accounting for the Existence of Christian Ideas in America
Internal Evidences (Continued).—The Originality of the Book of Mormon an Evidence in Support of its Claims. (Continued)
VII. The Fall of Adam—The Purpose of Man's Earth Existence—Adam fell that men might be; Man an Immortal Spirit; Men are that they might have joy...
VIII. The Agency of Man
IX. The Atonement
X. The Doctrine of Opposite Existences
Internal Evidences (Continued).—The Evidence of Prophecy:
I. A Testimony Shall be Given by the Holy Ghost....
II. "They Shall Have the Gift and Power of the Holy Ghost."
III. "Three Witnesses" Shall Behold the Book "By the Gift and Power of God."
IV. The Blood of Saints Shall Cry from the Ground
V "Because My Word Shall Hiss Forth, Many Shall say 'A Bible! A Bible'" 153
VI. The Lost Books of the Bible
VII. No Gentile Kings in America
Internal Evidences (Continued.)—The Evidence of Prophecy (Continued) 281
I. Many Shall Believe the Words of the Book
II. The Book of Mormon to be Taken to the American Indians
III. The Jews Shall Begin to Believe in Christ, and to Gather to Their Lands
IV. The Work of the Lord to Commence Among all Nations to Bring About 'the Restoration of His People Israel, and a Universal Reign of Peace and Righteousness
V. The Sign of the Modern World's Awakening
VI. Conditional Prophecies—The Evidence of Things Worthy of God to Reveal
Internal Evidences (Continued).—The Spirit of the Book
I. The Poetry the Book of Mormon has Inspired
II. Summary of Internal Evidences
PART IV.
OBJECTIONS TO THE BOOK OF MORMON.
Counter Theories of Origin
I. Alexander Campbell's Theory
II. The Spaulding Theory of Origin
III. The Sidney Rigdon Theory
IV. I. Woodbridge Riley's Theory of the Origin of the Book of Mormon
(Erratum.—The numeral II is repeated in this chapter, as also in this table in order to correspond with the number in the chapter.)
Objections to the Book of Mormon
I. Errors in Style and Grammar
II. Objections Based Upon the Existence of Passages in the Book of Mormon Which Follow King James' Translation
II. Miscellaneous Objections Based on Literary Style and Language
III. The Difficulty of Passages from Isaiah Being Quoted by Nephite Writers, that Modern Bible Criticism Holds were not Written Until the Time of the Babylonian Captivity—and not Written by Isaiah at all
(Erratum.—After using numerals in this chapter from IV to VII, by an error, the printer began again at V and ran to X. There is no break in the order of the subjects, however, in the chapter, and the numerals in this table are made to correspond with those in the text.)
Objections to the Book of Mormon (Continued)
IV. Pre-Christian Era Knowledge of the Gospel
V. The Unlawfulness of Establishing the Priesthood with Others than the Tribe of Levi
VI. Nephite Knowledge of the "Call of the Gentiles."
VII. The Difficulty of the Three Days of Darkness
V. The Birth of Jesus "at Jerusalem."
VI. The Settlement of Modern Controversies
VII. The Book Contains Nothing New
VIII. Modern Astronomy in the Book
IX. The Geography of the Book
X. Of the Objection that the Transcript of Characters Made from the Nephite Plates by Joseph Smith, Bear no Resemblance to the Hieroglyphics and Language Characters Discovered in Central America on Stone Tablets, Maya Books and Mexican Picture Writing
Objections to the Book of Mormon (Continued)
I. Alleged Plagiarisms of Historical and Biblical Events.
II. The Absence of Book of Mormon Names Both of Places and Persons in Native American Language
III. Nephi's Temple
IV. The Difficulty of Iron and Steel Among the Nephites
V. The Horse and Other Domestic Animals of the Book of Mormon
VI. The Barges of the Jaredite Colony
VII. The Marvels of Liahona—"Compass."
VIII. The Weight of the Plates
VIII. The Death of Shiz
IX. Concluding Reflections
PART III.
The Evidences of the Truth of the Book of Mormon, Continued.
NEW WITNESSES FOR GOD
II.
THE BOOK OF MORMON.
CHAPTER XXX
INDIRECT EXTERNAL EVIDENCES (Continued)—AMERICAN TRADITIONS.
I.
The Signs of Messiah's Birth.
The impressive signs given in the western world, according to the Book of Mormon, of the birth and death of Messiah were of such a character that they would doubtless obtain a fixed place in the traditions of the native American people, though, as in the case of all legends, the events are more or less distorted.
The signs of Messiah's birth, both as prophetically promised and historically described, are as follows:
And behold, this will I give unto you for a sign at the time of his (Messiah's) coming; for behold, there shall be great lights in heaven insomuch that in the night before he cometh there shall be no darkness, insomuch that it shall appear unto man as if it were day, therefore there shall be one day and a night, and a day as if it were one day, and there were no night; and this shall be unto you for a sign; for ye shall know of the rising of the sun, and also if its setting; therefore they shall know of a surety that there shall be two days and a night; nevertheless the night shall not be darkened; and it shall be the night before he is born. And behold there shall a new star arise, such an one as ye never have beheld; and this also shall be a sign unto you.[[1]]
And it came to pass that the words which came unto Nephi were fulfilled, according as they had been spoken; for behold at the going down of the sun, there was no darkness; and the people began to be astonished, because there was no darkness when the night came. * * * * * * And it came to pass also, that a new star did appear, according to the word.[[2]]
And now the native legends on this subject. From the native Central American documents compiled and followed by Fuentes y Guzman, quoted by Juarrors, whom Bancroft follows, it is learned that a certain Quiche prince, Acxopil, the son of Nimaquiche, observing that his people had greatly increased in number and influence, divided his empire into three kingdoms. And now Bancroft, who is quoting Juarrors:
Retaining for himself the first, he gave the second to his oldest son, Jiutemal, and the third to his second son, Acxiquat; and this division was made on a day 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 observed.[[3]]
The "day when three suns were seen"—"the day of the birth of our Redeemer"—easily accords with the two days and a night of the continuous light of the Book of Mormon, especially when considered in connection with the appearance of a "new star" (the "meteor" of the quotation) as a sign to the Nephites of the birth of Messiah.
Referring to the traditions of the primitive Nahua period, after dealing with the events of the first age, which treats of the creation, flood, dispersion of mankind, the migration of a colony of seven families to a new land, etc., Bancroft, following the native writer Ixtilxochiti, deals with the second Nahua age, as follows:
The second age, the "sun and air," terminated with a great hurricane which swept away trees, rocks, houses and people, although many men and women escaped, chiefly such as took refuge in caves which the hurricane could not reach. After several days the survivors came out to find a multitude of apes living in the land; and all this time they were in darkness, seeing neither the sun nor the moon. The next event recorded, although Veytia makes it precede the hurricane, is the stopping of the sun for a whole day in his course, as at the command of Joshua as recorded in the Old Testament,[[4]]
Let no one confound these cataclysms attended with darkness to the flood period of the first Nahua age—which is identical with Noah's flood; they relate to disasters subsequent to that period; they correspond in time and character to the disasters described in the Book of Mormon as taking place in the western hemisphere during the time of the crucifixion and interment of Messiah in Judea. This, I believe, will be established as reasonably clear as we proceed.
Concerning the foregoing passage, I also call attention to the fact that Veytia is said to place before the tempest and the darkness of the tradition the stopping of the sun for a whole day in his course, as at the command of Joshua. Instead of having reference to the Joshua incident, however, may not the incident of the American tradition have reference to the Book of Mormon sign of Messiah's birth, these two days and a night through which there was continuous light?[[5]] The apparent "stopping of the sun a whole day in his course" would certainly give the period of uninterrupted light required by the Book of Mormon sign of Messiah's birth; and the fact that so noted an authority as Veytia [[6]] places that singular event before the fierce tempest attended by darkness, restores the order of the events required by the Book of Mormon account of those matters.
De Roo, quoting Bastian,[[7]] says:
Another circumstance of the Savior's death seems to be remembered in Mexico, for it is related in its traditions that, at the disappearance of Topiltzin or Quetzalcohuatl, [[8]]
Here, clear enough, is allusion to the darkness that covered the land at Messiah's death; may not the star, which here appears out of order, according to Book of Mormon statements, really have been the one which appeared to the Nephites as the sign of Messiah's birth?
II.
The Signs of Messiah's Death.
The signs which were to be given to the inhabitants of the western hemisphere of Messiah's death were foretold by a Lamanite prophet as follows:
Behold, in that day that he shall suffer death, the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his light unto you; and also the moon, and the stars; and there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead; yea, at the time that he shall yield up the ghost, there shall be thunderings and lightnings for the space of many hours, and the earth shall shake and tremble, and the rocks which are upon the face of this earth; which are both above the earth and beneath, which ye know at this time are solid, or the more part of it is one solid mass, shall be broken up; yea, they shall be rent in twain, and shall ever after be found in seams and in cracks, and in broken fragments upon the face of the whole earth; yea, both above the earth and beneath. And behold, there shall be great tempests, and there shall be many mountains laid low, like unto a valley, and there shall be many places which are now called valleys, which shall become mountains, whose height is great. And many highways shall be broken up, and many cities shall become desolate, and many graves shall be opened, and shall yield up many of their dead; and many saints shall appear unto many. And behold thus hath the angel spoken unto me; for he said unto me, that there should be thunderings and lightnings for the space of many hours; and he said unto me that while the thunder and the lightning lasted and the tempest, that these things should be, and that darkness should cover the face of the whole earth[[9]] for the space of three days. [[10]]
This prediction was literally and awfully fulfilled. Mormon's condensed account of it being as follows:
And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, in the fourth day of the month, there arose a great storm, such an one as never had been known in all the land; and there was also a great and terrible tempest; and there was terrible thunder, insomuch that it did shake the whole earth as if it was about to divide asunder; and there were exceeding sharp lightnings, such as never had been known in all the land. And the city of Zarahemla did take fire; and the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned; and the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain; and there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward. But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest, and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the exceeding great quaking of the whole earth; and the highways were broken up, and the level roads were spoiled, and many smooth places became rough, and many great and notable cities were sunk, and many were burned, and many were shaken till the buildings thereof had fallen to the earth, and the inhabitants thereof were slain; and the places were left desolate; and there were some cities which remained; but the damage thereof was exceeding great, and there were many in them who were slain; and there was some who were carried away in the whirlwind; and whither they went, no man knoweth, save they know that they were carried away; and thus the face of the whole earth became deformed, because of the tempests, and the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the quaking of the earth. And behold, the rocks were rent in twain; they were broken up upon the face of the whole earth, insomuch, that they were found in broken fragments, and in seams, and in cracks, upon all the face of the land. And it came to pass that when the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the storm, and the tempest, and the quakings of the earth did cease—for behold, they did last for about the space of three hours; and it was said by some that the time was greater; nevertheless, all these great and terrible things were done in about the space of three hours; and then behold, there was darkness upon the face of the land. And it came to pass that there was thick darkness upon all the face of the land, insomuch, that the inhabitants thereof who had not fallen, could feel the vapour of darkness; and there could be no light because of the darkness; neither candles, neither torches; neither could there be fire kindled with their fine and exceedingly dry wood, so that there could not be any light at all; and there was not any light seen, neither fire, nor glimmer, neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars, so great were the mists of darkness which were upon the face of the land. And it came to pass that it did last for the space of three days, that there was no light seen; and there was great mourning, and howling, and weeping among all the people continually; yea, great were the groanings of the people, because of the darkness and the great destruction which had come upon them. [[11]]
From the Book of Mormon we learn that it was in the morning that these terrible cataclysms began, and then were followed by the three days of darkness: for in giving an account of the passing away of this terrible calamity, Mormon says: "Thus did the the three days pass away. And it was in the morning, and the darkness dispersed from all the face of the earth and the earth did cease to tremble."[[12]] On this matter of the signs of Messiah's crucifixion taking place "in the morning," according to American time, the late Orson Pratt made the following valuable comment:
This book, the Book of Mormon, informs us that the time of day at which Jesus was crucified, I mean the time of day here in America, was in the morning; the New Testament tells us that Jesus was crucified in Asia in the afternoon, between the sixth and ninth hour according to the Jews' reckoning. They commenced their reckoning at six o'clock in the morning, and consequently the sixth hour would be twelve o'clock at noon, and the ninth hour three o'clock in the afternoon. Jesus, from the sixth to the ninth hour, in other words from twelve o'clock to three, was hanging on the cross. Now the Book of Mormon, or the historians whose records it contains, when relating the incidents that transpired at the time of the crucifixion—the darkness that was spread over the face of the land, the earthquakes, the rending of rocks, the sinking of cities and the whirlwinds—say these events occurred in the morning; they also say that darkness was spread over the face of the land for the space of three days. In Jerusalem it was only three hours. But the Lord gave them a special sign in this country and the darkness lasted three days, and at the expiration of three days, and three nights of darkness, it cleared off, and it was in the morning. That shows that, according to the time of this country, [America] the crucifixion must have taken place in the morning.
Says one, "Is not this a contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the New Testament?" To an unlearned person it would really be a contradiction, for the four Evangelists place it [the time during which Jesus was on the cross] from twelve to three in the afternoon, while the Book of Mormon says in the morning. An unlearned person, seeing this discrepancy, would say, of course, that both books cannot be true.
If the Book of Mormon be true the Bible cannot be; and if the Bible be true the Book of Mormon cannot be.
I do not known that anybody ever brought up this objection, for I do not think they ever thought of it. I do not think that the Prophet Joseph, who translated the book, ever thought of this apparent discrepancy. "But," says one, "how do you account for it being in the morning in America and in the afternoon in Jerusalem?" Simply by the difference in longitude. This would make a difference of time of several hours; for when it would be twelve at noon in Jerusalem it would only be half-past four in the morning in the north-west part of South America, where the Book of Mormon was then being written. Seven and a half hours difference in longitude would account for this apparent discrepancy; and if the Book of Mormon had said the crucifixion took place in the afternoon we should have known at once that it could not be true. This is incidental proof to learned or scientific men that they cannot very well reason away, and especially when the instrument [i. e. Joseph Smith] who brought forth the Book of Mormon is considered. It must be remembered that he was but a youth, and unlearned; and, when he translated this work, I presume that he was unaware that there was any difference in the time of day, according to the longitude, in different parts of the earth. I do not suppose that Joseph ever thought about it to the day of his death. I never heard him or any other person bring forth this as confirmatory evidence of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I never thought of it myself until years after Joseph's death; but when I did reflect upon it, I could see the reason why the Lord, through his servants, has said in the Book of Mormon, that the crucifixion took place in the morning.[[13]]
In addition to the passages already quoted, giving the native traditions which, doubtless contain references to the cataclysms at the death of Messiah, as well as to the signs of his birth, Bancroft gives a Toltec tradition directly bearing on the subject, as follows:
The sun and moon were eclipsed, the earth shook, and the rocks were rent asunder, and many other things and signs happened, though there was no loss of life. This was in the year Ce Calli, which, the chronology being reduced to our system, proves to be the same date when Christ our Lord suffered, 33 A. D.[[14]]
The statement in the foregoing that there was no loss of life resulting from this cataclysm is the only item that mars its perfect agreement with the Book of Mormon incident.
Bouturini, commending the exact chronology of the ancient Mexicans says: "No pagan nation refers primitive events to fixed creation of the world, of the deluge, of the confusion of tongues at the time of the Tower of Babel, of the other epochs and ages of the world, of their ancestors' long travel in Asia, with the years precisely distinguished by their corresponding characters. They record in the year of Seven Rabbits the great eclipse which happened at the crucifixion of Christ our Lord.[[15]]
The date assigned for this eclipse of sun and moon (darkness), and the attendant earthquakes in the foregoing quotations, is corroborated in a very remarkable manner by the native Peruvian historian Montesinos, quoted by Rivero and Tschudi. In giving a list of the Peruvian monarchs, when reaching the sixtieth, Manco-Capac III., our authors say:
According to the Amautas [Peruvian "wise men," or philosophers] this prince reigned in the year two thousand nine hundred and fifty after the deluge, and consequently at the birth of Jesus Christ, an epoch when Peru had reached her highest elevation and extension. [[16]]
Following this sixtieth monarch came Cayo-Manco-Capec III., who reigned twenty years. He was followed by Sinchi-Ayar-Manco, who reigned seven years. He, by Huamantaco-Amauta, who reigned five years; which brings us to the year thirty-two A. D., and then follows this statement by our authors, which corroborates the date cited by Bancroft for the cataclysm under consideration, viz:
During his reign [thirty-two or thirty-three A. D.],[[17]] they experienced earthquakes that lasted several months.[[18]]
Brasseur de Bourbourg,[[19]] to whom Bancroft gives high praise as an authority on the languages and traditions of Central America, speaks of physical cataclysms which, according to the native traditions, took place in that part of America, and which are undoubtedly the imperfect accounts of those cataclysms which occurred at the death of Messiah, as recorded in the Book of Mormon. Brasseur became infatuated with the Atlantis theory, and regarded the native American traditions concerning the physical convulsions in nature as describing the submergence of the ancient Atlantis. With the theory of the learned Frenchman I have nothing to do. He may have made a wrong application of the facts of the native traditions. I think he did. But what I am interested in is the fact that so highly commended an authority draws from native sources the tradition of physical cataclysms which so nearly accord with the statements of fact in the Book of Mormon.[[20]] After relating Brasseur's connection with the Atlantis theory, Baldwin says:
In the first place, Brasseur de Bourbourg claims that there is in the old Central American books a constant tradition of an immense catastrophe of the character supposed [i. e., the convulsions which submerged Atlantis]; that this tradition existed every where among the people when they first became known to Europeans; and that recollections of the catastrophe were preserved in some of their festivals, especially in one celebrated in the month of Izcalli, which was instituted to commemorate this frightful destruction of land and people, and in which "princes and people humbled themselves before the divinity, and besought him to withhold a return of such terrible calamities." This tradition affirms that a part of the continent extending into the Atlantic was destroyed in the manner supposed, [submerged] and appear to indicate that the destruction was accomplished by a succession of frightful convulsions. Three are constantly mentioned, and sometimes there is mention of one or two others. "The land was shaken by frightful earthquakes, and the waves of the sea combined with volcanic fires to overwhelm and ingulf it." Each convulsion swept away portions of the land, until the whole disappeared, leaving the line of the coast as it is now. Most of the inhabitants, overtaken amid their regular employments, were destroyed; but some escaped in ships, and some fled for safety to the summits of high mountains, or to portions of the land which, for the time, escaped immediate destruction. Quotations are made from the old books in which this tradition is recorded which appear to verify his report of what is found in them. To criticise intelligently his interpretation of their significance, one needs to have a knowledge of those books and tradition equal at least to his own.[[21]]
Nadaillac also refers to the native traditions collected by Brasseur on this subject and quotes him as follows:
If I may judge from allusions in the documents that I have been fortunate enough to collect, there were in these regions, at that remote date, convulsions of nature, deluges, terrible inundations, followed by the upheaval of mountains, accompanied by volcanic eruptions. These traditions, traces of which are also met with in Mexico, Central America, Peru, and Bolivia, point to the conclusion that man existed in these various countries at the time of the upheaval of the Cordilleras, and that the memory of that upheaval has been preserved:[[22]]
Treating of a number of old Central American traditions on his own account, Nadaillac says:
Other traditions allude to convulsions of nature, to inundations, and profound disturbances, to terrible deluges, in the midst of which mountains and volcanoes suddenly rose up.[[23]]
Nothing, perhaps, connected with the signs of Messiah's death would be more impressive than the awful fact of the three days' darkness, and nothing would be more likely to be preserved in the traditions of the people than this singular fact. From generation to generation it would be remembered with terror. It is beyond question the traditional remembrance of that event which so terrorized the native Americans at every recurrence of an eclipse of the sun. Of this fact Bancroft remarks:
The Mexicans were much troubled and distressed by an eclipse of the sun. They thought that he was much disturbed and tossed about by something, and that he was becoming seriously jaundiced. This was the occasion of a general panic, women weeping aloud, and men howling and shouting and striking the hand upon the mouth. There was an immediate search for men with white hair and white faces, and these were sacrificed to the sun, amid the din and tumult of singing and musical instruments. It was thought that should the eclipse become once total, there would be an end of the light, and that in the darkness the demons would come down to the devouring of the people.[[24]]
It was also the traditional remembrance of the terror of darkness, connected with the death of Messiah, which undoubtedly created the anxiety concerning the renewal of fire at the conclusion of each cycle of fifty-two years recognized in the Mexican chronology. The Mexicans, as represented in some of the notes we have quoted from different authors, hold the tradition of the destruction of the world at four successive epochs. And, says, Prescott:
They looked forward confidently to another such catastrophy, to take place like the preceding, at the close of a cycle, when the sun was to be effaced from the heavens, the human race from the earth, and when darkness of chaos was to settle on the habitable globe. The cycle would end in the latter part of December, and, as the dreary season of the winter solstice approached, and the diminished light of day gave melancholy presage of its speedy extinction their apprehensions increased; and on the arrival of the five unlucky days which close the year, they abandoned themselves to despair. They broke in pieces the little images of their household gods, in whom they no longer trusted. The holy fires were suffered to go out in the temples, and none were lighted in their own dwellings. Their furniture and domestic utensils were destroyed; their garments torn in pieces; and everything was thrown into disorder, for the coming of the evil genii who were to descend on the desolate earth. On the evening of the last day, a procession of priests, assuming the dress and ornaments of their gods, moved from the capital towards a lofty mountain, about two leagues distant. They carried with them a noble victim, the flower of their captivities, and an apparatus for kindling the new fire, the success of which was an augury of the renewal of the cycle. On reaching the summit of the mountain, the procession paused till midnight; when, as the constellation of the Pleiades approached the zenith, the new fire was kindled by the friction of the sticks placed on the wounded breast of the victim. The flame was soon communicated to a funeral pile, on which the body of the slaughtered captive was thrown. As the light streamed up towards heaven, shouts of joy and triumph burst forth from the countless multitudes who covered the hills, the terraces of the temples and the house-tops, with eyes anxiously bent on the mount of sacrifice. Couriers, with torches lighted at the blazing beacon, rapidly bore them over every part of the country; and the cheering element was seen brightening on altar and hearthstone, for the circuit of many a league, long before the sun, rising on his accustomed track, gave assurance that a new cycle had commenced its march, and that the laws of nature were not to be reversed for the Aztecs. The following thirteen days were given up to festivity.[[25]]
Whence this terror of the darkness? Whence this rejoicing at the assurance of continued light, unless back of both terror and rejoicing somewhere in the history of the people there was some such circumstance as described in the Book of Mormon which gave cause for this terror of darkness on the one hand, and the rejoicing at the assurance of a continuation of light on the other?
Footnotes
[1]. Helaman xiv: 3, 5.
[2]. III. Nephi i: 15, 21.
[3]. Native Races, Bancroft, Vol. V., p. 566.
[4]. Native Races, Bancroft, Vol. V., pp. 209, 210.
[5]. See Helaman xiv: 3, 4, 5; and III. Nephi 1: 15-21.
[6]. Don Mariano Veytia was born of an ancient and highly respected family at Puebli, Mexico, 1718. After finishing his academic education he went to Spain where he was kindly received at court. He visited several other countries of Europe, made himself acquainted with their languages and returned home and devoted the rest of his life chiefly to the illustration of the national history and antiquities of his country. He composed various works, but his "Antiquities of Mexico" is the only one which went to press. His history covers the whole period from the first occupation of Aauhuac to the middle of the fifteenth century, at which time his labors were unfortunately terminated by his death, which occurred in 1780. In the early portion of his "Antiquities" he endeavored to trace the migratory movements and historic annals of the race who entered the country. "Every page," remarks Prescott, "bears testimony of the extent and fidelity of his researches." (Conquest of Mexico, Vol. I., p. 40.) The author of the history of the "Antiquities of Mexico," tom. I., chapter ii, dates the first migration of the Nahuas from the year 2,237, after the creation" quoted by Nadaillac "Prehistoric America," p. 261. This date is somewhat in agreement with the time at which the Book of Mormon represents the Jaredites as arriving in the western world.
[7]. Adolf Bastian was born in June, 1826. He was a Prussian ethnologist of note, being professor of that science at Berlin, and demonstrator of the ethnological museum. He succeeded Virchow as president of the Berlin Anthropological society. He traveled in Peru, Columbia and Central America in 1851-66. It is from his works that De Roo quotes the above tradition.
[8]. History of America Before Columbus, p. 431.
[9]. "Darkness cover the face of the whole earth," etc. This expression should be understood as limited by one that precedes it in the quotation, viz., "there should be no light upon the face of this land," meaning America. Nothwithstanding the "face of the whole earth" the darkness was limited to the western hemisphere.
[10]. Helaman xiv: 20-27.
[11]. III. Nephi viii: 5-23.
[12]. III. Nephi x: 9 and note 'f.'
[13]. Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. XIII., pp. 128, 129.
[14]. Native Races, Vol. V., p. 210.
[15]. Kingsborough's Mexican Antiquities, Vol. VI., p. 176, note. Bouturini is an authority frequently quoted by Prescott, who has an extended note upon the valuable collection of native memorials of primitive civilization of America made by Bouturini. (See "Conquest of Mexico" Vol. I., p. 126). He was a Milanese by birth, and came to America in 1735 on some business of the Countess Santibanez, a lineal descendant of Montezuma. While in America he traveled extensively in Mexico and Central America, and made the before mentioned collection of memorials. Baldwin also mentions him with approval. (See "Ancient America," p. 195.)
[16]. Peruvian Antiquities, Tschudi, p. 59.
[17]. Peruvian Antiquities, Tschudi, p. 60. Compare III. Nephi, chap. viii.
[18]. I say the year A. D. 32, or 33, for the reason that we do not know how long the reign of Manco-Capac III—who is represented in the foregoing quotation as reigning "at the time of the birth of Christ"—continued after the birth of Messiah; not long evidently; but sufficiently long to make up the difference between A. D. 32 and the time of Messiah's death. Baldwin also refers to the same event, Ancient America, p. 266.
[19]. Born in France, 1814. Died at Nice, 1874. A French clergyman, ethnologist and author. He was teacher and priest in Canada and the United States 1845-48. From 1854-1863 he traveled extensively in Mexico and Central America studying Indian antiquities and ancient manuscripts.
[20]. Native Races, Vol. V., pp. 127, 129.
[21]. Ancient America, pp. 176, 177.
[22]. Pre-Historic America, pp. 16, 17.
[23]. Pre-Historic America, p. 527.
[24]. Native Races, Vol. III., p. 110.
[25]. Conquest of Mexico, Vol. I., pp. 105, 106.
CHAPTER XXXI
INDIRECT EXTERNAL EVIDENCES—AMERICAN TRADITIONS. (Continued.)
I.
Messiah in the Western Hemisphere.
The appearance of Messiah in the western hemisphere, no less than the signs of his birth and death, is a circumstance that would undoubtedly find lodgment in the tradition of the native Americans. The manner of it, as described in the Book of Mormon, was as follows: It appears that a short time after the cataclysms which were the sign to the western world of Messiah's death, a number of people in the land Bountiful—a district of country in South America where the isthmus of Panama joins the south continent, and most likely including some part of that isthmus—were in the vicinity of a temple that had escaped destruction, and were conversing upon the many physical changes which had taken place in the land, and also of this same Jesus, of whose death they had received such appalling evidences, when—but let me quote the account of the event from the Book of Mormon:
And it came to pass that while they were conversing one with another, they heard a voice as it came out of heaven; and they cast their eyes round about, for they understood not the voice which they heard; and it was not a harsh voice, neither was it a loud voice; and notwithstanding it being a small voice, it did pierce them that did hear to the centre, insomuch that there was no part of their frame that it did not cause to quake; yea, it did pierce them to the very soul and did cause their hearts to burn. And it came to pass that again they heard the voice, and they understood it not; and again the third time they did hear the voice, and did open their ears to hear it; and their eyes were towards the sound thereof; and they did look steadfastly towards heaven, from whence the sound came; and behold the third time they did understand the voice which they heard; and it said unto them, "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 Christ, whom the prophets testified should come into the world; and behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and 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 the 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 shew himself unto them after his ascension into heaven.[[1]]
The task before us now is to ascertain if there is anything in the native American traditions which sustain the probability of this historical incident. Of course the reader must not be surprised if he finds the native traditions on such a subject very much confused. All such traditions, as I have before remarked, are so confused. Besides it must be remembered that there were several great characters among the inhabitants of the western world, according to the Book of Mormon, who would likely be confounded with Messiah in the native traditions; such as Moriancumr and Coriantumr among the Jaredites, the first and the last great leaders, respectively, of that ancient people. Then there is the first Nephi, Mulek, the first Mosiah, and several of the Lord's apostles chosen from among the Nephites that are likely to be confounded with Messiah and their mission with his ministry among the people. But notwithstanding this confusion, I think evidences of this advent of Messiah in the western world are traceable in the native traditions; and I should be much disappointed if I had found it otherwise, for of all incidents in Book of Mormon history, the advent of Messiah is the most important.
II.
Of the Culture-Heroes of America.
Speaking of American "culture-heroes" in general, Bancroft says:
Although bearing various names and appearing in different countries, the American culture-heroes all present the same general characteristics. They are all described as white, bearded men, generally clad in long robes; appearing suddenly and mysteriously upon the scene of their labors, they at once set about improving the people by instructing them in useful and ornamental arts, giving them laws, exhorting them to practice brotherly love and other Christian virtues, and introducing a milder and better form of religion; having accomplished their mission, they disappear as mysteriously and unexpectedly as they came; and finally, they are apotheosized and held in great reverence by a grateful posterity. In such guise or on such mission did Quetzalcohuatl appear in Cholula, Votan in Chiapas, Wixepecocha in Ojaca, Zamna, and Cukulcan with his nineteen disciples, in Yucatan, Gucumatz in Guatemala, Viracocha in Peru, Sume and Paye-Tome in Brazil, the mysterious apostle mentioned by Rosales, in Chili, and Bochica in Colombia. Peruvian legends speak of a nation of giants who came by sea, waged war with the natives, and erected splendid edifices, the ruins of many of which still remain. Besides these, there are numerous vague traditions of settlements or nations of white men, who lived apart from the other people of the country, and were possessed of an advanced civilization.[[2]]
I suggest, in passing, that the part of the tradition which relates to the existence "of settlements or nations of white men who lived apart from the other people of the country, and were possessed of an advanced civilization," refers to those conditions that prevailed when the Nephites and Lamanites occupied the land; the former an industrious, civilized race, the latter an idle, savage race, conditions frequently referred to in the Book of Mormon, in describing the status of the Nephites and Lamanites, respectively.
Observe also that Bancroft, in the foregoing statement, says of some of the characters that, having accomplished their mission, they mysteriously disappeared. There are several such characters spoken of in the Book of Mormon. Such was the case with the second Alma, a noted Nephite character of the first half of the century immediately preceding the advent of Messiah. He was the first president or "judge" of the Nephite republic, also high priest of the Church, uniting in his person the two offices—a thing not unusual among the Nephites,[[3]] nor among the native Americans, if their annals may be trusted.[[4]] After completing his life's mission, and making a remarkable prediction concerning the destruction of the Nephite people, Alma departed out of the land, "and it came to pass that he was never heard of more; as to his death or burial we know not of. Behold, this we know, that he was a righteous man; and the saying went abroad in the church that he was taken by the Spirit, or buried by the hand of the Lord."[[5]] In a similar manner, Nephi, the father of Nephi, the apostle, a very noted Nephite leader and prophet, departed out of the land in the same mysterious manner.[[6]]
The quotation just made from Bancroft on the culture-heroes of America represents them as quite numerous; we shall see, however, as we proceed, that a number of them are the same person remembered in different countries under different names and titles, and that in the character and mission of each there is much similarity. Because of this similarity, however, it must not be supposed that it is my intention to claim each of these "culture heroes" as a more or less tradition-distorted representation of Messiah; and the life and mission of the culture-hero a distorted account of Messiah's advent and mission among the Nephites. Quite to the contrary, I believe that the traditions concerning some of these "culture-heroes" more nearly represent other Book of Mormon characters than they do Messiah. Such, for instance, is Votan, the supposed founder of the Maya confederation. Some things in his character and career make him more nearly resemble Moriancumr, the leader of the Jaredite colony, than Messiah. Bancroft, in one summary of the legends respecting him, says:
Votan, another mysterious personage, closely resembling Quetzalcohuatl in many points, was the supposed founder of the Maya civilization. He is said to have been a descendant of Noah and to have assisted at the building of the Tower of Babel. After the confusion of tongues he led a portion of the dispersed people to America. There he established the kingdom of Xibalba and built the city of Palenque.[[7]]
Then again, in some respects, Votan resembles the first Nephi. He is said to have come to America one thousand years B. C.;[[8]] Nephi came early in the sixth century B. C.; Votan brought with him seven families; the Nephite colony, as nearly as may be estimated, on reaching America, consisted of eight families.[[9]] Votan came to America by divine commandment; so, too, did the Nephite colony.[[10]] Votan wrote a book, in which he inscribed a complete record of all he had done;[[11]] so, also, did Nephi.[[12]] Votan united in his person the qualities of high priest and king; so, also, did Nephi.
After saying all this, however, it has to be admitted that there are some things in the legends concerning Votan which do not run parallel with the career of Nephi. Such, for instance, as his alleged visit to Spain, Rome, Jerusalem, where, in the latter place, he saw the temple of Solomon building; also his visit to the Euphrates valley, where he saw the unfinished Tower of Babel. The part of his story which describes his finding in America a colony of the same race as his own people, reminds one of the first Mosiah, who found the people of Zarahemla, in the valley of the Sidon. It will be remembered that these people came from Jerusalem, were Jews, and are known as the colony of Mulek. These varied legends concerning Votan resembling in the respects here pointed out the several Book of Mormon characters, lead one to regard as reasonable the supposition advanced by nearly all writers who speak of him, that Votan is a generic name; and that the legends which center about this name represent the exploits of several of America's culture-heroes,[[13]] and, as I believe, of several Book of Mormon characters.
III.
The Peruvian Tradition of the Messiah.
The natives of Chili have the following tradition concerning one of their culture-heroes, which closely resembles Messiah as he was revealed to the Nephites:
Rosales, in his inedited (i. e. unpublished) History of Chili, declares that the inhabitants of that extremely southern portion of America, situated at the distance of so many thousand miles from New Spain, and who did not employ paintings to record events, accounted for their knowledge of some of the doctrines of Christianity by saying, "that in former times, as they had heard their fathers say, a wonderful man had come to that country, wearing a long beard, with shoes, and a mantle such as the Indians carry on their shoulders, who performed many miracles, cured the sick with water, caused it to rain, and their crops and grain to grow, kindled fire at a breath, and wrought other marvels, healing at once the sick, and giving sight to the blind; and that he spoke with as much propriety and elegance in the language of their country as if he had always resided in it, addressing them in words very sweet and new to them, telling them that the Creator of the universe resided in the highest place of heaven, and that many men and women who were resplendent as the sun dwelt with him. They say that he shortly afterwards went to Peru, and that many, in imitation of the habit and shoes which that man used, introduced among themselves the fashion of wearing shoes, and the loose mantle over the shoulders, either fastened with a clasp at the breast, or knotted at the corners, whence it may be inferred that this man was some apostle whose name they do not know."[[14]]
The points of comparison between the character referred to in the foregoing quotation and the Messiah in his ministry among the Nephites, are:
First: In personal appearance, if due allowance be made for the imperfect description in the legend.
Second: In the character of the work performed, especially in the matter of healing of the sick. While in their midst Jesus is represented as saying to the Nephites:
Have ye any that are sick among you, bring them hither. Have ye any that are lame, or blind, or halt, or maimed, or leprous, or that are withered, or that are deaf, or that are afflicted in any manner? Bring them hither and I will heal them, for I have compassion upon you; my bowels are filled with mercy; for I perceive that ye desire that I shew unto you what I have done unto your brethren at Jerusalem, for I see that your faith is sufficient that I should heal you. And it came to pass that when he had thus spoken, all the multitude, with one accord, did go forth with their sick, and their afflicted, and their lame, and with their blind, and with their dumb, and with all them that were afflicted in any manner; and he did heal them every one as they were brought forth unto him.[[15]]
Third: In relation to the graciousness of his language, the third Nephi represents the Savior as praying for the Nephites in this manner:
And the things which he prayed cannot be written, and the multitude did bear record who heard him. And after this manner did they bear record: "The eye hath never seen, neither hath the ear heard before, so great and marvelous things as we saw and heard Jesus speak unto the Father, and no tongue can speak, neither can there be written by any man, neither can the heart of man conceive so great and marvelous things as we both saw and heard Jesus speak; and no one can conceive of the joy which filled our souls at the time we heard him pray for us unto the Father."[[16]]
Fourth: Relative to teaching the people, that many men and women were resplendent in their glory and were already dwelling with God, the Book of Mormon mentions the circumstance of Jesus taking very great pains to have recorded in the Nephite annals the fact that many of the ancient Saints arose from the dead and appeared unto many and ministered unto them;[[17]] and from the whole tenor of his instructions to the Nephites, as found in III. Nephi, it is clear that there was ever present in his thought the fact of redeemed and glorified immortals dwelling with God in his kingdom.
Fifth: The reference in the quotation to the departure of the man-God for another land is paralleled in the Book of Mormon account of Jesus, where he is represented as declaring the existence of the lost tribes of the house of Israel, and the declaration of his intention to visit them. "Now," said he, "I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them."[[18]]
IV.
Topilitzen Quetzalcohuatl.
This personage appears under different names in the native traditions of various countries of America. In the Popol Vuh of the Quiches he is known under the title of Gucumatz;[[19]] in Yucatan he appears under the name of Cukulcan;[[20]] in Oajaca (despite some difficulties and contradictions) as Huemac; and in Mexico, par excellence, as Toplitzin Quetzalcohuatl. Respecting this character, various opinions are held. By some he is regarded as the Apostle St. Thomas, whom they credit with coming to America and preaching the Christian religion. "In support of their opinion," says Bancroft, "that he [Quetzalcohuatl] was no other than the apostle, they allege that the hero-god's proper name, Topilitzen Quetzalcohuatl, closely resembles in sound and signification that of 'Thomas, surnamed Didymus;' for 'to' in the Mexican name, is an abbreviation of Thomas, to which 'pilcin,' meaning 'son' or 'disciple,' is added; while the meaning of Quetzalcohuatl (in the Aztec language) is exactly the same as that of the Greek name 'Didymus,' 'a twin,' being compounded of 'quetzalli,' a 'plume of green feathers,' metaphorically signifying anything precious, and 'coatl,' a serpent, metaphorically meaning one of two twins."[[21]]
Lord Kingsborough, it is well known, is the foremost among those who have identified this traditionary personage (Quetzalcohuatl) with the Hebrew Messiah—Jesus of Nazareth; and to this subject he devoted an incredible amount of labor and research.[[22]] As Kingsborough's interpretation of the name, Topilitzin Quetzalcohuatl, as also the substance of his argument will appear in quotations from his works, it is not necessary to make a statement of them here. Let it suffice, at this point, to say that native American traditions assign too many of the qualities of Deity to Quetzalcohuatl to regard him merely as a man; and while many things are ascribed to him that are not in harmony with the character and mission of Messiah as set forth in the Book of Mormon, still one may trace the outlines of Messiah's advent and labors among the Nephites in the career of Quetzalcohuatl, as also the qualities of his divinity in what tradition ascribes to the Aztec deity. As for those adventures and human qualities found in Quetzalcohuatl not properly ascribable to Messiah, they arise, doubtless, out of the fact that the native traditions have confounded some of the exploits and characteristics of other great personages who have figured in their history with those of Messiah.
In order that the reader may have a fairly full account of what is said of this American man-divinity, I shall quote what several reliable authorities have said of him, beginning with Prescott:
A far more interesting personage in their [i. e. the Mexicans] mythology was Quetzalcohuatl, god of the air, a divinity, during his residence on earth, instructed the natives in the use of metals, in agriculture, and in the arts of government. He was one of those benefactors of their species, doubtless, who have been deified by gratitude of posterity. Under him, the earth teemed with fruits and flowers, without the pains of culture. An ear of Indian corn was as much as a single man could carry. The cotton, as it grew took of its own accord, the rich dyes of human art. The air was filled with intoxicating perfumes and the sweet melody of birds. In short, these were the halcyon days, which find a place in the mythic systems of so many nations in the Old World. It was the golden age of Anahuac. From some cause, not explained, Quetzalcohuatl, incurred the wrath of one of the principal gods, and was compelled to abandon the country. On his way, he stopped at the city of Cholula, where a temple was dedicated to his worship, the massy ruins of which still form one of the most interesting relics of antiquity in Mexico. When he reached the shores of the Mexican Gulf, he took leave of his followers, promising that he and his descendants would visit them hereafter, and then, entering his wizard skiff, made of serpents' skins, embarked on the great ocean for the fabled land of Tlapallan. He was said to have been tall in stature, with a white skin, long, dark hair, and a flowing beard. The Mexicans looked confidently to the return of the benevolent deity; and this remarkable tradition, deeply cherished in their hearts, prepared the way. * * * * * * for the future success of the Spaniards.[[23]]
After referring to the numerous, lengthy, intricate and even contradictory legendary statements of the American aborigines which in full may only be learned from the elaborate works of Brasseur de Bourbourg, Lord Kingsborough, and H. H. Bancroft—P. De Roo remarks:
It is the universal opinion of the learned that Quetzalcohuatl is identically the same personage with the contemporary religious and civil reformer whom various nations have deified under different names; that he is the same with Huemac or Vemac, as the Mexicans also called him; with Topilitzin, as he was more anciently known in Tulla by the Toltecs; with Wixipecocha, under whose name he was venerated by the Zapotecs; with Zamna, Cozas, or Cukulcan, the theocratic ruler of Yucatan; nay, with Bochica, the civilizer of Cundinamarca of New Granada, and with Viracocha of Peru.
In the remainder of the quotation from our author, he speaks of this one person under his various names and titles:
Quetzalcohuatl arrived at Tulla, the Toltec capital, from Panuco, a small place on the Gulf of Mexico, where he had first landed. Duran likewise relates that Topilitzin was a foreigner, but could not learn from what parts he had come. His name, given him by the natives, signified "Beautiful feathered serpent." Culkulcan, his Maya or Yucatec appellation, had exactly the same meaning. It was the name of princes and Toltec kings, and probably designates some honorable title, which, if we should make a few learned considerations, might be found to be the Great or the Glorious man of the country. * * * * * * The Indians remembered well that their god Quetzalcohuatl had not been like one of themselves. They described him as a white or pale faced man, of portly person, with broad forehead, great eyes, long black hair, and a heavy rounded beard. The Zapotecan Wixipecocha was also a white-skinned apostle, and the Toltecan Topilitzin is described as having all the same features, to which Duran adds that his beard was of a fair color and his nose rather large. He was very reserved in his manners, plain and meek with those who approached him, passing most of his time in meditation and prayer in his cell, and showing himself but seldom to the people. * * * * * * * * Very abstemious at all times, Topilitzen often observed long and rigorous fasts, practicing severe penances and even bloody self-chastisements, as is likewise stated of the homologous Quetzalcohuatl.
De las Casas testifies that Quetzalcohuatl lived a most honest and chaste life; Sahagun, that he never married nor ever was in the company of a woman, except in the act of auricular confession. While, according to traditional report, he was born of a virgin mother. Herrea states that he remained a virgin himself. The Yucatec legends also notice the celibacy of Cukulcan and his general purity of morals. * * * Quetzalcohuatl is described as having worn during life, for the sake of modesty, a garment that reached down to his feet. * * * * * For shoes, Cukulcan wore sandals, walked along bare-headed; nor is it said that his mantle was, like that of his equivalent Wexipecocha, provided with a monk's cowl for head-gear. From the Mexican traditions we learn that Quetzalcohuatl, also, wore a cloak, which Bancroft calls a blanket over all, in one place, and a long white robe, in another; adding that, according to Gormara, it was decorated with crosses. [[24]]
It would be impossible within the proposed limits of this work to quote at length what has been written of this mysterious personage of the western world; whose character and career in so many respects are like that of the Hebrew Messiah, as he appeared in the western world. From this point I can only summarize and quote briefly respecting him, leaving the reader interested in the subject to make larger research in the works cited in the margins.[[25]]
And now first as to the personal appearance of Quetzalcohuatl:
He was a white man, of portly person, broad brow, great eyes, long black hair, and large round head, or exceedingly chaste, and quiet life, and of great moderation in all things.[[26]] * * * * * * * * Quetzalcohuatl is said to be a white man (some gave him a bright, red face), with a strong formation of body, broad forehead, large eyes, black hair, and a heavy beard. He always wore a long white robe; which, according to Gomara, was decorated with crosses. (J. G. Muller quoted by Bancroft, Native Races, Vol. III., pp. 273, 274.)
In the Book of Mormon account of the advent of Messiah among the Nephites there is no description given of his features or person. This, upon first thought, may seem singular; and yet it is in strictest harmony with human conduct in the presence of such an event. Over-awed by the fact of the presence of a heavenly personage men are liable to take no note of features or color of the eyes or hair or any details of personal appearance. It is not until men are removed from the awe-inspiring circumstance itself that they begin to think of details connected with a heavenly apparition. I think it probable, therefore, that not until after the Nephite accounts were written of the personal ministrations of Jesus did those who beheld him begin to think out the details of his personal appearance; hence we have no description of him in their written annals, but we find it preserved—but perhaps with more or less of error in it—in the traditions of the people.
As to his general character while on earth the following is of importance:
This Quetzalcohuatl was god of the air, and as such had his temple, of a round shape and very magnificent. He was made god of the air for the mildness and gentleness of all his ways, not liking the sharp and harsh measures to which the other gods were so strongly inclined. It is to be said further that his life on earth was marked by intensely religious characteristics; not only was he devoted to the careful observance of all the old customary forms of worship, but he himself ordained and appointed many new rites, ceremonies, and festivals[[27]] for the adoration of the gods; [[28]] and it is held for certain that he made the calendar.[[29]] He had priests who were called Quequetzalcohua, that is to say "priests of the order of Quetzalcohuatl."[[30]] The memory of him was engraved deeply upon the minds of the people, and it is said that when barren women prayed and made sacrifices to him, children were given them.[[31]] He was, as we have said, god of the winds, and the power of causing them to blow was attributed to him as well as the power of calming or causing their fury to cease. It was said further that he swept the road, so that the gods called Tlaloques could rain; this the people imagined because ordinarily a month or more before the rains began there blew strong winds throughout all New Spain. Quetzalcohuatl is described as having worn during life, for the sake of modesty, garments that reached down to the feet, with a blanket over all, sown with red crosses. The Cholulans preserved certain green stones that had belonged to him, regarding them with great veneration and esteeming them as relics. * * * * * * He also arranged the calendar, and taught his subjects fit religious ceremonies; preaching specially against human sacrifices, and ordering offerings of fruits and flowers only. He would have nothing to do with the wars, even covering his ears when the subject was mentioned. His was a veritable golden age, as in the time of Saturn; animals and even men lived in peace, the soil produced the richest harvests without cultivation, and the grain grew so large that a man found it trouble enough to carry one ear; no cotton was dyed, as it grew of all colors, and fruits of all kinds abounded. Everybody was rich and Quetzalcohuatl owned whole palaces of gold, silver and precious stones. The air was filled with the most pleasant aromas, and a host of finely feathered birds filled the world with melody.[[32]]
So, too, the following:
Only Quetzalcohuatl among all the gods was pre-eminently called Lord; in such sort, that when any one swore, saying, By our Lord, he meant Quetzalcohuatl and no other; though there were many other highly esteemed gods. For indeed the service of this god was gentle, neither did he demand hard things, but light; and he taught only virtue, abhorring all evil and hurt. Twenty years this good deity remained in Cholula, then he passed away by the road he had come, carrying with him four of the principal and most virtuous youths of that city. He journeyed for a hundred and fifty leagues, till he came to the sea, in a distant province called Goatzacoalco. Here he took leave of his companions and sent them back to their city, instructing them to tell their fellow citizens that a day should come in which the white men would land upon their coasts, by the way of the sea in which the sun rises; brethren of his and having beards like his; and that they should rule that land.[[33]] The Mexicans always waited for the accomplishment of this prophecy, and when the Spaniards came they took them for the descendants of their meek and gentle prophet, although, as Mendieta remarks with some sarcasm, when they came to know them and to experience their works, they thought otherwise.[[34]]
Relative to Quetzalcohuatl in his capacity of Deity I shall quote the following passage from Lord Kingsborough's great work as representing the sum of his extensive research upon the subject and its elaborate presentation:
How truly surprising it is to find the Mexicans, who seem to have been quite unacquainted with the doctrines of the migration of the soul and the metempsychosis, should have believed in the incarnation of the only son of their supreme god Tonacatecutle. For Mexican mythology speaking of no other son of that God except Quetzalcohuatl, who was born of Chimalman, the virgin of Tula, without connection with man, and by his breath alone, (by which may be signified his word or his will, announced to Chimalman by word of mouth of the celestial messenger, whom he dispatched to inform her that she should conceive a son), it must be presumed that Quetzalcohuatl was his only son.[[35]] Other arguments might be adduced to show, that the Mexicans believed that Quetzalcohuatl was both god and man, that he had previously to his incarnation, existed from all eternity,[[36]] that he had created both the world and man,[[37]] that he descended from heaven to reform the world by penance, that he was born with the perfect use of reason, that he preached a new law, and, being king of Tula, was crucified for the sins of mankind, as is obscurely insinuated by the interpreter of the Vatican Codex, plainly declared in the traditions of Yucatan, and mysteriously represented in the Mexican paintings.[[38]]
It would be a useless repetition of facts already stated in the preceding pages of the present volume, to undertake separately to prove all these points; and we shall confine ourselves in this place to the three first very important articles. The reflection must have suggested itself to those who have perused the New Testament, that Christ is as frequently distinguished there by the appellation of the "Son of Man," as by that of the "Son of God," in reference no doubt to his humanity, and to the famous prophecy contained in the ninth verse of the ninth chapter of Isaiah: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:" which Christians, on the authority of many passages in the four Gospels, apply to Christ, although the Jews some times interpret it of the Messiah, and some times of King Hezekiah. The Mexicans bestowed the appellation of Topilitzin on Quetzalcohuatl, the literal signification of which is "our son," or "our child," the proper name being compounded of "to," "our," and "piltzin," defined by Alonso de Molina in his rare and copious vocabulary of the Mexican and Spanish languages to be mino o nina, "a boy or a girl," and associated by him with the cognate terms of "piltontli" and "pilzintia;" and it may not be unreasonably assumed, since analogies, which are numerous and not isolated, as their number increases, increase also their ratio of probability, not only that the Mexicans were acquainted with Isaiah's famous prophecy, but to mark their belief of the accomplishment of that prophecy, in the person of Quetzalcohuatl, that they named him Topiltzin; no less account of his having been born from a virgin of the daughters of men, then because another equally celebrated prediction of the same prophet declared that he should receive a name from that very circumstance: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." And the proper name Topilitzin does in fact bear a signification corresponding, if not literally, yet entirely in substance with that of Immanuel: since "God with us," which is the interpretation of the Hebrew name, means God domiciliated amongst men; and the full force of the expression is preserved in the term Topilitzin, which might be interpreted the Son of Man, or God on a level with men; for the Mexicans believed that Quetzalcohuatl took human nature upon him, partaking of all infirmities of man, and was not exempt from sorrow, pain, or death, and that he suffered voluntarily to atone for the sins of mankind.[[39]]
As already remarked, there is much attributed to this Deity of native American tradition that seems incompatible with the character of Messiah, and with his labors while in the western hemisphere; but for all that one may see in outline here the leading truths respecting the Son of God as made known to the Nephites through prophecies and the Christ's advent among them, all of which is set forth in the Book of Mormon; while that which is not congruous to Messiah and his mission to the Nephites, results—as already pointed out—from the confusion of a number of traditions concerning several other great characters who have figured in native American history, and of whom the Book of Mormon speaks. But, in the foregoing excerpts from the works of those skilled in the lore of ancient America, we have the account of "The great or the glorious Man of the country,"[[40]] that can be no other than the Hebrew Messiah—the Jesus Christ of the Book of Mormon. There are the signs of his birth: the signs of his death; his sudden advent among the people; his personal appearance—not incompatible with the personal appearance of Messiah, but rather in harmony with it; his birth of a virgin; his being the only son of God; his name signifying "God with man;" his being the creator of heaven and earth; his crucifixion for the sins of the world; his being peculiarly "the Lord" to whom men prayed; his love of peace, his hatred of war; his respect for existing religion, yet his enlargement of it and the addition of religious rites and ceremonies; his teaching the people perfectly in their own tongue, yet also in new and honied words; his compassion for the sick, and healing them; his choosing special disciples to teach his religion and making them priests of the same order as himself; the beauty and gentleness of his religion that stands in such marked contrast to the subsequent harsh and sanguinary superstition that darkened the lives of the natives; his instructions as to historical records; his taking with him on his departure from the country four of the principal and most virtuous youths of the city of Cholula to the sea where he separated from them and sent back messages to his followers by them, promising to return;[[41]] his prediction of other and white races to come and occupy the western world and rule it; his mysterious departure from the land, and his promise to return. All this, which so perfectly agrees both with the character and ministry of Messiah among the Nephites, as described in the Book of Mormon, is set forth in such clearness that it cannot be discredited because of some evident fantasies and incongruities in other parts of the traditions.
Footnotes
[1]. III. Nephi xi: 3-12.
[2]. Native Races, Bancroft, Vol. V., pp. 23, 24.
[3]. Such was the case with I Nephi and also Mosiah II. (Omni v: 12-22). Also King Benjamin, (Mosiah i: 2). In fact all the Nephite kings seem to have performed priestly functions; while under the Republic Alma was made president of the state and high priest of the Church, (Mosiah xxix: 42), and in the fifty-third year of the Republic Nephi, the son of Helaman, was, for a time, both president of the Republic and high priest of the Church. (Helaman iii: 37 and chapter iv.)
[4]. The Mexicans believed that Quetzalcohuatl united in his own person the character of king, priest and prophet. (Kingsborough, Vol. VI., p. 213). Prescott speaking of Montezuma says: "He had been elected to the regal dignity in preference to his brothers for his several qualification both as a ruler and a priest, a combination of offices sometimes found in the Mexican candidates, as it was, more frequently, in the Egyptian." (Conquest of Mexico, Vol. I., p. 215). The same author speaking of the Incas of Peru says: "As the representative of the sun he stood at the head of the priesthood and presided at the most important of the religious festivals." (Conquest of Peru, Vol. I., p. 41). In a note on this passage Mr. Prescott takes exception to what he calls the "sweeping assertion" of Carli to the effect that the royal and sacerdotal authority were blended together in Peru; yet in another passage Prescott himself compares the ancient Peruvian government with that of the Jews and says: "The Inca was both the law giver and the law. He was not merely the representative of divinity, or like the pope, its vicegerant, but he was divinity itself." (Conquest of Peru, Vol. I., p. 135). Tschudi emphatically states the union of king and priest in the Incas as follows: "Moreover, the monarchs of Peru, as children of the sun, and descendants, in a direct line, from Manco-Capac, were the high priests and oracles in religious matters. Thus uniting the legislative and executive power, the supreme command in war, absolute sovereignity in peace, and a venerated high priesthood in religious feasts, they exercised the highest power ever known to man—realized in their persons the famous union of the pope and the emperor, and more reasonably than Louis XIV., might have exclaimed: "I am the state!" (Peruvian Antiquities, Tschudi, pp. 74, 75).
[5]. Alma xlv: 18, 19.
[6]. III. Nephi i: 1-3.
[7]. Native Races, Vol. V., pp. 27, 28. Our author here follows Claviergo.
[8]. The chronology of legends, or even traditions, is very uncertain; and the variation of a few hundred years or so is not serious. The main point in the above case is that Votan came to America some hundreds of years B. C.
[9]. Of Lehi's family there were himself and wife, and four sons. Zoram, the servant of Laban; he married one of the daughters of Ishmael. Of Ishmael's family there was himself and wife, two married sons and five daughters. If, as it is supposed, the four sons of Lehi married the four daughters of Ishmael then there were nine families that formed the colony. Ishmael, however, died during the colony's wanderings in Arabia, and hence there were eight families that reached America in the Nephite colony. (For above facts see I. Nephi ii, vi, vii, xvi: 34).
[10]. I. Nephi ii.
[11]. Bancroft, Native Races, Vol. V., p. 166.
[12]. I. Nephi i, and I. Nephi ii.
[13]. Those who would have further information concerning Votan are referred to Bancroft's Native Races, Vol. III., pp. 450, 455. Also Vol. V., pp. 159, 160. Also to Donnelley's Atlantis, chapter iv, and the past notes in these several works.
[14]. Mexican Antiquities, Kingsborough, Vol. VI., p. 419.
[15]. III. Nephi xvii: 7, 9.
[16]. III. Nephi xvii: 15-17.
[17]. III. Nephi xxiii.
[18]. III. Nephi xvii: 4, see also chapter xvi: 1-3.
[19]. Bancroft, Native Races, Vol. V., p. 621.
[20]. Bancroft, Native Races, Vol. III., pp. 135, 260, 451
[21]. Bancroft, Native Races, Vol. V., p. 25
[22]. Those who desire to follow the researches of the noble author on this point can do so by consulting Vol. VIII. of his elaborate work, pp. 5-51; also his explanations of plates 3, 10, 41 of the Vatican Codex with accompanying notes, Vol. VI. This is by no means all that his lordship writes upon the subject, but from these passages one may learn the substance of his theory, and the argument by which he sustains it.
[23]. Conquest of Mexico, Prescott, Vol. I., p. 64.
[24]. History of America Before Columbus, P. De Roo, Vol. I., pp. 540-544.
[25]. Perhaps the fullest and most accessible work on the subject is Bancroft's Native Races, Vol. III., pp. 248, 287; and P. De Roo's America Before Columbus, Vol. I., chapters xxii, xxiii.
[26]. Native Races, Bancroft, Vol. III., p. 250.
[27]. See II. Nephi xv: 2, 10.
[28]. See III. Nephi xi: 21, 28, also III. Nephi xviii: 1, 25. Compare these several passages from Nephi with the statement in the text.
[29]. This may simply be the traditional remembrance of the fact that the sign of the birth of Jesus was made an epoch from which the Nephites thenceforward reckoned their time. See III. Nephi ii: 4-8.
[30]. "Priests after the order of Quetzalcohuatl." The Book of Mormon teaches that the Nephites had the high Melchizedek priesthood among them. That is to say, the priesthood of their high priests was after the same order of priesthood as that held by the son of God. Hence we have Alma saying: "I am called to speak after this manner [he was preaching obedience to the people] according to the holy order of God, which is in Christ Jesus. * * * * * And now I say unto you that this is the order after which I am called, yea to preach unto my beloved brethren." (Alma v: 44, 49). "I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people." (Alma xii: 1). The whole chapter deals with this subject of the priesthood, and should be considered as part of the reference. Jesus when instructing the twelve he had chosen from among the Nephites, said to them: "Ye shall be judges of this people according to the judgement which I shall give unto you, which shall be just; therefore what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am." (III. Nephi xxvii: 27). It is fairly clear, that Jesus appointed priests after his own order even as the traditions of the Mexicans teach that their deity Quetzalcohuatl appointed priests after his own order. The coincident of the tradition and the Nephite record is remarkable, and affords an item of incidental evidence of considerable importance.
[31]. Compare this statement with the following passage: "Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, ye must watch and pray always, lest ye enter into temptation. * * * * * Therefore ye must always pray unto the Father in my name; and whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you. Pray in your families unto the Father, always in my name, that your wives and your children may be blessed." (III. Nephi xviii: 12, 21).
[32]. Native Races, Bancroft, Vol. III., pp. 259, 260, 274. For a description of the Nephite "golden age," whence comes this "golden age" of the tradition, see III. Nephi, chapter xxiv, xxviii.
[33]. With this statement compare III. Nephi xvi: 6, 16; also III. Nephi xx: 14, 20, 27, 28; also III. Nephi xxi: 12, 25. Where the Savior predicts the coming of the Gentiles to the promised land, and their privileges and responsibilities respecting it.
[34]. Bancroft, Native Races, Vol. III., p. 251.
[35]. Compare I. Nephi xi: 12-21; I. Nephi x: 4-6. Also I. Nephi xi: 21; Ether iii: 6-16.
[36]. Mosiah iii: 4, 5.
[37]. Helaman xiv: 12; Ether iii: 14-16.
[38]. III Nephi xi: 6-12.
[39]. Kingsborough's Mexican Antiquities, Vol. VI., p. 507.
[40]. The happy suggestion of title is De Roo's Ante, p. 298.
[41]. Readers of the Book of Mormon will find in this circumstance a resemblance to the fact of Jesus granting to three of the twelve disciples chosen from among the Nephites the privilege of remaining on earth without tasting death until he should return in glory. And when it is remembered that in granting this request to the three Nephites Jesus coupled the name of John, the beloved disciple, in Judea, to whom had been granted the same privilege (St. John xxi), sufficient ground work was laid for the tradition of the "four" "most virtuous youths" who were given a special mission by Quetzalcohuatl to his followers. The incident concerning the three Nephite disciples and the mention of John in connection with them will be found in III. Nephi xxviii.
CHAPTER XXXII
EXTERNAL EVIDENCES—THE HEBREW ORIGIN OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN RACES—HEBREW RELICS.
I next call attention to the evidences of the Hebrew origin of the native Americans, which origin, of course, if established beyond reasonable doubt, will be one more item of evidence—one, too, of very great weight in the volume of cumulative evidence here being compiled, since the Hebrew origin of the native American races is fundamental as testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon. The Hebrew origin of those races in our book is so unequivocally stated and so emphasized that if the said American races could be proven beyond doubt to be of other than Hebrew origin, the claims of the Book of Mormon would be shattered.
The chief sources of information on this subject are the writings of Gregoria Garcia, Edward King (Lord Kingsborough), and James Adair. The first is a Spanish Dominican author, born about 1560; he died 1627. He spent some twelve years in Central American countries as a missionary among the natives, during which time he gathered his materials for his chiefest work, "Origin de los Indios." While contending for the theory that the Indians are descendants of the Ten Tribes, Garcia collected evidences on both sides of the question, though both his evidences and arguments tend to prove the theory of Hebrew origin.
Lord Kingsborough was born in 1795, and died at Dublin in 1837. His "Antiquities of Mexico," ten volumes, imperial folio, were published in London between 1830-48, consequently, since he died in 1837, some of the volumes were issued after his death. His theory is that the Indians are descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel, and to the establishment of this view he bends all his energies. He is open to the charge of being over zealous for his theory, and doubtless has been somewhat extravagant in his assumptions of proofs—in matters of detail, at least; but, after all proper discount is made for the over-zeal of an enthusiast—fanatic, if you will,—there remains a body of evidence in his works for the Hebrew origin of native American races which has never been successfully disposed of by those who dispute his theory. Even Bancroft, who holds his theory in contempt, is forced to admit that his "enthusiasm is never offensive," and further says of him, "There is a scholarly dignity about his work which has never been attained by those who have jeered and railed at him."[[1]]
Adair's work, "History of the North American Indians," is included in the eighth volume of Kingsborough's works. James Adair was an English trader among the North American Indians from 1735 to 1775—forty years. It was in 1775 that his work was published. His observations were confined to the North American Indians; hence these three authors may be said to cover the entire field of our investigation. I shall give extracts from all these writers, making use of Bancroft's abridgment of their works as being at once accurate and most accessible to the reader.
I.
Garcia.
I begin with Garcia:
The opinion that the Americans are of Hebrew origin is supported by similarities in character, dress, religion, physical peculiarities, condition, and customs. The Americans are at heart cowardly, and so are the Jews; the history of both nations proves this. The Jews did not believe in the miracles of Christ, and for their unbelief were scattered over the face of the earth, and despised of all men; in like manner the people of the New World did not readily receive the true faith as preached by Christ's Catholic disciples, and are therefore persecuted and being rapidly exterminated. Another analogy presents itself in the ingratitude of the Jews for the many blessings and special favors bestowed on them by God. * * * * * * Both Jews and Americans are noted for their want of charity and kindness to the poor, sick and unfortunate; both are naturally given to idolatry; many customs are common to both such as raising the hands to heaven when making a solemn affirmation, calling all near relatives brothers, showing great respect and humility before superiors, burying their dead on hills and high places without the city, tearing their clothing on the reception of bad tidings, giving a kiss on the cheek as a token of peace, celebrating a victory with songs and dances, casting out of the place of worship women who are barren, drowning dogs in a well, practicing crucifixion. * * * * * * * * The dress of the Hebrew was in many points like that of the Americans. * * * * * * The Jews preferred the flesh-pots of Egypt and a life of bondage to heavenly manna and the promised land; the Americans liked a life of freedom and a diet of roots and herbs, better than the service of the Spaniards with good food. The Jews were famous for fine work in stone, as is shown by the buildings of Jerusalem, and a similar excellence in this art is seen in the American ruins. The Mexicans have a tradition of a journey undertaken at the command of a god, and continued for a long time under the direction of certain high priests, who miraculously obtained supplies for their support, this bears a striking resemblance to the Hebrew story of the wandering in the desert.[[2]] * * * * Moreover, many traces of their old laws and ceremonies are to be found among them at the present day. For instance, both Jews and Americans gave their temple into the charge of priests, burned incense, anointed the body, practiced circumcision, kept perpetual fires on their altars, forbade women to enter the temple immediately after giving birth, and husbands to sleep with their wives for seven days during the period of menstruation, prohibiting marriage or sexual intercourse between relatives within the second degree, made fornication with a slave punishable, slew the adulterer, made it unlawful for a man to dress like a woman, or a woman like a man, put away their brides if they prove to have lost their virginity, kept the ten commandments.
Answering the objection that the American Indians do not speak Hebrew, Garcia says:
But the reason for this is that the language has gradually changed, as has been the case with all tongues. Witness the Hebrew spoken by the Jews at the present time, which is much corrupted and very different from what is originally was. There do actually exist, besides, many Hebraic traces in the American languages.[[3]]
II.
Lord Kingsborough's Views.
The main items of Lord Kingsborough's evidences and arguments are thus summarized by Bancroft:
The religion of the Mexicans strongly resembled that of the Jews, in many minor details, as will be presently seen, and the two were practically alike, to a certain extent in their very foundation; for, as the Jews acknowledged a multitude of angels, arch-angels, principalities, thrones, dominions, and powers, as the subordinate personages of their hierarchy, so did the Mexicans acknowledge the unity of the deity in the person of Tezcatlipoca, and at the same time worship a great number of other imaginary beings. Both believed in a plurality of devils subordinate to one head, who was called by the Mexicans Mictlantecutli, and by the Jews Satan. * * * * * * It is probable that the Toltecs were acquainted with the sin of the first man committed at the suggestion of the woman, herself deceived by the serpent, who tempted her with the fruit of the forbidden tree, who was the origin of all our calamities, and by whom death came into the world. We have seen in this chapter that Kingsborough supposes the Messiah and his story to have been familiar to the Mexicans. There is reason to believe that the Mexicans, like the Jews, offered meat and drink offerings to stones. There are striking similarities between the Babel, flood, and creation myths of the Hebrews and the Americans. Both Jews and Mexicans were fond of appealing in their adjurations to the heaven and the earth. Both were extremely superstitious, and firm believers in prodigies. * * * * It is very probable that the Sabbath of the seventh day was known in some parts of America. The Mexicans applied the blood of sacrifices to the same uses as the Jews; they poured it upon the earth, they sprinkled it, they marked persons with it, and they smeared it upon walls and other inanimate things. No one but the Jewish high priest might enter the Holy of Holies. A similar custom obtained in Peru. Both Mexicans and Jews regarded certain animals as unclean and unfit for food. Some of the Americans believed with some of the Talmudists in a plurality of souls. That man was created in the image of God was a part of the Mexican belief. It was customary among the Mexicans to eat the flesh of sacrifices of atonement. There are many points of resemblance between Tezcatlipoca and Jehovah. Ablutions formed an essential part of the ceremonial law of the Jews and Mexicans. The opinions of the Mexicans with regard to the resurrection of the body, accorded with those of the Jews. The Mexican temple, like the Jewish, faced the east. "As amongst the Jews the ark was a sort of portable temple in which the deity was supposed to be continually present, and which was accordingly borne on the shoulders of the priests as a sure refuge and defense from their enemies, so amongst the Mexicans and the Indians of Michoacan and Honduras an ark was held in the highest veneration, and was considered an object too sacred to be touched by any but the priests. * * * * * The Yucatec conception of a trinity resembles the Hebrews. It is probable that Quetzalcohuatl whose proper name signifies "feathered serpent," was so called after the brazen serpent which Moses lifted up in the wilderness, the feathers perhaps alluding to the rabbinical tradition that the fiery serpents which god sent against the Israelites were of a winged species. The Mexicans, like the Jews, saluted the four cardinal points, in their worship. There was much in connection with sacrifices that was common to Mexicans and Jews. * * * * * * In various religious rites and observances, such as circumcision, confession, and communion, there was much similarity. Salt was an article highly esteemed by the Mexicans, and the Jews always offered it in their oblations. Among the Jews, the firstling of an ass had to be redeemed with a lamb, or if unredeemed, its neck was broken. This command of Moses should be considered in reference to the custom of sacrificing children which existed in Mexico and Peru. The spectacle of a king performing a dance as an act of religion was witnessed by the Jews as well as by Mexicans. As the Israelites were conducted from Egypt by Moses and Aaron who were accompanied by their sister Miriam, so the Aztecs departed from Astlan under the guidance of Huitziton and Tecpatzin, the former of whom is named by Acosta and Herrera, Mexi, attended likewise by their sister Quilaztli, or, as she is otherwise named, Chimalman or Malinalli, both of which latter names have some resemblance to Miriam, as Mexi has to Moses. * * * * * * * It is impossible, on reading what Mexican mythology records of the war in heaven and of the fall of Tzontemoc and the other rebellious spirits; of the creation of light by the word of Tonacatecutli, and of the division of the waters; of the sin of Ytztlacoliuhqui, and his blindness and nakedness; of the temptation of Suchiquecal, and her disobedience in gathering roses from a tree, and the consequent misery and disgrace of herself and her posterity—not to recognize scriptural analogies. Other Hebrew analogies Lord Kingsborough finds in America, in the dress, insignia, and duties of priests; in innumerable superstitions concerning dreams, apparitions, eclipses, and other more common-place events; in certain festivals for rain; in burial and mourning ceremonies; in the diseases most common among the people; in certain regularly observed festivals; in the dress of certain nations; in established laws; in physical features; in architecture; in various minor observances, such as offering water to a stranger that he might wash his feet, eating dust in token of humility, anointing with oil, and so forth; in the sacrifice of prisoners; in manner and style of oratory; in the stories of giants; in respect paid to God's name; in games of chance; in marriage relations; in childbirth ceremonies; in religious ideas of all sorts; in respect paid to kings; in uses of metals; in treatment of criminals, and punishment of crimes; in charitable practices; in social customs; and in a vast number of other particulars.[[4]]
III.
Adair's Evidences.
Following is the summary of Adair's evidences and arguments:
The Israelites were divided into tribes and had chiefs over them, so the Indians divided themselves: each tribe forming a little community within the nation. And as the nation hath its particular symbol, so from nation to nation among them we shall not find one individual who doth not distinguish himself by his family name. Every town has a state house or synedrion, the same as the Jewish Sanhedrim, where almost every night the head men meet to discuss public business. The Hebrew nation were ordered to worship Jehovah the true and living God, who by the Indians is styled Yohewah. The ancient heathens, it is well known worshiped a plurality of gods: but these American Indians pay their religious devoir to Loak Ishtohoollo Aba, The Great Beneficent Supreme Holy Spirit of Fire. They do not pay the least perceptible adoration to images. Their ceremonies in their religious worship accord more nearly with the Mosaic institutions, which could not be if they were of heathen descent. * * * * * Their opinion that God chose them out of all the rest of mankind as his peculiar and beloved people, fills both the white Jew and the red American, with that steady hatred against all the world, which renders them hated and despised by all. We have abundant evidence of the Jews believing in the ministration of angels, during the Old Testament dispensation, their frequent appearances and their services on earth, are recorded in the oracles, which the Jews themselves receive as given by divine inspiration, and St. Paul in his epistle addressed to the Hebrews speaks of it as their general opinion that "angels are ministering spirits to the good and righteous on earth." The Indian sentiments and traditions are the same. They believe the higher regions to be inhabited by good spirits, relations to the Great Holy One, and that these spirits attend and favor the virtuous. The Indian language and dialects appear to have the very idiom and genius of the Hebrew. Their words and sentences are expressive, concise, emphatical, sonorous, and bold, and often both in letters and signification synonymous with the Hebrew language. They count time after the manner of the Hebrews, reckoning years by lunar months like the Israelites who counted by moons. The religious ceremonies of the Indian Americans are in conformity with those of the Jews, they having their prophets, high priest, and others of religious order. As the Jews had a sanctorum or most holy place, so have all the Indian nations. The dress also of their high priests is similar in character to that of the Hebrews. The festivals, feasts, and religious rites of the Indian Americans have also great resemblance to that of the Hebrews. The Indian imitates the Israelite in his religious offerings. The Hebrews had various ablutions and anointings according to the Mosaic ritual—and all the Indian nations constantly observe similar customs from religious motives. Their frequent bathing, or dipping themselves and their children in rivers, even in the severest weather, seems to be as truly Jewish as the other rites and ceremonies which have been mentioned. The Indian laws of uncleanliness and purification, and also the abstaining from things deemed unclean are the same as those of the Hebrews. The Indian marriages, divorces and punishments of adultery, still retain a strong likeness to the Jewish laws and customs on these points. Many of the Indian punishments resemble those of the Jews. Whoever attentively views the features of the Indian, and his eye and reflects on his fickle, obstinate, and cruel disposition will naturally think of the Jews. The ceremonies performed by the Indians before going to war, such as purification and fasting, are similar to those of the Hebrew nation. The Israelites were fond of wearing beads and other ornaments, even as early as the patriarchal age and in resemblance to these customs the Indian females continually wear the same, believing it to be a preventive against many evils. The Indian manner of curing the sick is very similar to that of the Jews. Like the Hebrews, they firmly believe that diseases and wounds are occasioned by divine anger, in proportion to some violation of the old beloved speech. The Hebrews carefully buried their dead, so on any accident they gathered their bones, and laid them in tombs of their forefathers; thus all the numerous nations of Indians perform the like friendly office to every deceased person of their respective tribes. The Jewish records tell us that the women mourned for the loss of their deceased husbands, and were reckoned vile by the civil law if they married in the space of at least ten months after their death. In the same manner all the Indian widows, by an established strict penal law, mourn for the loss of their deceased husbands; and among some tribes for the space of three or four years. The surviving brother by the Mosaic law, was to raise seed to a deceased brother, who left a widow childless, to perpetuate his name and family. The American law enforces the same rule. When the Israelites gave names to their children or others they chose such appellatives as suited best their circumstances and the times. This custom is a standing rule with the Indians."[[5]]
There are writers upon the subject of American Antiquities who hold, first: that not all the foregoing points of comparison between native American races and the Hebrews are clearly established; and second: that if they were all clearly established it would not necessarily prove identity of race. This much, however, can be insisted upon by those who accept the Book of Mormon as true; namely, that since no counter theory of origin for our native American races has yet been conclusively proven, (and as matters now stand, seems impossible of being proven), and as the Book of Mormon makes bold to so definitely announce the Hebrew origin of the people whose history in outline it gives, so much in the foregoing summary of points of comparison between the American races and the Hebrews as may not be successfully contradicted stands as evidence of no mean order for the truth of our Nephite record.
The Discovery of Hebrew Relics.
In addition to these summaries of evidence on the Hebrew origin of the native American races there are several special discoveries bearing on the subject that I think should be mentioned. One is related by Ethan Smith, author of "Views of the Hebrews," a work in which he undertakes to prove that the American Indians are descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. While preparing his work for a second edition, he heard of the discovery in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, of a parchment, supposed to be of native American origin, covered with Hebrew characters. Mr. Smith went to Pittsfield to investigate the matter, and found the facts to be as follows, the information being given by the man who found the parchment:
I.
The Pittsfield Hebrew Parchment.
This [the discoverer of the parchment] was Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church of Pittsfield, and in the county, as the minister of the place informed [me]. Mr. Merrick gave the following account; that in 1815, he was leveling some ground under and near an old wood shed standing on a place of his, situated on Indian Hill, (a place in Pittsfield, so called, and lying, as the writer was afterward informed, at some distance from the middle of the town where Mr. Merrick is now [about 1825] living). He ploughed and conveyed away old chips and earth, to some depth, as the surface of the earth appeared uneven. After the work was done, walking over the place, he discovered, near where the earth had been dug the deepest, a kind of black strap, about six inches in length, and one and a half in breadth, and something thicker than a draw leather [tug] of a harness. He perceived it had at each end a loop of some hard substance, probably for the purpose of carrying it. He conveyed it into his house, and threw it in an old tool box. He afterward found it thrown out of doors, and again conveyed it to the box. He attempted to cut it open, and found it was formed of pieces of thick raw hide, sewed and made water tight with the sinews of some animal; and in the fold it contained four folded leaves of old parchment. These leaves were of a dark yellow, and contained some kind of writing. Some of the neighbors saw and examined them. One of these parchments they tore in pieces; the other three he saved, and delivered them to Mr. Sylvester Larned, a graduate then in town, who took them to Cambridge, and had them examined. They were written in Hebrew with a pen, in plain and intelligible writing. The following is an extract of a letter sent to Mr. Merrick by Mr. Larned, upon this subject:
Sir:—I have examined the parchment manuscript, which you had the goodnesss to give me. After some time and with much difficulty and assistance I have ascertained their meaning, which is as follows: (I have numbered the manuscripts.)
No. 1, is translated by Duet. vi: 4-9 verses inclusive.
No. 2, by Deut, xi: 13-21 verses inclusive.
No. 3, Exod. xiii: 11-16 verses inclusive.
I am, etc. [Signed] SYLVESTER LARNED.[[6]]
II.
The Newark Hebrew Tablet.
Another discovery of Hebrew writing—the Ten Commandments engraved on a stone tablet—was made in Ohio; and was seen by Mr. A. A. Bancroft, the father of H. H. Bancroft, author of "Native Races." The latter relates the circumstances of finding this relic as follows:
About eight miles southeast of Newark there was formerly a large mound composed of masses of free stone, which had been brought from some distance and thrown into a heap without much placing or care. In early days, stone being scarce in that region, the settlers carried away the mound piece by piece to use for building purposes, so that in a few years there was little more than a large flattened heap of rubbish remaining. Some fifteen years ago, the county surveyor (I have forgotten his name), who had for some time been searching ancient works, turned his attention to this particular pile. He employed a number of men and proceeded at once to open it. Before long he was rewarded by finding in the centre and near the surface a bed of the tough clay generally known as pipe-clay, which must have been brought from a distance of some twelve miles. Imbedded in the clay was a coffin, dug out of a burr-oak log, and in a pretty good state of preservation. In the coffin was a skeleton, with quite a number of stone ornaments and emblems, and some open brass rings, suitable for bracelets or anklets. These being removed, they dug down deeper, and soon discovered a stone dressed to an oblong shape, about eighteen inches long and twelve wide, which proved to be a casket, neatly fitted and completely water-tight, containing a slab of stone of hard and fine quality, and an inch and a half thick, eight inches long, four inches wide at one end, and tapering to three inches at the other. Upon the face of the slab was the figure of a man, apparently a priest with a long flowing beard, and a robe reaching to his feet. Over his head was a curved line of characters, and upon the edges and back of the stone closely and neatly carved letters. The slab, which I saw myself, was shown to the Episcopalian clergyman of Newark, and he pronounced the writings to be the Ten Commandments in ancient Hebrew.[[7]]
Mr. Bancroft, referring to these circumstances, says that in neither of them "is it certain or even probable that the relic existed in America before the conquest," though he gives no reason for the rather dogmatic statement. For my own part, and especially in the latter case, I see no reason to doubt the existence of these relics in America before the advent of the Spaniards. According to the Book of Mormon the ancient inhabitants of America, the Nephites, had the writings of Moses. The Ten Commandments were regarded as the summing up, the crystallization of the law of God[[8]] to the people, pending the advent of Messiah with the more perfect law of the gospel. What could be more natural than that they should multiply copies of these scriptures, or parts of them, especially such parts as related to particular promises or warnings to Israelites, as do the passages on the parchment found in Pittsfield, Massachusetts? Or such summaries of the law of Moses as the Ten Commandments constitute? That the Nephites did multiply copies of the scriptures they had in their possession (and doubtless also copies of striking passages of those scriptures) is evident from what is said upon the subject by Mormon when giving an account of the transfer of the Nephite records from one Shiblon to Helaman, the son of Helaman: "Now, behold, all those engravings which were in the possession of Helaman, were written and sent forth among the children of men throughout all the land, save it were those parts which had been commanded by Alma should not go forth."[[9]]
The part here prohibited transcription and circulation related to the oaths and constitutions of the secret societies from the record of the Jaredites;[[10]] but for the rest, there was perfect liberty to multiply copies of the scriptures, and that it was done is further evidenced from the fact that missionaries from the Nephites to the Lamanites are found to be in possession of copies of the scriptures which Lehi's colony brought with them from Jerusalem, and from which they read for the instruction of their hearers.[[11]] It is not difficult to believe, in the light of these facts, that noted personages among native Americans should have engraved on stone or parchment in Hebrew or in other characters passages of the holy scriptures; nor is it incredible that these should be buried with them—since to bury one's personal effects with him was a custom of the natives—and that afterwards the relics should be discovered as in the two instances cited. The fact of the discoveries is beyond question: the nature of them is strong incidental proof of the claims of the Book of Mormon.
Of this Newark discovery, the late Orson Pratt, who examined the engraved stone in the city of New York, and which at the time was in possession of the "Ethnological Society" of that city, makes the following very valuable and convincing statement and argument respecting the find. It should also be remembered that Elder Pratt's knowledge of the Hebrew language makes his comments all the more conclusive; while the fact that he points out in his statement that there is in this Newark Tablet none of the modern "points" and "characters" that have been introduced into the Hebrew "during the last two thousand four hundred years," proves conclusively that the Newark Tablet is an ancient, not a modern production.
Thirty years after the Book of Mormon was put in print, giving the history of the settlement of this country, one of the great mounds south of the great lakes near Newark, in Ohio, was opened. What was found in it? A great many curiosities, among which were some copper pieces, supposed to be money. After digging down many feet, and carrying off many thousand loads of stone, they at length found a coffin in the midst of a hard kind of fire clay. Underneath this they found a large stone that appeared to be hollow; something seemed to rattle inside of it. The stone was cemented together in the middle, but with some little exertion they broke it open, when another stone was found inside of it, of a different nature entirely from its covering. On the stone taken from the inside was carved the figure of a man with a priestly robe flowing from his shoulders; and over the head of this man were the Hebrew characters for "Moshe," the ancient name of Moses; while on each side of this likeness, and on different sides of the stone, above, beneath, and around about were the Ten Commandments that were received on Mount Sinai, written in the ancient Hebrew characters. Now recollect that the Book of Mormon had been in print thirty years before this discovery. And what does this discovery prove? It proves that the builders of these mounds, south of the great lakes in the great Mississippi Valley in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, New York, etc., must have understood the Hebrew characters;[[12]] and not only that, but they must also have understood the law of Moses. Otherwise how happened it that they should write on this stone the Ten Commandments almost verbatim as they are now contained in King James's translation of the Bible. It proves that the builders of these mounds were Israelites, and that their illustrious dead, buried in these mounds, had these commandments buried with them in accordance with the custom of many of the ancient nations, especially the Egyptians, who were in the habit of consigning their written sacred papyrus to their great tombs. In Egypt many of these ancient manuscripts have been exhumed and, in many instances, pretended to be translated. So the Israelites followed the customs of these Eastern nations, and buried that which they considered most sacred, namely, the Ten Commandments, thundered by the voice of the Almighty in the midst of flaming fire on Mount Sinai in the ears of all the congregation of Israel.
I have seen that sacred stone. It is not a hatched up story. I heard tell of it [the stone] as being in the Antiquarian Society, or rather, as it is now called, the Ethnological Society, in the City of New York. I went to the Secretary of that Society, and he kindly showed me this stone, of which I have been speaking, and being acquainted with modern Hebrew, I could form some kind of an estimate of the ancient Hebrew, for some of the modern Hebrew characters do not vary much in form from the ancient Hebrew. At any rate we have enough of ancient Hebrew, that has been dug up in Palestine and taken from among the ruins of the Israelites east of the Miditerranean Sea, to form some kind of an estimate of the characters, and comparing them, I could see and understand the nature of the writings upon these records. They were also taken to the most learned men of our country, who, as soon as they looked at them, were able to pronounce them to be not only ancient Hebrew, but they were also able to translate them and pronounced them to be the Ten Commandments. This, then, is external proof, independent of the Scriptural proofs to which I have alluded, in testimony of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
Now, our modern Hebrew has many points; it has also many additional characters that have been made since these colonies left Jerusalem. Do you find on these ancient writings any of these modern characters that have been introduced during the last two thousand four hundred years? Not one. Do you find any Hebrew points representing vowels? Not one; and all the new consonants that have been introduced during the last two thousand four hundred years were not found upon this stone to which I have referred, showing plainly that it must have been of very ancient date.[[13]]
In connection with his comments on this Newark Tablet Elder Pratt also makes the following statement:
"HAVE MERCY ON ME A NEPHITE."
Five years after the discovery of this remarkable memento of the ancient Israelites on the American continent, [the Newark Tablet], and thirty-five years after the Book of Mormon was in print, several other mounds in the same vicinity of Newark were opened, in several of which Hebrew characters were found. Among them was this beautiful expression, buried with one of their ancient dead, "May the Lord have mercy on me a Nephite." It was translated a little differently, viz., "Nephel." Now we well know that Nephi, who came out of Jerusalem six hundred years before Christ, was the leader of the first Jewish [Israelitish—Lehi's colony was made up of families from the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim. See Vol. I., pages 167-8.] colony across to this land, and the people, ever afterwards, were called "Nephites," after their inspired prophet and leader. The Nephites were a righteous people and had many prophets among them; and when they were burying one of their brethren in these ancient mounds, they introduced the Hebrew characters signifying "May the Lord have mercy on me, a Nephite." This is another direct evidence of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, which was brought forth and translated by inspiration some thirty-five years before this inscription was found.[[14]]
Footnotes
[1]. Native Races, Vol. V., p. 84.
[2]. But, it might be suggested, more closely resembles the story of Lehi's colony at its departure from Jerusalem and its journey to America.
[3]. Bancroft, Native Races, Vol. V., pp. 79-83.
[4]. Native Races, Vol. V., pp. 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91.
[5]. Bancroft, Native Races, Vol. V., pp. 91, 92, 93 and notes.
[6]. View of the Hebrews; or the Tribes of Israel in America, pp. 219, 220. The above account is also quoted by Josiah Priest, American Antiquities, pp. 68, 69. Also by Bancroft, Native Races, Vol. V., pp. 93, 94.
[7]. Bancroft, Native Races, Vol. V., pp. 94, 95.
[8]. See especially the teachings of the prophet Abinadi in Mosiah, chapter xii and xiii, where the Ten Commandments are expounded as the sum of the law of Moses, and its relation to the whole plan of God for the salvation of men defined.
[9]. Alma lxiii: 12. Orson Pratt in a foot note on the passage suggests: "Those innumerous copies of sacred books were undoubtedly transcribed directly from or compared with, the records on the original metallic plates."
[10]. See Alma xxxvii.
[11]. Alma xii: 12-15; xxiii: 4-5; xxxiii: 12-15.
[12]. It may be objected that this Newark Tablet with the Ten Commandments written upon it in ancient Hebrew, can be of no value as evidence for the Book of Mormon, since that book was engraved in characters called "reformed Egyptian." That is to say, it was written in Egyptian characters somewhat altered by the Nephites in the course of time—such changes take place in all written languages. But the Nephites also wrote, to a limited extent, at least (and it would most probably be in such cases as making a transcript of the Ten Commandments), in Hebrew (See Mormon ix, 32, 33). Hence the importance of the Newark Tablet as an ancient Nephite relic.
[13]. Journal of Discourses, Vol. XIII., p. 131, the discourse was delivered April 10th, 1870, Salt Lake City.
[14]. Journal of Discourses, Vol. XIII., p. 131.
CHAPTER XXXIII
OF THE DISCOVERY OF RELICS OTHER THAN HEBREW.
I.
The Cincinnati Gold Plate.
Other discoveries of ancient American records, though evidently not of Hebrew origin, should also be recorded, since they bear important testimony to the fact that the ancient Americans did engrave records on metallic plates. One of these records was found in the state of Ohio, the other in Illinois. The first is the discovery of a gold plate with raised characters engraven upon it, near Cincinnati, under the following circumstances:
Mr. Benjamin E. Styles of Cincinnati, Ohio, while excavating the earth for a cistern, in the year 1847, found, a few feet above high water mark on the Ohio river, a gold plate. It was thrown out with the loose earth while excavating about nine feet beneath the surface. Said plate is of fine gold, three or four inches in length, averaging about three-fourths of an inch in width, about one-eighth of an inch in thickness, with the edges scolloped. In the face of which was beautifully set another plate of the same material, and fastened together by two pins, running through both. This latter plate is full of ancient raised characters, beautifully engraved upon its surface; the whole exhibiting fine workmanship. The plate was examined by Dr. Wise, a very learned Rabbi of the Jewish synagogue in Cincinnati, and editor of a Hebrew paper there, who pronounced the characters to be mostly ancient Egyptian.
Such was the description of the circumstances under which the discovery was made, and of the plate itself, by Elder Parley P. Pratt, to whom Mr. Styles exhibited the plate, and related the circumstances of its discovery. Elder Pratt communicated the facts to the "Mormon," published in New York, in a letter bearing date of January 1st, 1857. [[1]] A cut of the relic was afterwards made and published by Drake and Co., of St. Louis, printers, and with it the following certificate was given:
We do hereby certify that we did print from a gold plate, the above fac-simile, handed to us by Mr. Benjamin Styles, which he said he found while digging for a cistern in Cincinnati, Ohio.
No. 1 is a frame of gold containing a thin plate, No. 2, and appears to have been executed by a very superior workman.
DRAKE AND CO., PRINTERS,
Saint Louis, Missouri.[[2]]
II.
The Kinderhook Plates.
The Illinois discovery is summarized as follows from the "Quincy Whig," a paper published in Quincy, Illinois:
SINGULAR DISCOVERY. MATERIAL FOR ANOTHER MORMON BOOK.
A young man by the name of Wiley, a resident in Kinderhook, Pike county, went by himself and labored diligently one day in pursuit of a supposed treasure, by sinking a hole in the centre of a mound. Finding it quite laborious, he invited others to assist him. A company of ten or twelve repaired to the mound and assisted in digging out the shaft commenced by Wiley. After penetrating the mound about eleven feet, they came to a bed of limestone that had been subjected to the action of fire. They removed the stones, which were small and easy to handle, to the depth of two feet more, when they found six brass plates, secured and fastened together by two iron wires, but which were so decayed that they readily crumbled to dust upon being handled. The plates were so completely covered with rust as almost to obliterate the characters inscribed upon them, but, after undergoing a chemical process, the inscriptions were brought out plain and distinct. There were six plates, four inches in length, one inch and three-quarters wide at the top and two inches and three-quarters wide at the bottom, flaring out to points. There are four lines of characters or hieroglyphics on each. On one side of the plates are parallel lines running lengthways. By whom these plates were deposited there must ever remain a secret, unless some one skilled in deciphering hieroglyphics may be found to unravel the mystery. Some pretend to say that Smith, the Mormon leader, has the ability to read them. If he has, he will confer a great favor on the public by removing the mystery which hangs over them. A person present when the plates were found remarked that it would go to prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, which it undoubtedly will. In the place where these plates were deposited were also found human bones in the last stage of decomposition. There were but a few bones found; and it is believed that it was but the burial place of a person or family of distinction in ages long gone by, and that these plates contain the history of the times, or of a people that existed far, far beyond the memory of the present race. But we will not conjecture anything about discovery, as it is one which the plates alone can reveal. The plates above alluded to were exhibited in this city last week, and are now, we understand, in Nauvoo, subject to the inspection of the Mormon Prophet. The public curiosity is greatly excited; and if Smith can decipher the hieroglyphics on the plates, he will do more towards throwing light on the early history of this continent than any man now living.[[3]]
In a communication to the "Times and Seasons" (Nauvoo, Illinois), the following testimony concerning the discovery was given:
On the 16th of April last, a respectable merchant, by the name of Robert Wiley, commenced digging in a large mound near this place: He excavated to the depth of ten feet and came to rock. About that time the rain began to fall, and he abandoned the work. On the 23rd, he and quite a number of the citizens, with myself, repaired to the mound; and after making ample opening, we found plenty of rock the most of which appeared as though it had been strongly burned; and after removing full two feet of said rock, we found plenty of charcoal and ashes; also human bones that appeared as though they had been burned; and near the encophalon a bundle was found that consisted of six plates of brass of a bell shape, each having a hole near the small end, and a ring through them all, and clasped with two clasps. The rings and clasps appeared to be iron very much oxydated. The plates appeared first to be copper, and had the appearance of being covered with characters. It was agreed by the company that I should cleanse the plates. Accordingly I took them to my house washed them with soap and water and a woolen cloth, but, finding them not yet cleansed, I treated them with dilute sulphuric acid, which made them perfectly clean, on which it appeared that they were completely covered with hieroglyphics that none as yet have been able to read. Wishing that the world might know the hidden things as fast as they come to light, I was induced to state the facts, hoping that you would give it an insertion in your excellent paper; we feel anxious to know the true meaning of the plates, and publishing the facts might lead to the true translation.
They were found, I judged, more than twelve feet below the surface of the top of the mound. I am, most respectfully, a citizen of Kinderhook.
W. P. HARRIS, M. D.
We the citizens of Kinderhook, whose names are annexed, do certify and declare that on the 23rd of April, 1843, while excavating a large mound in this vicinity, Mr. R. Wiley took from said mound six brass plates of a bell shape, covered with ancient characters. Said plates were very much oxydated. The bands and rings on said plates mouldered into dust on a slight pressure.
ROBERT WILEY, GEORGE DECKENSON,
W. LONGNECKER, G. W. F. WARD,
J. R. SHARP, IRA A. CURTIS,
FAYETTE GRUBB, W. P. HARRIS,
W. FUGATE.[[4]]
Since these plates were sent to Nauvoo for the inspection of the Prophet Joseph, it will be of interest to know what view he took of them. The following occurs in his journal under date of Monday, May 1st, 1843:
I insert fac-simile of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. R. Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton, and were covered on both sides with ancient characters. I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.[[5]]
It is proper here to call attention to the fact that the genuineness of this discovery of the Kinderhook plates is questioned by some anti-Mormon writers, among them Professor William A. Linn, in his late work, "The Story of Mormonism," where he says:
But the true story of the Kinderhook plates was disclosed by an affidavit made by W. Fugate of Mound station, Brown county, Illinois, before Jay Brown justice of the peace, on June 30, 1879. In this he stated that the plates were a humbug, gotten up by Robert Wiley, Bridge Whitton, and myself. Whitton (who was a blacksmith) cut the plates out of some pieces of copper; Wiley and I made the hieroglyphics by making impressions on beeswax and filling them with acid, and putting it on the plates. When they were finished, we put them together with rust made of nitric acid, old iron and lead, and bound them with a piece of hoop iron, covering them completely with rust. He describes the burial of the plates and the digging up, among the spectators of the latter being two Mormon Elders, Marsh and Sharp. Sharp declared that the Lord had directed them to witness the digging. The plates were borrowed and shown to Smith, and were finally given to one Professor McDowell of St. Louis, for his museum.[[6]]
Of this presentation of the matter it is only necessary to say that it is a little singular that Mr. Fugate alone out of the three said to be in collusion in perpetrating the fraud should disclose it, and that he should wait from 1843 to 1879—a period of thirty-six years—before doing so, when he and those said to be associated with him had such an excellent opportunity to expose the vain pretensions of the Prophet— if Fugate's tale be true? For while the statement in the text of the Prophet's Journal to the effect that the find was genuine, and that he had translated some of the characters and learned certain historical facts concerning the person with whose remains the plates were found, may not have been known at the time to the alleged conspirators to deceive him, still the editor of the Times and Seasons—John Taylor, the close personal friend of the Prophet—took the find seriously, and expressed at once explicit confidence in an editorial in the Times and Seasons, of May 1st, 1843, that the Prophet could give a translation of the plates. And this attitude the Church, continued to maintain; for in The Prophet, (a Mormon weekly periodical, published in New York) of the 15th of February, 1845, there was published a fac-simile of the Kinderhook plates, together with the Times and Seasons editorial and all the above matter of the text. How easy to have covered Joseph Smith and his followers with ridicule by proclaiming the hoax as soon as they accepted the Kinderhook plates as genuine! Why was it not done? The fact that Fugate's story was not told until thirty-six years after the event, and that he alone of all those who were connected with the event gives that version of it, is rather strong evidence that his story is the hoax, not the discovery of the plates, nor the engravings upon them.
III.
The Tuccabatchey Plates.
In further evidence that the native Americans engraved records on metallic plates I quote the following from Adair's "History of the North American Indians." The passage is a footnote on the custom of the Indians burying a dead person's treasures with him:
In the Tuccabatches on the Tallapoose river, thirty miles above the Allabahamah garrison are two brazen tables, and five of copper. They (the Indians) esteem them so sacred as to keep them constantly in their holy of holies, without touching them in the least, only in the time of their compounded first-fruit offering, and annual expiation of sins; at which season, their magus carries one under his arm, ahead of the people, dancing round in sacred armor; next to him their head warrior carries another; and those warriors who choose it carry the rest after the manner of the high priest; all the other carry white canes with swan-feathers at the top. Hearing accidentally of these important monuments of antiquity, and inquiring pretty much about them, I was certified of the truth of the report by four of the southern traders, at the most eminent Indian trading house of all English America. One of the gentlemen informed me, that at my request he endeavored to get the liberty of viewing the aforesaid tables, but it could not possibly be obtained, only in the time of the yearly grand sacrifice, for fear of polluting their holy things, at which time gentlemen of curiosity may see them. Old Bracket, an Indian, of perhaps one hundred years old, lives in that old beloved town, who gave the following description of them:
The shape of the five copper plates: One is a foot and a half long and seven inches wide, the other four are shorter and narrower.
The shape of the two brass plates was circular, about a foot and a half in diameter.
He [Bracket] said that he was told by his forefathers that those plates were given to them by the man we call God; that there had been many more of other shapes, some as long as he could stretch with both his arms, and some had writing upon them which are buried with particular men; and that they had instructions given with them, viz., they must only be handled by particular people, and those feasting [fasting?]; and no unclean woman must be suffered to come near them or the place, where they are deposited. He said none but his own town's people had any such plates given them, and that they were a different people from the Creeks. He only remembered three more which were buried with three of his family and he was the only man of the family now left. He said, there were two copper plates under the king's cabin which laid there from the first settling of the town.
This account was taken in the Tuccabatchey square, 27th July, 1759, per Will. Bolsover.[[7]]
The foregoing account of engraven records on gold and copper plates is important as evidence to the truth of the Book of Mormon only this far; the Book of Mormon repeatedly declares that such was the manner of keeping records among the Nephites and the Jaredites, Mormon's abridgment of the larger Nephite records being engraven in this manner on plates of gold. And the discoveries related above, all of which were unknown to Joseph Smith, prove that in ancient America records were so kept, and constitutes at least important incidental evidence to the truth of that part of the Book of Mormon statement.
Footnotes
[1]. Mill. Star, Vol. XIX., p. 103.
[2]. A fac-simile of the plate is to be found in Mill. Star, Vol. XIX., p. 632.
[3]. Mill. Star, Vol. XXI., p. 44.
[4]. Mill. Star, Vol. XXI., p. 44.
[5]. Mill. Star, Vol. XXI., p. 40.
[6]. "The Story of the Mormons," Linn, p. 87.
[7]. Lord Kingsborough's Mexican Antiquities, Vol. VIII., pp. 356, 358.
CHAPTER XXXIV
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE—MINOR COINCIDENCES—RACE UNITY
I.
Central and Western New York an Ancient Battle Field.
According to the Book of Mormon the Hill Cumorah of the Nephites—the Ramah of the Jaredites—must be regarded as a natural monument overlooking ancient and extensive battle fields. Around it early in the sixth century B. C., the Jaredites were destroyed. Here, also, a thousand years later, at the close of the fourth century A. D., the Nephites met with practical annihilation in a battle which, whether judged by the importance of the changes it wrought in the affairs of one of the world's continents, or the number slain,[[1]] ranks as one of the world's great battles. In view of these Book of Mormon facts one would naturally expect to find some evidences in this section of the country for such wonderful historical events. Here one has a right to expect the evidences of military fortifications; for, though a thousand years had elapsed between the destruction of the Nephites and the discovery of America by the Europeans, still some military monuments would doubtless survive that length of time. Fortunately we are not without kind of evidences that may be reasonably expected. We find such historical monuments described in the "American Antiquities" of Josiah Priest, published in Albany, New York. Before quoting, however, I call attention to the fact that Mr. Priest regarded the fortifications and other evidences of great battles fought south of lake Ontario as marking the struggle between the descendants of Tartar races (our American Indians, in his view) and Scandinavians, whom he assumes had penetrated into middle New York during the first half of the tenth century A. D. Of course, I am of the opinion that both the Tartar theory of the origin of some of our American Indians, and Mr. Priest's assumption that Scandinavians had pushed their way into the interior of New York, are both improbable; but his theories do not vitiate the facts of which he is the compiler and witness; but these facts, I am sure, better fit the statements of the Book of Mormon than they do his speculations. The reader will therefore bear in mind that it is the facts of Mr. Priest that are of value to us, not his theories; and here are the facts:[[2]]
There are the remains of one of those efforts of Scandinavian defense, situated on a hill of singular form, on the great sandplain between the Susquehannah and Chemung rivers, near their junction. The hill is entirely isolated, about three-fourths of a mile in circumference, and more than one hundred feet high. It has been supposed to be artificial, and to belong to the ancient nations to which all works of this sort generally belong. In the surrounding plain are many deep holes, of twenty or thirty rods in circumference, and twenty feet deep—favoring a belief that from these the earth was scooped out, to form the hill with. It is four acres large on its top, and perfectly level, beautifully situated to overlook the country to a great distance, up and down both rivers; there is on its top the remains of a wall, formed of earth, stone and wood, which runs round the whole, exactly on the brow. The wood is decayed and turned to mould, yet it is traceable, and easily distinguished from the natural earth: within is a deep ditch or entrenchment, running around the whole summit.[[3]] From this it is evident that a war was once waged here; and were we to conjecture between whom, we should say between the Indians and Scandinavians, and that this fortification, so advantageously chosen, is of the same class of defensive works with those about Onondaga,[[4]] Auburn,[[5]] and the lakes Ontario, Cayuga, Seneca, Oneida[[6]] and Erie. * * * * * * * In Pompey, [Onondaga county] [[7]] on lot No. 14, is the site of an ancient burying ground, upon which, when the country was first settled, was found timber growing, apparently of the second growth, judging from the old timber reduced to mould, lying round, which was one hundred years old, ascertained by counting the concentric grains. In one of these graves was found a glass bottle about the size of a common junk bottle, having a stopple in its nozzle, and in the bottle was a liquid of some sort, but was tasteless. But is it possible that the Scandinavians could have had glass in their possession at so early a period as the year 950 and thereabout, so as to have brought it with them from Europe when their first settlements were made in this country? We see no good reason why not, as glass had been known three hundred years in Europe before the northern Europeans are reputed to have found this country, the art of making glass having been discovered in A. D. 664. But in other parts of the world, glass had been known from time immemorial, even from the flood, as it has been found in the Tower of Babel[[8]] * * * * * * In the same grave with the bottle was found an iron hatchet, edged with steel. The eye, or place for the helve, was round, and extended or projected out, like the ancient Swiss or German axe. On lot No. 9, in the same town, [Pompey] was another aboriginal burying ground, covered with forest trees, as the other. In the same town, on lot No. 17, were found the remains of a blacksmith's forge; at this spot have been ploughed up crucibles, such as mineralogists use in refining metals. These axes are similar, and correspond in character with those found in the nitrous caves on the Gasconade river, which empties into the Missouri, as mentioned by Professor Beck's Gazetteer of that country. In the same town [Pompey] are the remains of two ancient forts or fortifications, with redoubts of a very extensive and formidable character. Within the range of these works have been found pieces of cast iron, broken from some vessel of considerable thickness. These articles cannot well be ascribed to the era of the French war, as time enough since, then, till the region round about Onondaga was commenced to be cultivated, had not elapsed to give the growth of timber found on the spot, of the age above noticed; and, added to this, it is said that the Indians occupying that tract of country had no tradition of their authors.[[9]] * * * * * * The hatchets or iron axes found here were likely of the same origin with the pieces of cast iron. In ploughing the earth, digging wells, canals, or excavating for salt waters, about the lakes, new discoveries are frequently made, which as clearly show the operations of ancient civilization here, as the works of the present race would do, were they left to the operations of time for five or six hundred years; especially were this country totally to be overrun by the whole consolidated savage tribes of the west, exterminating both the worker and his works, as appears to have been done in ages past. In Scipio,[[10]] on Salmon creek, a Mr. Halsted has, from time to time during ten years past, ploughed up, on a certain extent of land on his farm, seven or eight hundred pounds of brass, which appeared to have once been formed into various implements, both of husbandry and war; helmets and working utensils mingled together. The finder of this brass, we are informed as he discovered it carried it to Auburn, and sold it by the pound, where it was worked up, with as little curiosity attending as though it had been but an ordinary article of the country's produce: when, if it had been announced in some public manner, the finder would have doubtless been highly rewarded by some scientific individual or society, and preserved it in the cabinets of the antiquarian, as a relic of by-gone ages of the highest interest. On this field, where it was found, the forest timber was growing as abundantly, and had attained to as great age and size, as elsewhere in the heavy timbered country of the lakes. [[11]] * * * * * * In Pompey,[[12]] Onondago county, are the remains, or outlines, of a town, including more than 500 acres. It appeared protected by three circular or eliptical forts, eight miles distant from each other; placed in such relative positions as to form a triangle round about the town, at those distances. It is thought, from appearances, that this stronghold was stormed and taken on the line of the north side. In Camillus,[[13]] in the same county, are the remains of two forts, one covering about three acres, on a very high hill; it had gateways, one opening to the east, and the other to the west, toward a spring, some rods from the works. Its shape is eliptical; it has a wall, in some places ten feet high, with a deep ditch. Not far from this is another, exactly like it, only half as large. There are many of these ancient works hereabouts; one in Scipio, two near Auburn, three near Canandaigua,[[14]] and several between the Seneca and Cayuga lakes.[[15]] A number of such fortifications and burial places have been discovered in Ridgeway, [[16]] on the southern shore of lake Ontraio. There is evidence enough that long bloody wars were waged among the inhabitants. * * * * * * From the known ferocity of the ancient Scandinavians, who with other Europeans of ancient times we suppose to be the authors of the vast works about the region of Onondaga, dreadful wars with infinite butcheries, must have crimsoned every hill and dale of this now happy country.[[17]] * * * * * * In the fourteenth township; fourth range of the Holland Company's lands in the state of New York, near the Ridge road leading from Buffalo to Niagara Falls[[18]] is an ancient fort, situated in a large swamp; it covers about five acres of ground; large trees are standing upon it. The earth which forms this fort was evidently brought from a distance, as the soil of the marsh is quite another kind, wet and miry, while the site of the fort is dry gravel and loam. The site of this fortification is singular, unless we suppose it to have been a last resort or hiding place from an enemy. The distance to the margin of the marsh is about half a mile, where large quantities of human bones have been found, on opening the earth, of an extraordinary size: the thigh bones, about two inches longer than a common sized man's; the jaw or chin bone will cover a large man's face; the skull bones are of an enormous thickness; the breast and hip bones are also very large. On being exposed to the air they soon moulder away, which denotes the great length of time since their interment. The disorderly manner in which these bones were found to lie, being crosswise, commixed and mingled with every trait of confusion, show them to have been deposited by a conquering enemy, and not by friends, who would have laid them, as the custom of all nations always has been, in a more deferential mode. There was no appearance of a bullet having been the instrument of their destruction, the evidence of which would have been broken limbs. Smaller works of the same kind abound in the country about lake Ontraio.[[19]] But the one of which we have just spoken is the most remarkable. * * * * * * North of the mountain, or great slope towards the lake, [Ontraio], there are no remains of ancient works or tumuli, which strongly argues, that the mountain or ridgeway once was the southern boundary or shore of lake Ontario; the waters having receded from three to seven miles from its ancient shore, nearly the whole length of the lake, occasioned by some strange convulsion in nature,[[20]] redeeming much of the lands of the west from the water that had covered it from the time of the deluge." [[21]]
These described fortifications and burial mounds make it clear that Central and Western New York at some time have been the scenes of destructive battles; and the fact constitutes strong presumptive evidence of the statements of the Book of Mormon that great battles were fought there. The only thing which leads modern writers to ascribe a comparatively recent date to the wars whereof central and western New York was the battlefields is the discovery of glass, iron and brass within these fortifications. It is assumed that these metals and glass were unknown to the ancient Americans, hence Mr. Priest sets forth the theory that the battles were fought between wild tribes of Indians and Scandinavians. Instead of taking this view of the case, however, I shall rely in part upon the finding of these implements made of iron and brass as sustaining the statement of the Book of Mormon that the Nephites were acquainted with and used these metals; but of this I shall have more to say later, when considering the objections urged against the Book of Mormon. Meantime I merely call attention to the fact which here concerns me, namely, that central and western New York constitute the great battle fields described in the Book of Mormon as being the place where two nations met practical annihilation, the Jaredites and Nephites; and of which the military fortifications and monuments described by Mr. Priest are the silent witnesses.
II.
Miscellaneous Book of Mormon Historical Incidents and Nephite Customs Found in the Native American Traditions.
Besides what has already been set forth on the confirmation of Nephite historical incidents in native American traditions and mythologies, there remains several other Lamanite and Nephite historical incidents and customs, mentioned in the Book of Mormon, that are preserved in the traditions of the native Americans, and which ought to receive consideration here.
Blood Drinking.
One of the customs of the Lamanites, in the matter of eating raw flesh and drinking the blood of animals, is mentioned in the book of Enos, where a description is given of the barbarity of the Lamanites as follows:
And I bear record that the people of Nephi did seek diligently to restore the Lamanites unto the true faith in God. But our labors were vain; their hatred was fixed, and they were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a bloodthirsty people; full of idolatry and filthiness: feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven, and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the axe. And many of them did eat nothing save it were raw meat.[[22]]
Jarom mentions substantially the same thing:
And they were scattered upon much of the face of the land; and the Lamanites also. And they were exceeding more numerous than were they of the Nephites; and they loved murder and would drink the blood of beasts.[[23]]
Such the statement of the Book of Mormon. And now the native American tradition bearing on this from Bancroft. Speaking of the Toltecs as an enlightened race of native Americans, who are credited with the first introduction of agriculture in America, our author says:
But even during this Toltec period hunting tribes, both of Nahua and other blood, were pursuing their game in the forests and mountains, especially in the northern region. Despised by their more civilized, corn-eating brethren, they were known as barbarians, dogs, Chichimecs, "suckers of blood," from the custom attributed to them of drinking blood and eating raw flesh.[[24]]
III.
Human Sacrifices. Cannibalism.
Another statement in the Book of Mormon with reference to a Lamanite custom concerning their treatment of prisoners taken in war is as follows. Speaking of an invasion of the Lamanites into Nephite territory the Book of Mormon says:
And they did also march forward against the city of Teancum, and did drive the inhabitants forth out of her, and did take many prisoners both women and children, and did offer them up as sacrifices unto their idol gods. And it came to pass that in the three hundred and sixty and seventh years, [A. D.], the Nephites being angry because the Lamanites had scattered their women and their children, that they did go against the Lamanites with exceeding great anger, insomuch that they did beat again the Lamanites, and drive them out of their lands.[[25]]
Later, referring to a second invasion of the Nephite lands, Mormon also says:
And when they had come the second time, the Nephites were driven and slaughtered with an exceeding great slaughter; their women and their children were again sacrificed unto idols.[[26]]
Some years later, Mormon, in an epistle to his son Moroni, speaking of the awful depravity which characterized both Nephites and Lamanites, says of them: "They thirst after blood and revenge continually."[[27]] Of the treatment of certain prisoners taken from one of the cities he also says:
And the husbands and fathers of those women and children they have slain; and they feed the women upon the flesh of their husbands, and the children upon the flesh of their fathers; and no water, save a little, do they give unto them.[[28]]
He describes how the Nephites defiled the daughters of Lamanite prisoners, and then continues:
And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies, even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery.[[29]]
This, doubtless, was the beginning—in the later part of the fourth century A. D., "not early in the fourteenth century," as held by Prescott[[30]]—of those horrible human sacrifices and acts of cannibalism found among the Aztecs at the time of the Spanish invasion of Mexico, and which so shocked even the cruel Spaniards. Bancroft, in telling of the treatment of prisoners taken in war among the Aztecs, describes an unequal battle for life that was sometimes accorded the male prisoners, and then adds:
Those who were too faint-hearted to attempt this hopless combat, had their hearts torn out at once, whilst the others were sacrificed only after having been subdued by the braves. The bleeding and quivering heart was held up to the sun and then thrown into a bowl, prepared for its reception. An assistant priest sucked the blood from the gash in the chest through a hollow cane, the end of which he elevated towards the sun, and then discharged its contents into a plume-bordered cup held by the captor of the prisoner just slain. This cup was carried round to all the idols in the temples and chapels, before whom another blood-filled tube was held up as if to give them a taste of the contents; this ceremony performed, the cup was left at the Palace. The corpse was taken to the chapel where the captive had watched and there flayed, the flesh being consumed at a banquet as before. The skin was given to certain priests, or college youths, who went from house to house dressed in the ghastly garb, with the arms swinging, singing, dancing, and asking for contributions; those who refused to give anything received a stroke in the face from the dangling arm.[[31]]
Prescott, referring to the chief object of war among the Aztecs, and the treatment of prisoners taken, says:
The tutelary deity of the Aztecs was the god of war. A great object of their military expeditions was, to gather hecatombs of captives for his altars. * * * * * * At the head of all, [i. e., all the Aztec deities] stood the terrible Huitzilopotchli. * * * * * * * This was the patron deity of the nation. His fantastic image was loaded with costly ornaments. His temples were the most stately and august of the public edifices; and his altars reeked with the blood of human hecatombs in every city of the empire. * * * * * The most loathsome part of the story—the manner in which the body of the sacrificed captive was disposed of—remains yet to be told. It was delivered to the warrior who had taken him in battle, and by him, after being dressed, was served up in an entertainment to his friends. This was not the coarse repast of famished cannibals, but a banquet teeming with delicious beverages and delicate viands, prepared with art, and attended by both sexes, who, as we shall see hereafter, conducted themselves with all the decorum of civilized life. Surely, never were refinement and the extreme of barbarism brought so closely in contact with each other.[[32]]
Such are the depths of depravity to which a people may sink when once the Spirit of God is withdrawn from them. It is not to excite reflections upon this condition of refined barbarism, however, that these quotations are made. I am interested here only in pointing out the fact that these revolting customs found among the native Americans confirms the statement made in the Book of Mormon, that such horrible customs had their origin among their Nephite and Lamanite ancestors.
IV.
Burying the Hatchet.
Doubtless the native American custom of "burying the hatchet" (that is, in concluding a war, it is the native custom, as a testimony that hostilities have ceased, and as a sign of peace, to bury the war-hatchet or other weapons of war), had its origin in the following Book of Mormon incident: Early in the first century B. C., a number of Nephites, sons of King Mosiah II., succeeded in converting a number of Lamanites to the Christian religion; and such became their abhorrence of war, which aforetime had been one of their chief delights, that they entered into a covenant of peace and determined no more to shed the blood of their fellow men. In token of this covenant they buried their weapons of war, their leader saying:
And now, my brethren, if our brethren seek to destroy us, behold, we will hide away our swords, yea, even we will bury them deep in the earth, that they may be kept bright. * * * * And now it came to pass that when the king had made an end of these sayings, and all the people were assembled together, they took their swords, and all the weapons which were used for the shedding of man's blood, and they did bury them up deep in the earth; and this they did, it being in their view a testimony to God, and also to men, that they never would use weapons again for shedding a man's blood.[[33]]
This circumstance of burying weapons of war in token of peace is several times afterwards alluded to in the Book of Mormon.
V.
Hagoth's Marine Migrations Preserved in Native Legend.
Another historical event very apt to live in the native traditions is the first Nephite migration in ships after their landing in the western hemisphere. This event took place in the latter half of the century immediately preceding the birth of Christ. One Hagoth, described in the Book of Mormon as "an exceedingly curious man,"
Went forth and built a large ship on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth in the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward. And behold, there were many of the Nephites who did enter therein and did sail forth with much provisions, and also many women and children; and they took their course northward.[[34]]
Subsequently other ships were built and the first returned, and migration by this method of travel was kept up for some time. Finally two of the vessels conducting this migration by the way of the west sea, were lost; and the Nephites supposed them to have been wrecked in the depths of the sea.[[35]] So marked a circumstance as this, I repeat, occurring as it did among a people that can not be considered as a sea-faring people, would be apt to live in the traditions of their descendants. Such a tradition, I believe, exists. Bancroft, speaking of a war of conquest waged by the Miztec and Zapotec kings against a people inhabiting the southern shores of Tehuantepec, called the Huaves, says:
The Huaves are said to have come from the south, from Nicaragua, or Peru, say some authors. The causes that led to their migrations are unknown; but the story goes that after coasting northward, and attempting to disembark at several places, they finally effected a landing at Tehuantepec. Here they found the Mijes, the original possessors of the country; but these they drove out, or, as some say, mingled with them, and soon made themselves masters of the soil. * * * * * * * But the easy life they led in this beautiful and fertile region soon destroyed their ancient energy, and they subsequently fell an unresisting prey to the Zapotec kings.[[36]]
A tradition which locates the landing of a similar maritime expedition still further north is related by Nadaillac. Speaking of the "Kitchen-Middens" or shell-heaps found here and there on the Pacific coast, and which our author takes as indicating the location of the former homes of numerous tribes, says:
When the Indians were questioned about them [the shell-heaps] they generally answered that they are very old, and are the work of people unknown to them or to their fathers. As an exception to this rule, however, the Californians attributed a large shell heap formed of mussel shells and the bones of animals, on Point St. George, near San Francisco, to the Hohgates, the name they give to seven mythical strangers who arrived in the country from the sea, and who were the first to build and live in houses. The Hohgates killed deer, sea-lions, and seals; they collected the mussels which were very abundant on the neighboring rocks, and the refuse of their meals became piled up about their homes. One day when fishing, they saw a gigantic seal; they managed to drive a harpoon into it, but the wounded animal fled seaward, dragging the boat rapidly with it toward the fathomless abysses of the Charekwin. At the moment when the Hohgates were about to be engulfed in the depths, where those go who are to endure eternal cold, the rope broke the seal disappeared, and the boat was flung up into the air. Since then the Hohgates, changed into brilliant stars, return no more to earth, where the shell heaps remain as witness of their former residence.[[37]]
The word "Hohgates," I believe is but a variation of the word "Hagoth," the name of the man who started these maritime expeditions, and it would be altogether in keeping with Nephite customs[[38]] for those who sailed away in his vessels to be called "Hagothites" or "Hohgates." The vessel of this tradition may be one of those lost to the Nephites, which finally found its way to the Californian coast where its occupants landed with their ideas of Nephite civilization, and lived as described in the tradition. One is tempted to smile at the childish ending of the tradition; but under it may not one see that it is but the legendary account of the fact that the vessel sailed away from the California shores and was lost, or, at least, was heard of no more by the natives of those shores.
VI.
Native American Race Unity.
The subject of American antiquities should not be closed without a brief reference, at least, to the unity of the American race. Barring such migrations of other races to America as may have taken place since the fall of the Nephites at Cumorah, at the close of the fourth century A. D., and such as to a limited extent may have been going on in the extreme north via Behring Strait at an earlier date, the Book of Mormon requires substantial unity of race in the later native American people. That is to say, they ought to be of Israelitish descent, a mixture of the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh and Judah—but chiefly, if not all, of Hebrew descent; and even the Jaredites were but a more ancient branch of the same stock.[[39]]
On this subject, as upon all others pertaining to American antiquities and peoples, writers are divided; yet it is not difficult to marshal in support of race unity for native Americans the very highest authority; and what is of most importance is the facts are beyond question behind their theory.
Citing the facts on which certain authors rely to establish the unity of the American race, Bancroft says:
It was obvious to the Europeans when they first beheld the natives of America, that these were unlike the intellectual white-skinned race of Europe, the barbarous blacks of Africa, or any nation or people which they had hitherto encountered, yet were strikingly like each other. Into whatsoever part of the newly discovered lands they penetrated, they found a people seemingly one in color, physiognomy, customs, and in mental and social traits. Their vestiges of antiquity and their languages presented a coincidence which was generally observed by early travelers. Hence physical and psychological comparisons are advanced to prove ethnological resemblances among all the peoples of America. * * * * * * Morton and his confreres, the originators of the American homogeneity theory, even go so far as to claim for the American man an origin as indigenous as that of the fauna and flora. They classify all the tribes of America, excepting only the Esquimaux who wandered over from Asia, as the American race, and divided it into the American family and the Toltecan family. Blumenbach classifies the Americans as a distinct species. The American Mongolidae of Dr. Latham are divided into Esquimaux and American Indians. Dr. Morton perceives the same characteristic lineaments on the face of the Fuegian and the Mexican, and in tribes inhabiting the Rocky mountains, the Mississippi valley, and Florida. The same osteological structure, swarthy color, straight hair, meagre beard, obliquely cornered eyes, prominent cheek bones, and thick lips, are common to them all. * * * * * * Humboldt characterizes the nations of America as one race, by their straight glossy hair, thin beard, swarthy complexion and cranial formation.[[40]]
Dr. Daniel G. Brinton, professor of American archaeology and linguistics in the University of Pennsylvania—than whom no higher authority upon the subject can be quoted—says:
On the whole, the race is singularly uniform in its physical traits, and individuals taken from any part of the continent could easily be mistaken for inhabitants of numerous other parts. * * * * * * The culture of the native Americans strongly attests the ethnic unity of the race. This applies equally to the ruins and relics of its vanished nations, as to the institutions of existing tribes. Nowhere do we find any trace of foreign influence or instruction, nowhere any arts or social systems to explain which we must evoke the aid of teachers from the eastern hemisphere. * * * * American culture, wherever examined, presents a family likeness which the more careful observers of late years have taken pains to put in a strong light. This was accomplished for governmental institutions and domestic architecture by Lewis H. Morgan, for property rights and the laws of war by A. F. Bandelier, for the social condition of Mexico and Peru by Dr. Gustav Bruhl, and I may add for the myths and other expressions of the religious sentiment by myself. * * * The psychic identity of the Americans is well illustrated in their languages. There are indeed indefinite discrepancies in their lexicography and in their surface marphology; but in their logical sub-structure, in what Willhelm von Humboldt called the "inner form," they are strikingly like. The points in which this is especially apparent are in the development of pronominal forms, in the abundance of generic particles, in the overweening preference for concepts of action (verbs) rather than concepts of existence (nouns), and in the consequent subordination of the latter to the former in the proposition.[[41]]
Following the same general line of thought Nadaillac says:
The Indians, who were successively conquered by foreign invaders, spoke hundreds of different dialects. Bancroft estimates that there were six hundred between Alaska and Panama. Ameghino speaks of eight hundred in South America. Most of these, however, are mere derivatives from a single mother tongue like the Aymara and the Guarani. We quote these figures for what they are worth. Philology has no precise definition of what constitutes a language, and any one can add to or deduct from the numbers given according to the point of view from which he considers the matter. As an illustration of this, it may be mentioned that some philologists estimate the languages of North America at no less than thirteen hundred, whilst Squier would reduce those of both continents to four hundred. These dialects present a complete disparity in their vocabulary side by side with great similarity of structure. "In America," says Humboldt, "from the country of the Esquimaux to the banks of the Orinoco, and thence to the frozen shores of the Straits of Magellan, languages differing entirely in their derivation have, if we may use the expression, the same physiognomy. Striking analogies in grammatical construction have been recognized, not only in the more perfect languages, such as those of the Incas, the Aymara, the Guarani, and the Mexicans, but also in languages which are extremely crude. Dialects, the roots of which do not resemble each other more than the roots of the Slavonian and Biscayan, show resemblances in structure similar to those which are found between the Sanscrit, the Persian, the Greek, and the Germanic languages."[[42]]
The fact that the different dialects, or languages, as some call them, "are mere derivatives from a single mother tongue," argues strongly, of course, for ultimate race unity.
The following summary of evidences on the substantial unity of race in American peoples is from Marcus Wilson, and will be found valuable:
Nor indeed is there any proof that the semi-civilized inhabitants of Mexico, Yucatan, and Central America, were a race different from the more savage tribes by which they were surrounded; but, on the contrary, there is much evidence in favor of their common origin, and in proof that the present tribes, or at least many of them, are but the dismembered fragments of former nations. The present natives of Yucatan and Central America, after a remove of only three centuries from their more civilized ancestors, present no diversities, in their natural capacities, to distinguish them from the race of the common Indian. And if the Mexicans and the Peruvians could have arisen from the savage state, it is not impossible that the present rude tribes may have remained in it; or, if the latter were once more civilized than at present, as they have relapsed into barbarism, so others may have done. The anatomical structure of the skeletons found within the ancient mounds of the United States, does not differ more from that of the present Indians than tribes of the latter, admitted to be of the same race, differ from each other. In the physical appearance of all the American aborigines, embracing the semi-civilized Mexicans, the Peruvians, and the wandering savage tribes, there is a striking uniformity; nor can any distinction of races here be made. In their languages there is a general unity of structure, and a great similarity in grammatical forms, which prove their common origin; while the great diversity in the words of the different languages, shows the great antiquity of the period of peopling America. In the generally uniform character of their religious opinions and rites, we discover original unity and an identity of origin; while the diversities here found, likewise indicate the very early period of the separation and dispersion of the tribes. Throughout most of the American tribes have been found traces of the pictorial delineations, and hieroglyphical symbols, by which the Mexicans and the Peruvians communicated ideas, and preserved the memory of events. The mythological traditions of the savage tribes, and the semi-civilized nations, have general features of resemblance—generally implying a migration from some other country—containing distinct allusions to a deluge—and attributing their knowledge of the arts to some fabulous teacher in remote ages. Throughout nearly the whole continent, the dead were buried in a sitting posture; the smoking of tobacco was a prevalent custom, and the calumet, or pipe of peace, was everywhere deemed sacred. And, in fine, the numerous and striking analogies between the barbarous and the cultivated tribes, are sufficient to justify the belief in their primitive relationship and common origin. * * * * * * With regard to the opinion entertained by some, that colonies from different European nations, and at different times, have been established here, we remark,[[43]] that, if so, no distinctive traces of them have ever been discovered; and there is a uniformity in the physical appearance of all the American tribes, which forbids the supposition of a mingling of different races.[[44]]
The well established fact, of race unity, is one more evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon to be added to that cumulative mass of evidence we are here compiling, since unity of race is what the Book of Mormon requires for the peoples of America.
VII.
Did the Book of Mormon Antedate Works in English on American Antiquities, Accessible to Joseph Smith and His Associates.
In the presence of so many resemblances between native American traditions and Book of Mormon historical incidents and Nephite customs, I can understand how the question naturally arises in some minds whether the ancient historical incidents, and the customs of American peoples—purported to be recorded in the Book of Mormon,—whence the traditions come, or is it from the native American traditions that the alleged historical incidents and customs of the Book of Mormon come. That is to say, was it possible for Joseph Smith or those associated with him in bringing forth the Book of Mormon to have possessed such a knowledge of American antiquities and traditions that they could make their book's alleged historical incidents, and the customs of its peoples, conform to the antiquities and traditions of the native Americans? The question may appear foolish to those acquainted with the character and environment of the Prophet; but to those not acquainted with him or his environment the question may be of some force, and for that reason it is considered here.
In the first place, then, it must be remembered how great the task would be to become sufficiently acquainted with American antiquities and traditions to make the Book of Mormon story and the alleged customs of its people agree with the antiquities and traditions of the American natives, in the striking manner in which we have found them to agree. In the second place the youthfulness of the Prophet must be taken into account—he was but twenty-five years of age when the Book of Mormon was published, and it is the concensus of opinion on the part of all those competent to speak upon the subject, that he was not a student of books. But what is most important of all, and what settles the question on this point (whether Joseph Smith, Solomon Spaulding, or Sidney Rigdon be regarded as the author) is the fact that the means through which to obtain the necessary knowledge of American antiquities, the body of literature in English now at one's command on the subject, was not then (1823-1830) in existence. The Spanish and native American writers previous to 1830 may be dismissed from consideration at once, since their works could not be available to Joseph Smith and his associates because written in a language unknown to them, and such fragmentary translations of them as existed were so rare as to be inaccessible to men of western New York and Ohio. About the only works to which Joseph Smith could possibly have had access before the publication of the Book of Mormon would have been:
First, the publications of the "American Antiquarian Society, Translations and Collections," published in the "Archaeoligia Americana," Worcester, Massachusetts, 1820; but this information was so fragmentary in character that it could not possibly have supplied the historical incidents of the Book of Mormon, or the customs of its peoples, even could it be proven that Joseph Smith had been familiar with that collection.
Second, the little work of Ethan Smith, published in Vermont—second edition 1825—in which the author holds the native American Indian tribes to be descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel. In fact his work bears the title, "View of the Hebrews; or the Tribes of Israel in America."
Third, "The History of the American Indians," by James Adair, published in England, 1775. Mr. Adair confines the scope of his work to the North American Indians.
Fourth. The translation of some parts of Humboldt's works on New Spain, published first in America and England between the years 1806 and 1809, and later Black's enlarged translation of them in New York, 1811.
These are the only works, so far as I can ascertain, that could at all be accessible to Joseph Smith or any of his associates; and there is no evidence that the Prophet or his associates ever saw any one of them. Moreover, notwithstanding some of these writers advance the theory that the native Americans are descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel, and their books contain fragmentary and disconnected information concerning American antiquities—no one acquainted with these works could possibly regard them as being the source whence Book of Mormon incidents or customs of Book of Mormon peoples were drawn, a fact which will be more apparent after we have considered—as we shall later consider—the originality of the Book of Mormon. Since, therefore, from the very nature of all the circumstances surrounding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, neither Joseph Smith nor his associates could possibly have become acquainted with the location of the chief centers of ancient American civilizations, nor with native American traditions and customs, it must be evident that Book of Mormon historical incidents and the customs of Book of Mormon peoples were not derived from works on American antiquities and traditions.
VIII.
The Value of the Evidence Supplied by American Antiquities
The evidence I have to offer from American antiquities is now before the reader. Not all the evidence that could be massed upon the subject, but all that my space in this work will permit me to present. I do not claim that the evidence is either as full or perfect as one could wish it to be, nor that it is free from what some will regard as serious difficulties; but this much I feel can be insisted upon:
The evidence establishes the fact of the existence of ancient civilizations in America; that the said civilizations are successive; that their monuments, overlay each other, and are confused by a subsequent period of barbarism; that the monuments of the chief centers of American civilizations are found where the Book of Mormon requires them to be located; that the traditions of the native Americans concerning ancient Bible facts, such as relate to the creation, the flood, the Tower of Babel, and the dispersion of mankind, etc., sustain the likelihood of the forefathers of our American aborigines, in very ancient times, being cognizant of such facts either by personal contact with them, or by having a knowledge of them through the Hebrew scriptures, or perhaps through both means. All this is in harmony with what the Book of Mormon makes known concerning the Jaredite and Nephite peoples; for the forefathers of the former people were in personal contact with the building of Babel, the confusion of languages and the dispersion of mankind; while the Nephites had knowledge of these and many other ancient historical facts through the Hebrew scriptures which they brought with them to America. The evidences presented also disclose the fact that the native American traditions preserve the leading historical events of the Book of Mormon. That is, the facts of the Jaredite and Nephite migrations; of the intercontinental movements of Book of Mormon peoples; of the advent and character of Messiah, and his ministrations among the people; of the signs of his birth and of his death; of the fact of the Hebrew origin and unity of the race. All these facts so strong in the support of the claims of the Book of Mormon—whatever else of confusion may exist in American antiquities—I feel sure can not be moved. It should be remembered, in this connection, that it is not insisted upon in these pages that the evidences which American antiquities afford are absolute proofs of the claims of the Book of Mormon. I go no further than to say there is a tendency of external proof in them; and when this tendency of proof is united with the positive, direct external testimony which God has provided in those Witnesses that he himself has ordained to establish the truth of the Book of Mormon, the Three Witnesses and the Eight, this tendency of proof becomes very strong, and is worthy of most serious attention on the part of those who would investigate the claims of this American volume of scripture.
Footnotes
[1]. There were slain of the Nephites alone 230,000; see Mosiah vi: 10-15.
[2]. I quote from the 1838 edition. Mr. Josiah Priest's work, "American Antiquities," first edition, was published A. D. 1833, three years after the publication of the Book of Mormon. See Charles Tompson's "Evidence and Proof of the Book of Mormon," also I. Woodbridge Riley's "Founder of Mormonism," page 126, where in foot note 32 he says of Priest's work: "the first edition appeared in 1833, two other editions followed in that year."
[3]. The hill here described near the junction of the Susquehannah and Chemung river is about ninety-five miles in a direct line southeast of Cumorah.
[4]. Onondaga, about fifty-five miles due east of Cumorah.
[5]. Auburn, thirty miles east of Cumorah.
[6]. The lakes Cayuga, Seneca and Oneida, as is well known, lie a little to the south and east of Cumorah. Ontraio is a short distance to the north and Erie to the west.
[7]. Sixty miles east of Cumorah.
[8]. From this showing, then, there can be no objection to saying that the glass vessel was of Jaredite origin. In describing how the brother of Jared melted from the rock sixteen small stones it is said they were white and clear "even as transparent glass" of which the late Orson Pratt in a foot note says: "From this it is evident that the art of making glass was known at that early period." Ether iii: 1, and note "a."
[9]. The absence of traditions among the natives concerning these monuments rather inclines one to the belief that they must have been earlier than any possible Scandinavian occupancy of the country.
[10]. Scipio in Cayuga country, about forty-five miles east of Cumorah.
[11]. American Antiquities, pp. 259, 260, 261, 262.
[12]. Pompey between sixty and seventy miles east of Cumorah.
[13]. Less than fifty miles east of Cumorah.
[14]. Canandaigua, some ten or twelve miles south of Cumorah.
[15]. Both bodies of water but a short distance from Cumorah.
[16]. Less than seventy miles northwest from Cumorah.
[17]. The desperate ferocity of Nephite and Lamanite as described in the Book of Mormon is as good and even better explanation of the "infinite butcheries" here alluded to. See this volume, pp. 74-76, for description of this ferocity.
[18]. Less than one hundred miles due west from Cumorah.
[19]. The southern shore of lake Ontario runs due east and west about ten to twelve miles north of Cumorah for a distance of one hundred miles.
[20]. Was this convulsion in nature which changed the shore along lake Ontraio connected with those mighty cataclysms which shook the continent during the crucifixion of Messiah?
[21]. American Antiquities, Josiah Priest, pp. 324, 327, 328.
[22]. Enos i: 20.
[23]. Jarom i: 6.
[24]. Native Races, Bancroft, Vol. II., p. 344.
[25]. Mormon iv: 14, 15.
[26]. Mormon iv: 21.
[27]. Moroni ix: 5.
[28]. Moroni ix: 8.
[29]. Moroni ix: 10.
[30]. Conquest of Mexico, Vol. I., p. 73.
[31]. Native Races, Vol. II., pp. 310, 311.
[32]. Conquest of Mexico, Prescott, Vol. I., pp. 54, 63, 75, 76.
[33]. Alma xxiv: 16-18.
[34]. Alma lxiii: 5, 6.
[35]. Alma lxiii: 8.
[36]. Native Races, Vol. V., pp. 529, 530.
[37]. Pre-Historic America, pp. 64, 65.
[38]. Those who followed Nephi were called Nephites; those who followed Laman, Lamanites; Zoram, Zoramites, the people of Jared, Jaredites; and so on throughout the Book of Mormon.
[39]. See Vol. I., pp. 167, 168 and note.
[40]. Bancroft, Native Races, Vol. I., pp. 20-21.
[41]. The American Race, Daniel G. Brinton, pp. 41, 43, 44, 45, 55, 56.
[42]. Pre-Historic America, pp. 5, 6.
[43]. The remark of Mr. Wilson against the probability of colonies from different European nations at different times having established colonies in America may raise the question for a moment, "Is not such a contention against the Book of Mormon theory of the origin of American peoples, since that book distinctly accounts for the peopling of America by migration of colonies, from the eastern hemisphere?" The seeming difficulty is overcome at once when it is remembered that the several colonies of the Book of Mormon migrations are all of one race. Lehi's colony was made up of two families and the man Zoram, servant of Laban. Lehi, it is well know, was an Israelite of the tribe of Manasseh; Ishmael, the head of the other family, was an Israelite of the tribe of Ephraim. Zoram was an Israelite, but his tribe is unknown. Mulek's colony were undoubtedly Jews. So that from the repeopling of America after the destruction of the Jaredites early in the sixth century B. C.—so far as Book of Mormon migrations are concerned—the colonies were all of one race. And we have also seen that even the Jaredites were an earlier branch of the same race.
[44]. History of the United States (Marcus Wilson) Book I chapter iii.
CHAPTER XXXV
EXTERNAL EVIDENCES (CONTINUED.)—EVIDENCE OF THE BIBLE.
I.
The Place of the Patriarch Joseph in Israel.—The Promises to Him and His Seed.
It is no part of my purpose to deal at length with any argument that may be based upon Bible evidences to the truth of the Book of Mormon. That field is already occupied by others. Indeed from the commencement it has been one of the chief sources drawn upon by the Elders of the Church in proof of the claims of the Book of Mormon.[[1]] I shall treat that evidence, however, in merely an incidental way, and as deriving its importance chiefly from the circumstances of its blending in with the enlarged and general scheme of things pertaining to Israel, and the work of Messiah brought to light by the Book of Mormon.
In pursuance of this treatment I call attention to the blessing of Jacob upon the head of his grand sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. It should be remembered that to Joseph, the son of Jacob, a double portion of honor was granted in Israel. While no tribe is especially called by his name, yet two tribes are his through his sons, viz., the tribe of Ephraim and the tribe of Manasseh. This came about in the following manner: Reuben, the first born of Jacob, defiled his father's wife, Bilhah. For which awful crime he lost his place as a prince in the house of Israel, which place was given indirectly to Joseph. Why I say indirectly, is because Ephraim, Joseph's younger son, was the one who received the blessing of the first born, and was placed as the first of the tribes of Israel. It is for this reason that the Lord was wont to say, "I am a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first born."[[2]] In proof of the things here set forth I quote the following:
Now the sons of Reuben, the first born of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler, but the birthright was Joseph's.[[3]]
That is, not after the natural birthright, but after the birthright appointment made by the patriarch Jacob to Ephraim. Ephraim, then, will take the place of Reuben—the place of the firstborn. But there was also a tribe of Manasseh in Israel, as well as of Ephraim, and thus was a double portion given unto Joseph in that from him are two tribes in Israel. And now as to further blessings conferred upon Joseph and his sons. When Jacob and his son Joseph were restored to each other in Egypt, the old patriarch rejoiced to see the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh—and now the Bible narrative:
And Joseph brought them out from between his knees, and he bowed himself with his face to the earth. And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel's left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand towards Israel's right hand, and brought them near unto him. And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.
And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head. And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father; for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head. And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations. And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh.[[4]]
Again when the patriarch Jacob gave his final blessing to his sons, of Joseph he said:
Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall: The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him: but his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mightily God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel): Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb; the blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.[[5]]
Moses also seems to have been impressed with the idea that Joseph was to receive a portion above his brethren; for in blessing the tribes of Israel, when coming to Joseph, he said:
Blessed of the Lord be his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath, and for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon, and for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills, and for the precious things of the earth and fullness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his brethren. His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.[[6]]
A comparison of the blessings of the other tribes with the blessings of Joseph's will convince him who makes it how much greater are to be the blessings of Joseph than those of his brethren, especially in respect of the extent and the fruitfulness of the lands that his descendants shall occupy. Furthermore, in view of all that is said in these prophetic utterances, there can be no question but what the descendants of Joseph, the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, are to be very prominent in the affairs of Israel and take an important part in God's great drama in which he will work out the restoration of his people, Israel, and the redemption of the world.
Summarizing these prophetic blessings we may say, that to the tribe of Ephraim is given the place and honor of the first born in Israel; that to him pertains the "pushing of the people together"—Ephraim's part in the gathering of Israel in the last days; that the seed of Manasseh is to become a great people, while Ephraim is to become a multitude of nations—greater than Manasseh, as is becoming to the tribe of the first born—"they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh;" that the land possessed by Joseph's posterity is to be peculiarly great and fruitful, blessed with the precious things of heaven, with the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, for the chief things of the ancient mountains, for the precious things of the lasting hills, and for the precious things of the earth and the fullness thereof; that Joseph is as a fruitful bough whose branches run over the wall (i. e., his possessions extend in some way beyond the recognized boundaries of Israel's Palestine inheritance); that Joseph's arms and hands shall be made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; that the God of Israel shall help Joseph and bless him with the blessings of heaven above, of the deep, of the breasts, and of the womb (i. e., he shall be blessed in his posterity); that the blessings of Jacob had prevailed above the blessings of his progenitors, "unto the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills," (perhaps a greater territorial inheritance); that these blessings of Jacob which had "prevailed" above (i. e., exceeded) the blessings of his progenitors, should be realized by Joseph.
These are the promises of God to Joseph. But where are the evidences either from the Bible history or from secular history that the descendants of Joseph have ever attained to the fulfillment of these very gracious and very remarkable promises? As a matter of fact are not Joseph's tribes and descendants practically lost in Israel, so far as any knowledge is obtainable from the Bible, or other Hebrew literature, or general history? The tribe of Judah became the dominating power in the history of Israel in Palestine, and is the only tribe in Israel that has retained any distinctive existence in modern times. What, then, have the promises of God to Joseph, uttered by Jacob, in his inspired patriarchal blessings, and solemnly repeated by the great prophet Moses, failed of their fulfillment? If not, where is the evidence of their fulfillment? It is not to be found unless men turn to and receive it from Joseph's record, the Book of Mormon. But the Book of Mormon once accepted—a book that is a history, in the main, of the descendants of Joseph,[[7]] behold what a fulfilment of the prophetic blessings upon Joseph's seed is there revealed! Here in America Joseph's descendants indeed became a multitude of nations; here, indeed, they possessed a land blessed with the precious things of heaven, for through Nephite prophets was made known the mind and will of God, the coming of Messiah, and the redemption of man that should be wrought out by Him; nay, the Son of God, in person, came in his glorious resurrected state and taught them at first hand and face to face the great things concerning man's salvation; inspired apostles took up the same great theme and for centuries held a great people closely to the path of both truth and righteousness, until the harvest of souls in America exceeded such harvests among any other people whatsoever. In America Joseph's descendants indeed possessed a land noted for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills—the gold, the silver, the iron, the coal fields, the oil fields, and all things else of which the mountains and hills of America yield their rich store; a land noted for the precious things of the earth and the fullness thereof—a land embracing all the climates from earth's torrid equatorial regions, thence shading off both toward the north and the south through temperate climates into the frigid zones; a land of wonderous wealth in fertile plains and valleys, and extensive forest tracts; a land that produces all vegetables and fruits and fiberous growths essential to the feeding and clothing of man; a land whose grandeur and very beauty holds the senses entranced with its magnificence; a land sufficient for empires surrounded by fruitful seas; a land consecrated to free institutions and to righteousness—in a word, the land of Joseph.
By the descendants of Joseph migrating to this land, Joseph is truly a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well whose branches run over the wall; and while his descendants in this land had their varied fortunes, dark days in which sin, both individual and national, made dark their annals, still they had also remarkable periods of righteousness, during which periods there were added many names to the world's great list of warriors, statesmen and prophets, that deserve to be remembered with the world's greatest and best characters. Of warriors, such names as Alma,[[8]] Moroni, the hero of the Nephite republic[[9]] (100 B. C. 56 B. C.), Mormon, Helaman, Teancum; and though engaged in a bad cause, Amlici and Amalickiah, and many others among the Lamanites. Of statesmen such names as the first Nephi, King Benjamin, Mosiah II, Alma the younger, Nephihah, and Pahoran. Of the prophets, Lehi, the first Nephi, Jacob, Mosiah I, Abinadi, Ammon, the son of Mosiah, Alma the elder, also Alma the younger, Samuel, the Lamanite, Nephi, the son of Helaman (last half of the century preceding the Christian era), Nephi, the chief of Messiah's apostles, Mormon, the author of the abridged record known as the Book of Mormon, Moroni, the son of Mormon, and others.
Joseph's descendants in America established and maintained for a thousand years what may be properly called a Christian civilization; for, instructed by their prophets during the six hundred years that they occupied the land of America, preceding the coming of Messiah, they believed implicitly in the Christ that was to come, and looked forward to the redemption of the human race through his atonement, holding the reasonable view that there was as much virtue in looking forward to the atonement of Christ and accepting in their faith his redeeming power, as looking back upon it would have after it had become an accomplished fact[[10]] For four centuries following the advent of Christ the Nephites had, of course, the evidence of his appearing among them and his personal instructions in the gospel, which affected the character of their civilization.
During the time range mentioned, kingdoms, republics and Christian ecclesiastical governments obtained. Such science and arts as might naturally develop from a colony of enlightened Hebrews migrating from Palestine to America six hundred years B. C., flourished; and the ruined monuments of civilization seen in America were reared in part by their hands; the extent of these monuments of civilization, and the degree of civilization they represent are questions that have already been considered.[[11]]
The Book of Mormon is also big with the promise of future events concerning the redemption and glorification of the descendants of Joseph in this promised land of America—the land of Joseph, for so it is declared to be by the Lord Jesus himself. Addressing the twelve disciples whom he had called to the ministry in the western world he said:
Ye are my disciples; and ye are a light unto this people, who are a remnant of the house of Joseph. And behold, this is the land of your inheritance; and the Father hath given it unto you.[[12]]
The Book of Mormon makes known the fact that upon this land of Joseph is to be founded a great city called Zion, or a New Jerusalem. The risen Messiah, while still teaching the gospel in person to the Nephites, and speaking upon this subject, said:
And it shall come to pass that I will establish my people, O house of Israel. And behold, this people will I establish in this land, [referring to the continents of America], 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.[[13]]
Continuing his discourse he said:
For it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that at that day whosoever 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 repent, and hearken unto my words, 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 will also be in their midst.[[14]]
Moroni, however, is still more explicit. He represents that the Jaredite prophet Ether saw the days of Christ, and he spake concerning a new Jerusalem upon the land of America.
And he spake also concerning the house of Israel, and the Jerusalem from whence Lehi should come; after it should be destroyed, it should be built up again a holy city unto the Lord, wherefore it could not be a New Jerusalem, for it had been in a time of old, but it should be built up again, and become a holy city of the Lord; and it should be built unto the house of Israel; and that a New Jerusalem should be built up upon this land, unto the remnant of the seed of Joseph, for which things there has been a type; for as Joseph brought his father down into the land of Egypt, even so he died there; wherefore the Lord brought a remnant of the seed of Joseph out of the land of Jerusalem, that he might be merciful unto the seed of Joseph, that they should perish not, even as he was merciful unto the father of Joseph, that he should perish not; wherefore the remnant of the house of Joseph shall be built upon this land; and it shall be a land of their inheritance; and they shall build up a holy city unto the Lord, like unto the Jerusalem of old; and they shall no more be confounded, until the end come, when the earth shall pass away.[[15]]
The continents of America, then, according to this passage, are the inheritance of Joseph, and here a holy city is to be built unto the Lord that shall be the capital of the western world, a New Jerusalem—Zion. This city is to be founded and glorified by the multitudinous descendants of Joseph, who will be gathered into the land, and also those who will unite with them in righteousness—in so great a work—especially the Gentile races; and together they shall be established in peaceful possession of the land to the end of the world. The exaltation and glory of this predicted future empire for the descendants of Joseph and the Gentile races—the grandeur of its civilization and the security of its righteousness; the brilliancy of its achievements; the excellence of its physical comforts and the beauty and simplicity of both its individual and community life, may not yet be apprehended, though they may be partly seen in the light of modern civilized life; sufficiently seen by aid of that light to establish confidence that realization will outrun the dreams of the ancient prophets, all glorious as they seem.
The Book of Mormon throughout is true to this Josephic idea; it is impregnated with it. Joseph is the central figure throughout. His spirit runs through the whole scheme of the book. We learn from the Book of Mormon of a great Seer that is to arise from among the descendants of this Patriarch Joseph, to bring forth the word of the Lord to them, a thing quite in keeping with the important part to be taken by Joseph and his seed in the affairs of the western world in the last days. The matter is mentioned by Lehi in connection with a blessing he was giving his own son Joseph, born to him while in the wilderness, enroute from Palestine to America:
And now, Joseph, my last born, whom I have brought out of the wilderness of mine afflictions, may the Lord bless thee forever, for thy seed shall not utterly be destroyed. For behold, thou art the fruit of my loins; and I am a descendant of Joseph, who was carried captive into Egypt. And great were the covenants of the Lord, which he made unto Joseph; wherefore, Joseph truly saw our day. And he obtained a promise of the Lord, that out of the fruit of his loins, the Lord God would raise up a righteous branch unto the house of Israel; not the Messiah, but a branch which was to be broken off; nevertheless to be remembered in the covenants of the Lord, that the Messiah should be made manifest unto them in the latter days, in the spirit of power, unto the bringing of them out of darkness unto light; yea, out of hidden darkness and out of captivity unto freedom. For Joseph truly testified, saying: a Seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice Seer unto the fruit of my loins. Yea, Joseph truly said, Thus saith the Lord unto me: A choice Seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins. And unto him will I give commandment, that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren, which shall be of great worth unto them, even to the bringing of them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers. And I will give unto him a commandment, that he shall do none other work, save the work which I shall command him. And I will make him great in mine eyes; for he shall do my work. And he shall be great like unto Moses, whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel. And Moses will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them. Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines, and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days; and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord. And out of weakness he shall be made strong, in that day when my work shall commence among all my people, unto the restoring thee, O house of Israel, saith the Lord.
And thus prophesied Joseph, saying: Behold, that Seer will the Lord bless; and they, that seek to destroy him, shall be confounded; for this promise, which I have obtained of the Lord, of the fruit of my loins, shall be fulfilled. Behold, I am sure of the fulfilling of this promise. And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father. And he shall be like unto me; for the things which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by the power of the Lord shall bring forth my people unto salvation.[[16]]
The reader will observe that this ancient prophecy is fulfilled in the person of the Prophet Joseph Smith, who, both in his name, his character and his work, meets completely the terms of the prophecy.[[17]]
One other matter in connection with the Patriarch Joseph I would mention, insignificant perhaps in comparison of the greater things we have been considering, yet really important for that it is made up of those details so apt to be overlooked by an imposter who would attempt to palm off upon the world, as a revelation, such a work as the Book of Mormon.
It will be remembered that after Lehi's colony had journeyed some days in the wilderness, the prophet-leader sent his sons back to Jerusalem to obtain a copy of the Hebrew scriptures, and the genealogies of his fathers. This copy of the scriptures and genealogies the sons of Lehi obtained from one Laban, a man evidently of some considerable influence in Jerusalem. This record was written in Egyptian characters. And now to the point where these facts touch the Josephic idea of the Book of Mormon.
Joseph, it must be remembered, attained the position of a prince in Egypt, when that nation was doubtless the first political power of the world, and in the kingdom was made second only to the Pharaoh himself, so that he was a man of very high dignity, a fact not likely to be forgotten by his posterity. He unquestionably was deeply learned in all things Egyptian, including the written language, most likely that form of it called the hieratic,—which, as well as the old hieroglyphics, was used in the Egyptian sacerdotal style of writing. I think I am justified in the conclusion that Joseph was learned in this writing since he took to wife Asenath, daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis, or On, and thus became closely associated with, if not actually identified with, the priestly caste of Egypt. The deeply religious character of the Patriarch and of his race would also naturally interest him in the religious lore of so profoundly a religious country as Egypt. Is it not possible that these facts would be an incentive to his posterity to keep alive among them this Egyptian learning of their great ancestor?
To Joseph, be it remembered, was given the birthright in Israel, through Ephraim. Laban, of whom the sons of Lehi obtained the Egyptian records, was a descendant of Joseph,[[18]] doubtless in line of the elder sons since he kept the genealogies and also this Egyptian copy of the holy writings.
Lehi was an Egyptian scholar[[19]] and was enabled to read this version of the Hebrew scriptures and his genealogy recorded in Egyptian characters.
This Egyptian record became the foundation of Nephite sacred literature, that is, for the most part, their sacred records were engraven in Egyptian characters, modified somewhat by them and called the "reformed Egyptian."[[20]]
Let us consider these facts in condensed and succinct form:—
(1) Joseph, son of Jacob, he becomes a prince in Egypt, marries a daughter of the prince On, doubtless becomes learned in Egyptian lore.
(2) Undoubtedly these facts would prove an incentive to his posterity to perpetuate among them the Egyptian learning of their great ancestor.
(3) To Joseph is given the birthright in Israel through his younger son, Ephraim.
(4) Laban, of whom the sons of Lehi obtained the Egyptian copy of the Hebrew scriptures and genealogies was a descendant of Joseph, doubtless in the line of the elder sons since he kept the genealogies and the Egyptian copy of the holy writings.
(5) Lehi is an Egyptian scholar and is able to read this version of the Hebrew scriptures.
(6) This Egyptian copy of the Hebrew scriptures becomes the foundation of the Nephite literature.
Thus we have a series of facts that coalesce remarkably with the claims made for the Nephite record, that it was written in "reformed," that is, changed, Egyptian character, yet these circumstances are only mentioned in an obscure, incidental way. They would never be worked out by an imposter; and were never referred to by Joseph Smith or any of his immediate associates as being valuable evidences in support of the claims of the book. I cannot help thinking, however, that they are so, and for that reason call attention to them here.
II.
The prophecies of Isaiah on the Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon.
In the Book of Isaiah's prophecy is found the following remarkable prediction:
Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: and the book is delivered to him that is not leaned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their hearts far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had not understanding? Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be a forest? And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. The meek also shall increase their joy in the Lord, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. For the terrible one is brought to naught, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught. Therefore thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale. But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel. They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.[[21]]
In the Book of Mormon we have a Nephite version of this prophecy taken from the writings of Isaiah which, it will be remembered, were included in those scriptures which Lehi's colony brought from Jerusalem. The first Nephi applies this prophecy to the record of his own people, the Book of Mormon, and the circumstance attendant upon its coming forth in the last days; all of which will be found in the 27th chapter of second Nephi. In the Nephite version of the prophecy it is made clear that the reasons for keeping the original book from the world is the fact that a portion of it was sealed. The opening verses of the 27th chapter of II Nephi shift the scene of this prophecy to the land inhabited by the Nephites, that is, to America, and describes the spiritual darkness both in that land and in all the nations of the earth, after which the record says:
And it shall come to pass, that the Lord shall bring forth unto you the words of a book, and they shall be the words of them which have slumbered. And behold the book shall be sealed: and in the book shall be a revelation from God, from the beginning of the world to the end thereof. Wherefore, because of the things which are sealed up, the things which are sealed shall not be delivered in the day of the wickedness and abominations of the people. Wherefore the book shall be kept from them. But the book shall be delivered unto a man, and he shall deliver the words of the book, which are the words of those who have slumbered in the dust; and he shall deliver these words unto another; but the words which are sealed he shall not deliver, neither shall he deliver the book. For the book shall be sealed by the power of God, and the revelation which was sealed shall be kept in the book until the own due time of the Lord, that they may come forth; for behold, they reveal all things from the foundation of the world unto the end thereof. And the day cometh that the words of the book which are sealed shall be read upon the house tops; and they shall be read by the power of Christ: and all things shall be revealed unto the children of men, and which ever will be, even unto the end of the earth.[[22]]
Then follows the declaration that there shall be Three Special Witnesses to behold the book by the power of God, and a Few other Witnesses that shall view it according to the will of God. Following the description of the coming forth of this book is a description also of the spiritual awakening among men in much the same order and phraseology as the latter part of Isaiah's prophecy.
Of course this prophecy was fulfilled in the several events we have already noted which resulted in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the accompanying testimony of the Witnesses thereof.[[23]] That is to say, it was fulfilled in the Nephite record being brought forth, after so many ages, and becoming, to those who receive it, as the words of those who have slumbered—the speech out of the ground—the familiar voice from the dust; by Joseph Smith and Martin Harris delivering the transcript of characters from the Nephite record to Dr. Samuel Mitchell and Professor Anthon, "the words of the book that was sealed" were delivered by men to those that were learned, saying, read this, I pray you; by the answer of these learned men to the effect—mockingly, on incidentally learning that the book was sealed—that they could not read a sealed book; by the book being delivered to the one that was not learned, Joseph Smith, who marveled that one not learned should be required to translate the book; by the Lord disdaining those who draw near to him with their mouths, and with their lips honored him, while their hearts were far removed from him, and their fear toward him was taught by the precepts of men; by the Lord proceeding to do a marvelous work and a wonder, by which the wisdom of the world's wise men became as naught; by exalting the wisdom of God above the wisdom of men; by making the deaf to hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind to see out of obscurity; by increasing the joy of the meek in the Lord, and making the poor among men to rejoice in the Holy One of Israel; by expressing his scorn for those who make a man an offender for a word—(does he have in mind those who would reject the Book of Mormon because of the imperfections of its language?); by declaring the speedy redemption of the House of Israel—by the return of the favor of the Lord to Jacob, whose face shall no more wax pale; by making those who erred in spirit come to understanding, and they that murmured to learning doctrine—all of which events have followed or are in process of developing as a sequence to the coming forth of this American volume of scripture, the record of Joseph, by which the world is being enlightened upon the enlarged glory of Israel, both passed and that which is yet to be.
The great difficulty concerning this prophecy being made to apply to the Nephite record and its coming forth will be in the transference of its scenes from Palestine to America. The opening verse of the chapter begins with a reference to Jerusalem:
Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices. Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow.[[24]]
"Ariel, the city where David dwelt," too plainly designates Jerusalem to admit of any doubt; and it would seem that all that immediately follows would be related to David's city, Jerusalem, that is, the siege—the destruction—the humiliation—the speaking low out of the dust—the terrible ones that shall become as chaff—and the destruction that shall come upon those nations that fight against "Ariel"—all this, I say, at first glance seems to relate to Jerusalem, or "Ariel," and makes the transference of the remaining prophetic parts of the chapter to America and the coming forth of the Nephite record somewhat difficult. Still, in the second verse of the chapter there is a sudden transition from "Ariel" to another place that shall be unto the Lord "as" Ariel; and on this point the late Orson Pratt was wont to say:
The prophet [Isaiah] predicts, first, the distress that should come upon Ariel, and, secondly, predicts another event that should be unto the Lord "as Ariel." This last event is expressed in these words, "And it shall be unto me AS Ariel." How was it with Ariel? Her people was to be distressed and afflicted with "heaviness and sorrow." How was it to be with the people or nations who should be "as Ariel," is clearly portrayed in the 3rd and 4th verses: "And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee; and thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust." Now, we ask, What nation upon the earth has been visited with a distress resembling that of Ariel or Jerusalem? We answer that the Book of Mormon informs us that the nation of Nephites who were a remnant of Joseph inhabited ancient America, were brought down to the ground by their enemies. Hundreds of thousands were slaughtered in their terrible wars. Their distress truly may be said to be "as Ariel." Ariel was sorely distressed from time to time, and forts and other fortifications raised against her—similar judgments happened to the remnant of Joseph. Isaiah does not say that Ariel shall speak out of the ground, but he clearly shows that the nation which should be distressed "as Ariel," after being brought down, should speak out of the ground. The words of the prophets of Jerusalem or Ariel, never spoke from the ground, their speech was never "low out of the dust." But the words of the prophets among the remnant of Joseph have spoken from the ground, and their written "speech" has whispered out of the dust.[[25]]
To this also may be added the further reflection that the coming forth of the Nephite record, the circumstances attendant upon that event, the results of enlarged knowledge concerning doctrine and the enlightenment of the world concerning Israel in America, and the future glory that will attend upon the restoration of that ancient people—all this blends with the remaining prophecies of Issiah's 29th chapter, and of which, nowhere else, have we any account of their fulfillment. We must, therefore, say either that these remarkable prophecies of Isaiah have not yet been fulfilled, or that they are fulfilled in connection with the experiences of the Nephites in America, and the coming forth of their abridged scriptures, the Book of Mormon.
III.
The Prophecy of Messiah in Relation to the "Other Sheep" than Those in Palestine that Must Hear His Voice.
In St. John's gospel we have the following statement and prophecy from the lips of Messiah himself:
I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 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.[[26]]
The usual explanation of the prophetic part of this passage is that Jesus here makes reference to the Gentiles as being the other sheep. One great commentary says:
He means the perishing gentiles already his "sheep" in the love of his heart and the purpose of his grace to "bring them" in due time.
Then again the phrase "they shall hear my voice" is explained to mean:
This is not the language of mere foresight that they [the Gentiles] would believe, but the expression of a purpose to draw them to himself by an inward and efficacious call, which would infallibly issue in their spontaneous accession to him.[[27]]
Against this exposition, however, there stands out the fact that when Jesus was importuned by his apostles to heed the prayers of the Cananitish woman, in the coasts of Tyre, he said to them: "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel."[[28]] Therefore, when he says in John, "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," he certainly had reference to some branch of the House of Israel and not to the Gentiles. When the Messiah appeared among the Nephites who, it will be remembered, were a branch of the House of Israel, and a very great branch, too, as we have seen since they are descendants of Joseph,—Messiah declared that it was in that visit to the Nephites that the terms of his New Testament prophecy were fulfilled. The occasion of his making known this truth to the Nephites was when he chose the Twelve Disciples in the western world, and gave them their commission. The passage follows:
And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, he said unto those twelve whom he had chosen, ye are my disciples; and ye are a light unto this people, who are a remnant of the house of Joseph. And behold, this is the land of your inheritance; and the Father hath given it unto you. And not at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem; neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment, that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land. This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them, that 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. And now because of stiffneckedness and unbelief, they understood not my word: therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them. But, verily, I say unto you, that the Father hath commanded me, and I tell it unto you, that ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity; therefore it is because of their iniquity, that they know not of you. And verily, I say unto you again, that the other tribes hath the Father separated from them; and it is because of their [the Jews'] iniquity, that they knew not of them. And verily, I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said, 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.[[29]]
In view of the fact already pointed out that Jesus could not have had reference to the Gentiles in this prophecy concerning "other sheep," I may say of this prophecy as I did of those in the 29th chapter of Isaiah, that either we must say that we have no knowledge of the fulfillment of this very remarkable New Testament prediction, or else we must say that it had its fulfillment as the Book of Mormon teaches, in the advent and ministry of Jesus to the branch of the House of Israel in America.
I have pursued the matter of evidence and argument from the Jewish scriptures to the truth of the Book of Mormon as far as it was my original purpose to do so, referring those who care to enter more minutely into this branch of the subject to the treatment of other Elders who have devoted their works to it.[[30]]
Footnotes
[1]. One of the earliest writers in the Church in support of the claims of the Book of Mormon was Elder Charles Thompson. He published a work at Batavia, N. Y., in 1841 consisting of 250 pages. The title of the book was "Evidences in Proof of the Book of Mormon Being a Divinely Inspired Record, Written by the Forefathers of the Natives Whom we Call Indians." It dwells at length on the scripture proofs of the divine authenticity of the book, the nature of which may be judged from the following statement of what the author expects to prove:
"In treating on this subject, I shall observe the following order, viz: I shall first prove by the Prophets, that God will literally gather Israel, the literal seed of Jacob, from all nations, unto their own land, which God gave unto their fathers, by promise.
"Second: When he shall set his hand to bring to pass this gathering, he will first lift up an ensign on the mountains for the nations—set up his standard to the people, and set a sign among them. And then immediately he will commission officers and send them to the nations, bearing this ensign, to declare his glory among the Gentiles, and to fish out and hunt up Israel, and bring them to their own land for an offering unto the Lord.
"Third: The ensign, standard, and sign, consists of a book—a record of the tribe of Joseph, taken by the Lord and put with the Bible (that is, published to the nations as the Bible now is).
"Fourth: This record of Joseph is to come out of the earth in America because Ephraim's seed dwell there.
"Fifth: America is a promised land to Joseph, and God brought a remnant of his seed here to possess it.
"Sixth: God will make use of men as instruments in bringing this book forth.
"Seventh: This generation is the time when this gathering is to take place; consequently the time when this book is to come forth.
"Eighth: The Book of Mormon is this book, and the Elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the officers commissioned to bear this sign to the nations, and to declare God's glory among the gentiles and gather Israel." (Evidences in Proof of the Book of Mormon, pp. 7, 8).
The writings of Elders Parley P. Pratt (who preceded Elder Thompson in this field by three or four years), and Orson Pratt upon this subject, the first in the Voice of Warning, 1837; the second in his work on Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, England, 1850-1, are too well known to require any summary as their works are still current.
[2]. Jeremiah xxxi: 9.
[3]. I. Chronicles v: 1, 2.
[4]. Genesis xlviii: 12-20.
[5]. Genesis xlix: 22-26.
[6]. Deut. xxxiii: 13-18.
[7]. I have already, at pages 167-8, and note, called attention to the fact that the colony of Lehi was made up of families from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh respectively. Orson Pratt also says, "The American Indians are partly of the children of Manasseh though many of them are of Ephraim through the two sons of Ishmael who came out of Jerusalem 600 B. C., and some of Judah through the loins of David and the kings that reigned over Jerusalem." Pratt's Works, pp. 92; see also chapter XXXIX and footnotes.
[8]. The reason that Alma, born late in the second century B. C., is the first one mentioned of the Nephite warriors is not because he was the first distinguished member of that class among the Nephites, but because the secular history of the Nephites for the first four centuries of their annals was lost through the criminal carelessness of Martin Harris when he lost the 116 pages of manuscript which was the translation of the first part of Mormon's abridgment of that Nephite secular history. We have its place occupied by the translation of the Smaller Plates of Nephi which record gives prominence to spiritual things and to spiritual characters. (I. Nephi xix: 3, 4). But as "there were brave men before Aggamemnon," so also doubtless there were warriors among the Nephites before Alma, but in consequence of not having a translation of the part of the record which dealt with the affairs of government and of wars, they remain for the present, unknown to us.
[9]. Not Moroni, the son of Mormon.
[10]. Alma xxxix: 17-19, I. Nephi xxv: 23-26, Mosiah iii: 13.
[11]. Chapters xxvi and xxvii.
[12]. III. Nephi xv: 12, 13.
[13]. III. Nephi xx: 21, 22.
[14]. III. Nephi xxi: 20-25.
[15]. Ether xiii: 5-8.
[16]. II. Nephi iii: 3-15.
I am not unmindful of the fact that the objector, with some show of reason, could say that it would be an easy matter for an imposter to set down such a prophecy as this—one that would coalesce with the facts of his own life and claim it as a fulfillment of prophecy, and hence an evidence of his calling. The shallowness of such a position is, of course, apparent, but it is not in this way that I refer to the circumstance, but to call attention to the fact that it is in harmony with this Josephic idea of the Book of Mormon, and I am not at all relying upon it in my argument as being a fulfillment of prophecy.
[17]. Compare I. Nephi i: 1-2. Mosiah i: 1-4. Mormon ix: 32-33.
[18]. "And thus my father, Lehi, did discover the genealogy of his fathers; and Laban also was a descendant of Joseph, wherefore he and his fathers had kept the records." I. Nephi v: 16.
[19]. I. Nephi i: 2. Mosiah i: 4.
[20]. Mormon ix: 32, 33.
[21]. Isaiah xxix: 9-24.
[22]. II. Nephi xxvii: 6-11.
[23]. See Vol. II, chapters iv and v.
[24]. Isaiah xxix: 1-2.
[25]. Orson Pratt's Works, p. 11.
[26]. St. John x: 14-16.
[27]. Commentary, Critical and Explanatory of the Old and New Testaments, by Rev. Jamieson, Fausett and Brown, on St. John, ch. x. See also Eidersheim's Life of Jesus, Vol. II., p. 192, where substantially the same view is held.
[28]. Matt. xv: 24.
[29]. III. Nephi xv: 11-21.
[30]. For reference to such works see footnote, pp. 93-94.
CHAPTER XXXVI
EXTERNAL EVIDENCES.—THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHURCH.
The evidence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the Book of Mormon grows out of the relation of the book to the Church. That is to say, the Church is a sequence of the coming forth of the book. Not that a description of the Church organization as we known it is found in the book, or that its officers or their functions are named in it, much less that the extent and limitations of their authority are pointed out in it. All that pertains to the Church organization, and largely to the development of its doctrines, all that pertains to the Church, in fact, comes of a series of direct revelations to Joseph Smith subsequent to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. These revelations were given for the specific purpose of bringing into existence the Church as it now exists, the depository of the divine authority, in the new dispensation, and the instrumentality for proclaiming the truth to the world, and perfecting the lives of those who receive it. The Church, in other words, is the after-work of the inspired Prophet who translated the Nephite record into the English language. Bringing into existence the Church and developing its doctrines was the continuation of the work that began with the first vision of Joseph Smith, the visitation of the angel Moroni, and the translation and publication of the Nephite record. Does this continuation of the work as seen in the organization of the Church and the development of its doctrines justify the expectations awakened by the Book of Mormon, and the manner of its coming forth? Has anything worth while come because of the revelation of the Book of Mormon? The principle, "By their fruits ye shall know them" may have a wider application than making it a mere test of ethical systems or of religious teachers. It may be applied as a test to anything claiming to be a truth. So that what has resulted from the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, is a question of importance. The answer to that question may do much either for the book's vindication or its condemnation; may establish its truth or prove it to be utterly unworthy of its claim to divine origin. I hold it to be a self-evident truth that a revelation from God must not only contain matter within itself that concerns men to know and that is worthy of God to reveal, but it must lead to results worthy of revelation and worthy of God. It is here therefore that the Church becomes a witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon; for while neither the Church organization nor all its doctrines come immediately from a description of either of these in the book's pages, yet the Church is an outgrowth of that movement of which the Book of Mormon may be said to be an important factor. The Book of Mormon cannot be true and the Church of Christ fail to come into existence as an accompanying fact. Indeed, several predictions in the Book of Mormon clearly indicate the establishment of the Church as a sequence to the coming forth of that record, as witness the following:
And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall commence his work among all nations, kindred, tongues and people, to bring about the restoration of his people upon the earth.[[1]]
The Savior, also, in predicting the accomplishment of his work in the last days, when the Nephite record should come forth, in speaking of the Gentiles among whom it should be brought forth, says:
If they will repent, and hearken unto my words, 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.[[2]]
To the first Nephi, also, it was given to behold the establishment of the church of Christ in the last days, for he said:
I beheld the church of the Lamp of God, and its numbers were few. * * * * nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the Saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.[[3]]
Moreover, side by side with the unfolding of the successive facts which brought the Book of Mormon into existence, there was a series of revelations given predicting and making for the establishment of a Church organization. In evidence of which statement I refer to the first visions of Joseph Smith as described by the Prophet himself in the first volume of the Church History,[[4]] and especially as related by him in the letter written to Mr. John Wentworth in 1842; also the Prophet's account of the several visits of Moroni to him, and the prophecies of that angel concerning the coming forth of the work of the Lord, "and how and in what manner his kingdom was to be conducted in the last days;"[[5]] also the eighteen sections of the Doctrine and Covenants from the 2nd section to the 20th, inclusive, being those revelations given between September, 1823, to the fore part of April, 1830—the period during which the Book of Mormon was being revealed and translated—and in which prophetic declarations concerning the coming forth of the Church are frequently made. The last revelation of the series—section twenty—is the one in which the first practical directions are given towards effecting the organization of the Church.
Who ever will look through these writings, to say nothing of frequent allusions to the same matter throughout the Book of Mormon itself, will be convinced that the coming forth of the book must result in bringing into existence the Church.
The Church so brought into existence, cannot be true and the Book of Mormon false. If the book be not true, Joseph Smith is an imposter, a false prophet, and an imposter and false prophet cannot found a true Church of Christ; therefore, if the Church be the true Church of Christ, it is evidence quite conclusive that the book so inseparably connected with it, so vitally related to it, is also true. Of course, the conception is possible that both the Church and the book may be false, but it is inconceivable that one could be true and the other false. It follows therefore that whatever facts exist in the organization and doctrines of the Church which tend to establish it as being of divine origin, tend also to establish the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
Here we have a field of evidence and argument well nigh inexhaustible; but much of it, I may say all of it with which I care to deal, has already been used in volume one of New Witnesses, as follows:
Chapter XIV: "Fitness in the Development of the New Dispensation."
Chapter XV: "The Evidence of Scriptural and Perfect Doctrine."
Chapter XXIV: "The Church Founded by Joseph Smith, a Monument to His Inspiration."
Chapters XXV-XXVI: "Testimony of the Inspiration and Divine Calling of Joseph Smith, Derived from the Comprehensiveness of the Work He Introduced."
Chapter XXVII: "Evidence of Inspiration Derived from the Wisdom in the Plan Proposed for the Betterment of the Temporal Condition of Mankind."
Chapters XXVIII, XXIX, XXX: "Evidence of Divine Inspiration in Joseph Smith Derived from the Prophet's Doctrines in Regard to the Extent of the Universe, Man's Place in It, and His Doctrine Respecting God."
The evidences and the arguments in all these chapters, then, must be considered as appropriated here, and made part of my argument for the truth of the Book of Mormon, as well as for the divine origin of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After thus appropriating all this body of evidence and argument from these chapters in the first volume of New Witnesses, I feel justified in saying: It is the Church that bears witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon rather than the Book of Mormon which bears witness to the Church. Nor is this said in disparagement of the Book of Mormon. It is only saying that what comes of the book is greater than the book itself, that the stately oak is greater than the acorn from which it grew—a giant tree; that the whole is greater than a part; that the work in all its fullness is greater than one of the incidents in which that work had its origin.
Footnotes
[1]. II. Nephi xxx: 8.
[2]. III. Nephi xxi: 22.
[3]. I. Nephi xiv: 12.
[4]. Chapter i.
[5]. History of the Church, Vol. I., ch. ii.
CHAPTER XXXVII
INTERNAL EVIDENCES.—THE BOOK OF MORMON, IN STYLE AND LANGUAGE, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY OF ITS CONSTRUCTION.
I.
Of the Unity and Diversity of Style.
As already set forth in previous pages, the Book of Mormon, with reference to the original documents from which it was translated, is made up of two classes of writings:
1. Original, unabridged Nephite records;
2. Mormon and Moroni's abridgment of Nephite and Jaredite records.
The translation of the unabridged Nephite records comprises the first 157 pages of current editions of the Book of Mormon. The rest of the 623 pages—except where we have the words of Mormon and Moroni at first hand, or here and there direct quotations by them from older records—are Mormon's abridgment of other Nephite records, and Moroni's abridgment of a Jaredite record. It is quite evident that there would be a marked difference in the construction of these two divisions of the book. How there came to be unabridged and abridged records in Mormon's collection of plates has been explained at length in previous pages,[[1]] so that it is now only necessary to say that when Joseph Smith lost his translation of the first part of Mormon's abridgment of the Nephite records, comprised in the 116 pages of manuscript which he entrusted to Martin Harris, he replaced the lost part by translating the smaller plates of Nephi which make up the first 157 pages of the Book of Mormon before referred to. Now, if there is no difference in the style between this part of the Book of Mormon translated from the small plates of Nephi, and Mormon's abridgment of the larger plates, that fact would constitute very strong evidence against the claims of the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, if one finds the necessary change in style between these two divisions of the book, it will be important incidental evidence in its support. Especially will this be conceded when the likelihood that neither Joseph Smith nor his associates would have sufficient knowledge of things literary to appreciate the importance of the difference of style demanded in the two parts of the record. Fortunately the evidence on this point is all that can be desired. The writers whose works were engraven on the smaller plates of Nephi employ the most direct style, and state what they have to say in the first person, without explanation or interpolations by editors or commentators or any evidence of abridgment whatsoever, though, of course, they now and then make quotations from the Hebrew scriptures which the Nephite colony brought with them from Jerusalem. The following passages illustrate their style.
THE FIRST BOOK OF NEPHI.
CHAPTER I.
1. I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days—nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having a great knowledge of the goodnesss and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.
2. Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews, and the language of the Egyptians.
3. And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge. etc.
THE BOOK OF JACOB. [The brother of Nephi.]
CHAPTER I.
1. For behold, it came to pass that fifty and five years had passed away, from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem; wherefore, Nephi gave me, Jacob, a commandment concerning the small plates, upon which these things are engraven.
2. And he gave me, Jacob, a commandment that I should write upon these plates, a few of the things which I considered to be most precious; that I should not touch, save it were lightly, concerning the history of this people which are called the people of Nephi, etc.
THE BOOK OF ENOS.
CHAPTER I.
1. Behold, it came to pass that I, Enos, knowing my father that he was a just man: for he taught me in his language, and also in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And blessed be the name of God for it.
2. And I will tell you of the wrestle which I had before God, before I received a remission of my sins:
3. Behold, I went to hunt beasts in the forest; and the words which I had often heard my father speak concerning eternal life, and the joy of the saints, sunk deep into my heart, etc.
And so it continues with each of the nine writers in this division of the Book of Mormon. But now note how marked the difference is when we come to Mormon's abridgment of the Nephite record which begins with the book of Mosiah:
THE BOOK OF MOSIAH.
CHAPTER I.
1. And now there was no more contention in all the land of Zarahemla, among all the people who belonged to King Benjamin, so that king Benjamin had continual peace all the remainder of his days.
2. And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord.
So also in the abridgment of the book of Alma:
THE BOOK OF ALMA.
CHAPTER I.
1. Now it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, from this time forward, king Mosiah having gone the way of all the earth, having warred a good warfare, walking uprightly before God, leaving none to reign in his stead; nevertheless he established laws, and they were acknowledged by the people; therefore they were obliged to abide by the laws he had made.
2. And it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of Alma in the judgment seat, there was a man brought before him to be judged; a man who was large, and was noted for his much strength, etc.
And so throughout the abridgment this style continues as pointed out in chapter IX of this work. Had the style which is followed in the abridgment found its way into the translation of the unabridged part of the record, the reader can readily see how strong an objection it would have constituted against the claims of the Book of Mormon. As to style in other respects there is marked uniformity in the translation. I have already pointed out the fact that the style of the translation of the Book of Mormon is influenced, of course, by the translator; the statements and ideas of the Nephite writers being set forth in such English and in such literary style as Joseph Smith, with his limited knowledge of language, could command; he, in his turn, of course, being influenced in his expressions by the facts and ideas made known to him from the Nephite record through Urim and Thummim, and the inspiration of God under which he worked. It is useless to assert a diversity of style where it does not exist, and that it does not exist in the Book of Mormon except as to the matter of a distinction between Jaredite and Nephite proper names, hereafter to be noted, and the distinction between the abridged records and those unabridged—to the extent just pointed out—it would be easy, though unnecessary, to demonstrate; since any one may satisfy himself by even a casual inspection of the Book of Mormon itself.
The demand for diversity of style in the various parts of the translation of the Book of Mormon is urged too strongly. It is sometimes represented, even by believers in the Book of Mormon, that the volume contains the compiled writings of a long line of inspired scribes extending through a thousand years, written not only at different times but under varying conditions, and that unity of style under such circumstances is not to be expected, and did it occur it would be fatal to the claims made for the Book of Mormon! Now, as a matter of fact, there is great unity of style in the translation of the Book of Mormon which any one can verify who will read it; and properly so, I insist; for the reason that general unity of style is not incompatible with the theory of the work's construction and translation. First of all this long line of inspired writers that should give to us diversity of style in their writings is reduced really to a very small matter when the facts in the case are considered. We have already seen, in chapter IX, that all told there are but eleven writers in the Book of Mormon. The work of nine of these runs through only 400 years of Nephite history—from the time Lehi's colony left Jerusalem to the time when the Nephites, under Mosiah I., joined the people of Mulek, some 200 years B. C. Then we have the works of no Nephite writer until we come to Mormon, who makes his abridgment of the Nephite records in the closing years of the 4th century A. D. So that 600 years of the 1,000 through which the long line of Nephite writers is supposed to run is lifted bodily from the "time range." I say we have no Nephite writings between the works of the first group of nine Nephite writers (600-200 B. C.) to the writings of Mormon (400 A. D.) I should say, we have no such writings except where here and there Mormon, in his abridgment, makes a direct quotation from some intervening writer between those two periods. Such quotations, however, are neither numerous nor long, and in many instances one is left in doubt as to whether supposed quotations are verbatim or merely the substance of the original documents given by Mormon. What has led to confusion in these matters is that the books of "Mosiah," "Alma," "Helaman," "III Nephi," etc., are not really the books of these men whose names respectively they bear, but are Mormon's abridgment of those books to which abridgment he has given the name of the book he abridged. Then, again, of these eleven writers we have already shown (chapter IX) that the first group of nine writers supplied but 157 pages of the book. Of these Nephi writes 127 1/2 pages; and his brother, Jacob, 21 1/2; making in all 149 of the 157; leaving but 8 pages for the other seven writers; and as Enos, who follows Jacob, writes 2 1/2 pages of the remaining 8, there is left but 5 1/2 pages for the remaining six writers. It should be kept in mind, too, that the whole nine authors were writing in the first 400 years of Nephite times; that Jacob and Nephi lived much of their lives together, therefore, in the same period of time, under similar conditions, with the same little colony of people. Hence there was not much to give diversity of style to their writings, and the few paragraphs left for the remaining seven writers could not be sufficient to develop very much diversity of style in composition. So that the diversity of style clamored for, so far as this group of nine writers is concerned, is not very insistent.
Turning now to the writers of the Book of Mormon who come six hundred years later, Mormon and Moroni, they are contemporaries, father and son. They lived in the same age. One abridged the history of the Nephites, the other a brief history of the Jaredites. So that their work is similar in character, is wrought in the same age, and hence great diversity of style is not to be expected.
Another factor in the question of style is that in the "time range" of 1,000 years through which it is assumed the Book of Mormon is being composed, there is not much change in the manners or customs of the people—not very widely varying conditions. It must be remembered that the colonies which came to America in the sixth century B. C. were made up of men and women who were civilized. They brought with them a knowledge of the civilization in the midst of which they had lived. They also had some Hebrew literature with them, although written in Egyptian characters; also the Hebrews ideas of government and law, and these ideas were promulgated among the people as they increased in numbers and grew into a nation. The before mentioned "time range" of 1,000 years was a period in the world's history when there was no such revolutions taking place in manners, customs, and progress in civilization as is known to our own age. In the western world, as in the eastern, in the period under consideration, human affairs in the matter of developing civilization, were well nigh stationary. The same methods and implements of warfare were employed at the close of the period as were used at its beginning. So in agriculture, commerce, and in the sciences and arts. Not nearly so many changes took place in that thousand years as have taken place within the last hundred years. Hence, so far as changing conditions affecting style of composition during the time limit of 1,000 years is concerned, there is nothing which demands great diversity of style.
Another item at this point should be considered with reference to a misapprehension of the character of the Book of Mormon. It has been frequently urged by writers against the Book of Mormon that it pretends to be the national or racial literature of the peoples of the western hemisphere, and that in the light of such pretentions it is utterly contemptible. Such a conception of the Book of Mormon, however, is entirely unwarranted, since no such claims are made for it by those at all acquainted with its character. No one acquainted with the book could for a moment hold it up as the national literature of either the Jaredite empire or of the Nephite monarchy or republic, any more than he could regard the single work of Josephus on the "Antiquities of the Jews" as the national literature of the Hebrew race or nation; or Doctor William Smith's "Condensed History of England" (less than four hundred pages) as the national literature of the British empire.
The Book of Mormon was constructed in this manner: Let us suppose that a writer has before him the national literature of the old Roman empire; the works of Livy, Sallust, Virgil, Caesar, Terrance, Cicero, and the rest. The account of the chief events mentioned in these several volumes he condenses in his own style into a single volume. Coming to the annals of Tacitus, however, he is so well pleased with some portions of them that notwithstanding the events Tacitus narrates parallel some parts of his own abridgment of the history, he places them, without editing or changing them in the least, with his own writings. This work, upon his death, falls into the hands of his son, who is also a writer. In the course of the second writer's researches he accidentally, or providentially, as you will, discovers the works of the Greek historian, Xenophon. He considers this writer's history of Greece of such importance—especially his history of the "Retreat of the Ten Thousand"—that he condenses into a few pages the events related by Xenophon and binds them in with his father's work, with such comments of his own as he considers necessary. As the first writer's abridgment of some of the Roman books would not be the national literature of Rome, so also the abridgment of Xenophon's writings would not be the national literature of Greece; and as this supposed case exactly illustrates the manner in which the Book of Mormon was constructed by Mormon and Moroni, the absurdity of regarding the book so produced as the national or racial literature of the peoples who have inhabited the western world, will be apparent.
II.
Characteristics of an Abridgment.
In addition to the changes from the first to the third person already noted between the first group of Nephite authors, whose writings are unabridged, and Mormon and Moroni's abridgment, there is one other item which further exhibits the consistency between the style and language of the book with the theory of its construction, viz: The style of Mormon and Moroni's part of the work is pronouncedly the style of an abridgment. Its general characteristics have already been considered in chapter ix., and it only remains here to say that the body of the work is Mormon's abridgment of the chief events from the Nephite annals, with occasional verbatim quotations from those works, and his own running comments upon the same. In the progress of the work one may almost see the writer with a number of the Nephite records about him engaged at his task. He has just recorded the thrilling events of a few years rich in historical instances, and in closing says:
"And thus endeth the 5th year of the reign of the Judges."
Then he strikes a period where there are but few important events in the annals, so he passes over them lightly in this manner:
Now it came to pass in the sixth year of the reign of the Judges over the people of Nephi, there were no contentions nor wars in the land of Zarahemla. * * * * * And it came to pass in the seventh year of the reign of the Judges, there were about three thousand five hundred souls that united themselves to the Church of God, and were baptized. And thus endeth the seventh year of the reign of the Judges over the people of Nephi; and there was continual peace in all that time.[[2]]
He closes another eventful period, in a similar manner:
But behold there never was a happier time among the people of Nephi, since the days of Nephi, than in the days of Moroni; yea, even at this time, in the twenty and first year of the reign of the Judges. And it came to pass that the twenty and second year of the reign of the Judges also ended in peace; yea, and also the twenty and third year.[[3]]
The following is a similar example:
And it came to pass that there was peace and exceeding great joy in the remainder of the forty and ninth year; yea, and also there was continual peace and great joy in the fiftieth year of the reign of the Judges. And in the fifty and first year of the reign of the Judges there was peace also, save it were the pride which began to enter into the church.[[4]]
Again in Helaman:
And it came to pass that the seventy and sixth year did end in peace. And the seventy and seventh year began in peace; and the church did spread throughout the face of all the land; and the more part of the people, both the Nephites and the Lamanites, did belong to the church; and they did have exceeding great peace in the land, and thus ended the seventy and seventh year. And also they had peace in the seventy and eighth year, save it were a few contentions concerning the points of doctrine which had been laid down by the prophets.[[5]] * * * * * * * And thus ended the eighty and first year of the reign of the Judges. And in the eighty and second year, they began again to forget the Lord their God. And in the eighty and third year they began to wax strong in iniquity. And the eighty and fourth year, they did not mend their ways. And it came to pass in the eighty and fifth year, they did wax stronger and stronger in their pride, and in their wickedness; and thus they were ripened again for destruction. And thus ended the eighty and fifth year.[[6]]
Moroni's abridgment of the Jaredite record—the Book of Ether—fails to exhibit this particular characteristic of an abridgment, owing doubtless to the brevity of the original record he abridged—there were but twenty-four plates in the record of Ether, and "the hundredth part," says Moroni, "I have not written;"[[7]] but otherwise that book of Ether bears all the marks of being an abridgment that the work of Mormon does, except perhaps that the running comments of Moroni are more frequent than Mormon's.
III.
Originality in Book of Mormon Names.
There is another gratifying distinction between Mormon's abridgment of the Nephite record and Moroni's abridgment of the Jaredite record that is also of first rate importance as an evidence of consistency in the work. That is the quite marked distinction between Nephite and Jaredite proper names as given in these respective parts of the record. Take for instance the list of names of Jaredite leaders and kings and compare it with a list of prominent Nephite leaders.
JAREDITE NAMES.
Jared
Pagag
Jacom
Gilgah
Mahah
Oriah
Esrom
Corihor
Shim
Cohor
Corom
Noah
Nimrah
Nimrod
Kib
Shule
Omer
Coriantumr
Emer
Com
Heth
Shez
Lib
Hearthom
Aaron
Amnigaddah
Shiblom
Seth
Ahah
Ethem
Moron
Coriantor
Shared
Gilead
Shiz
Ether
Riplakish
Morianton
Kim
Levi
Corum
KishNEPHITE NAMES.
Nephi
Lehi
Laman
Zoram
Chemish
Abinadom
Amaleki
Mosiah
Benjamin
Ammon
Alma
Amlici
Nephihah
Gideon
Amulek
Giddonali
Giddianhi
Aminadi
Zeniff
Zeezrom
Lamoni
Aaron
Helaman
Limhi
Heloram
Mormon
Moroni
Aminadab
Moronihah
Ammoron
Pacumeni
Gadianton
Kishkumen
Shiblon
Pahoran
Paanchi
Pachus
Cezoram
Limher
Limhah
Mathoni
Mathonihah
Lehonti
Gidgiddonah
Muloki
Abinadi
Corihor
Gidgiddon
Amalickiah
Zemnarihah
Hagoth
Helam
Hearthom
Sherrizah
An inspection of these two lists of names discloses the fact that the Jaredite names, with the single exception of "Shule" and "Levi," end in consonants, while very many of the Nephite names end in a vowel; and while many of the Nephite names also end in consonants, yet the preponderance of Nephite names that end in vowels over Jaredite names is considerable. I am not able to say what value attaches to this distinction, I can only point it out as a marked distinction, and it may be an important one.
Another distinction may be discerned in the fact that there are more simple, and evidently root-words among the Jaredite names than among the Nephite names; that is, there are not so many derivatives in the former as in the latter, though in the former there are a few. "Corihor," may have come from "Cohor;" "Coriantumr," from "Coriantor," though it may be merely a variation of the more ancient name "Moriancumer." "Nimarah" may have come from "Nimrod;" and "Akish" from "Kish." But this about exhausts the derivatives among the Jaredite names. As illustrations merely of the Nephite derivatives, and not with a view of exhausting the list, I give the following: "Nephihah," evidently comes from "Nephi," "Amalickiah," from "Amaleki," "Gidgiddoni," "Gidgiddonah," "Giddonah," and "Gideon," from "Gid," "Helaman" from "Helam;" "Ammoron," from "Ammon;" "Moronihah," from "Moroni;" "Mathonihah," from "Mathoni." This is enough for illustration, and inspection will show the percentage of derivatives in the Nephite names of the Book of Mormon to be not only greatly but very greatly in excess of derivatives in the Jaredite names. And this is what consistency demands of the Book of Mormon. The more ancient people the simpler and fewer compound names—more root names, fewer derivatives. William A. Wright, M. A., Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge, writing for the Hackett edition of Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, says:
Glancing a moment at the history of names and name-giving among the Hebrews, we readily distinguish many of those changes which characterize popular customs and habits in this particular among all peoples. In their first or ruder age their names are simple and "smell of nature." In the period of their highest national and religious development we find more compound and more allusions to artificial refinements.[[8]]
That law is found operating at least between the more ancient people of the Book of Mormon, the Jaredites, and the more modern people, the Nephites. While the list of names obtainable from the abridgment of the very small fragment of a Jaredite record of the Book of Mormon does not give sufficient data to warrant a positive conclusion, yet I think there is discernable a tendency even in that list from the more simple to derivative names;[[9]] while as between the earlier and later Nephite times the translation from the simple to an increase of compound names is quite marked.[[10]] I do not mean by this that the simpler names are not found throughout the whole Nephite period, but that the percentage of derivative names greatly increase in the latter times.
Referring again to the marked distinction between Jaredite and Nephite names, I desire to call attention to the fact that the demands for this distinction are imperative, since these peoples though they occupied the same continent did so successively and at periods of time widely separated. The Jaredites occupied the north continent from soon after the dispersion of mankind from Babel until the opening of the 6th century B. C. About the time the Jaredites were destroyed the Nephite colony arrived in South America, and Mulek's colony in North America. But the only person connecting the two peoples was Coriantumr (the last of the Jaredites) through some nine months of association with the colony of Mulek. Whether or not his race was perpetuated by marriage into Mulek's colony is merely a matter of conjecture.[[11]] So far as the Nephite connection with the Jaredites is concerned it exists only through the Jaredite records discovered by the people of Zeniff (B. C. 123), and translated soon afterwards by Mosiah II. This translation of the Jaredite record making known, in outline merely, the history of the Jaredites to the Nephites, might give to the Nephites some Jaredite names, as in the case of the noted warrior among the Nephites bearing the name Coriantumr.[[12]] Still from the fact that the connection between the Nephites and the Jaredites is so slight; and the occupancy of the North Continent by the respective peoples separated by so long a period of time, it could not be otherwise than that there would be a marked distinction in proper names between the two peoples, a distinction that will be quite apparent to the reader when he compares the respective lists of Jaredite and Nephite names here presented at radom; and which, had it been wanting, would have been a serious objection to the consistency, and consequently to the claims, of the Book of Mormon.
When the general unity of style found in the Book of Mormon is taken into account, this distinction in proper names becomes all the more remarkable. But it is a case where the circumstances emphatically demand a distinction; just as the circumstances emphatically demand a marked distinction at the transition from the unabridged writings of the Nephite authors—written in the first person, and in so simple and direct a style—to the abridged record of Mormon—written in the third person and in so complex, not to say confusing, a style. Had the Prophet Joseph's translation of the Book of Mormon failed to have shown the distinctions at these points where such distinctions are so imperatively demanded—in a word, had the style and language of the book failed to be consistent with the theory of its construction—how serious an objection the failure would have been considered! But since the consistency of the style and language of the book with the theory of the work's construction is established, how strong the evidence is which that fact constitutes! And more especially when it is remembered that neither Joseph Smith nor his associates had sufficient knowledge of literature, to cause them to appreciate the importance of such a consistency. The evidence that they were unconscious of the point here made is to be found in the fact that they never alluded to it in their life time, nor was the foregoing argument ever made by any one else within their life time.
IV.
Of the Nephite Custom in Naming Cities and Provinces Being Ancient.
It should be remarked that both Jaredites and Nephites named cities, plains, valleys, mountains and provinces after the names of prominent men, especially the men who were identified in some way with the settlement or history of said places; so that it often happens that names of places take on the names of men or some variation of their names; and hence the frequent identity and more frequently the likeness between the names of places and the names of men. Both people also followed the custom of ancient nations, not only in naming cities after the men who founded them or who were prominently connected with their history, but also in giving the district of country surrounding a city the same name as the city. Thus among the Jaredites there is Nehor the city, and "the land [or province] of Nehor," meaning the district of country surrounding the city of Nehor.[[13]] I believe also that there was a Jaredite city of Moron, as well as a land of Moron, although there is no specific reference to a city of that name, but frequent references to the "land of Moron,"[[14]] which I take to mean the district of country surrounding the city of Moron.[[15]] That this custom obtained among the Nephites is so commonly understood that illustration is scarcely necessary, yet by way of illustration I instance the following: The city of Bountiful,[[16]] and the land of Bountiful;[[17]] the city of Zarahemla,[[18]] and the land of Zarahemla; [[19]] the city of Moroni;[[20]] and the land of Moroni;[[21]] the city of Nephihah,[[22]] and the land of Nephihah;[[23]] the city of Manti, and the land of Manti.[[24]]
That the customs here referred to are in harmony with the customs of ancient nations I cite the following as illustrations of my statement: Nineveh takes its name from Ninus, the son of Nimrod. Nimrod founded the city and gave to it a variation of his son's name.[[25]] M. Rollin also identifies Nimrod with Belus, the first king whom the "people deified for his great actions," and after whom, some authorities affirm, the noted temple of Belus within the city of Babylon was named; and from which the city itself, as some affirm, took its name.[[26]] Of course we have the statement of holy writ that Babylon received its name from the circumstances of the Lord confounding the language of the builders of the city,[[27]] "Babel" in the Hebrew meaning confusion. Professor Hackett, however, in his contribution on the subject to Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, while nothing the statement in Genesis, says: "But the native (i. e. Chaldean) etymology is Ba-il 'the gate of the god 'Il;' or perhaps more simple, 'the gate of god;' and this no doubt was the original intention of the appellation as given by Nimrod, though the other sense (i. e. the Bible sense) came to be attached to it after the confusion of tongues." Hence one may say that "Babylon" has taken its name from both circumstances. That is, from the "Nimrod" of the Chaldeans it takes its name from its founder, "Belus," who is Nimrod, while to the Hebrew mind it owes its name to the circumstance of the confusion of languages.
Professor Campbell, according to Osborn, thinks that the name "Jebez," of Chronicles ii: 55, is "Thebes;" which originally was "Tei Jabez," the city named from "Jabez," and which is written without the "T" in the hieroglyphics, that letter being only the article.[[28]]
Plato in his Timaeus, where he introduces the story of Atlantis, says: "At the head of the Egyptian Delta, where the river Nile divides, there is a certain district which is called the district of Sais, and the great city of the district is also called Sais, and is the city from which Amasis the king was sprung."[[29]] This is an incident where the district of country takes its name from the city. Other instances in support of the ancient custom here referred to will be found in the case of "Rome," so called after "Romulus;" "Alexandria; after Alexander;" "Constantinople," after "Constantine." The names of countries and sections of country," says Professor W. A. Wright, "are almost universally derived from the name of their first settlers or earliest historic populations."[[30]]
V.
Of the Nephites, Like the Jews Being a Mononymous People.
Still another singular and fortunate circumstance for the claims of the Book of Mormon with reference to names should be noted. "Unlike the Romans," says Professor Wright, already quoted, "but like the Greeks, the Hebrews were a mononymous people. That is, each person received but a single name.[[31]] The Nephites, it must be remembered, were Hebrews, and therefore would very likely follow the custom of their race with reference to this practice of giving but one name to a person. This they did; for throughout the Nephite part of the Book of Mormon, there is not a single instance where a person receives more than one name. In other words, the Nephites, like the whole Hebrew race, were a mononymous people. So, too, the Jaredites, a more ancient branch of the same race, are a mononymous people.
Now, as neither Joseph Smith nor his associates would likely be acquainted with this singular custom of the Hebrew race, I take the fact of agreement of Nephite practice with this Hebrew custom, as an incidental evidence of some weight in favor of the claims of the Book of Mormon. To appreciate the value of it, I will ask the reader to think what importance would be given to an objection based upon the violation of this custom by a branch of the Hebrew race. That is, suppose the Book of Mormon had been full of double names, applied to the same person, what then? Could it not be claimed with some force that here would be the violation of a very universal custom of the Hebrew people? I think such a claim, if the facts warranted it, would be both forceful and consistent. Instead of the violation of the Hebrew custom, however, there is a singular accordance with it; and the fact of agreement, I suggest, is entitled to as much weight in favor of the book as the supposed disagreement would have been against it.
This circumstance also sustains the claims of the Book of Mormon to being an ancient record; for if it was of modern origin, having for its authors Joseph Smith and his associates, it would not very likely have followed so absolutely this ancient Hebrew custom, since Joseph Smith and his associates lived in a time and among a people where it was common at least, if not actually customary, to give to persons double names, a custom that would likely have influenced them in any creation of names which they would have attempted.
But very few Jaredite and Nephite proper names with their interpretation, and but few original common names, with their interpretation have found their way into the translation of the Jaredite and Nephite records. Of the first class—proper names with interpretations—I instance the Jaredite word "Ripliancum,"[[32]] which by interpretation means "large," or "to exceed all." It is employed in connection with describing the arrival of the army of Coriantumr in the region of the great lakes, between the present countries of Canada and the United States. It is most probably a proper name carrying with it the signification equivalent to the phrase we use in describing the same waters, viz: "the Great Lakes," or, as the implied Book of Mormon interpretation stands, bodies of water that exceed in size all others of their kind.
Then there is the Jaredite common name "deseret," meaning honey bee. [[33]] In passing I call attention to the fact that the Hebrew proper name, "Deborah" also means "bee," that is, honey bee;[[34]] and it is quite likely that the proper name "Deborah" is derived from the same root whence comes "Deseret." The only other common names from the Jaredites are the words "cureloms" and "cumoms."[[35]] These are the names of domestic animals said to have been especially useful to the Jaredites, hence most likely used either for draft or pack animals, or perhaps both.
Turning to the Nephite record we have the name of "Irreantum,"[[36]] meaning the sea, or "many waters." Also the word "Liahona,"[[37]] meaning "compass," or perhaps more properly, "director," since, unlike the modern compass, it indicated a variant direction rather than a permanent one; and was made useful to the person possessing it through the principle of faith rather than the magnetic polar force; hence it could only be explained by the term "compass" in that it was an "indicator," or "director." The word "Gazelem" is also a Nephite word, meaning "a stone," that is, a seer stone, since it is spoken of as a means of ascertaining knowledge through it by revelation.[[38]] In addition to these words we have also a number of names of Nephite coins and the names of fractional values of coins, as follows:
The names of the gold coins, commencing with the one of lowest value, are: a senine, a seon, a shum and a limnah.
A seon was twice the value of a senine; a shum was twice the value of a seon; and a limnah was equal to the value of all the other gold coins.
The silver coins were, a senum, an amnor, an ezrom and an onti.
Their relative value is stated as follows: an amnor of silver was twice the value of a senum; an ezrom four times the value of a senum; an onti was equal in value to all the other silver coins.
The fractional values are represented as follows: A shiblom is half a senum; a shiblum is one half a shiblom; a leah is one half of a shiblum.
We have no means of obtaining specifically the value of these coins in modern terms, nor am I interested in that matter here. I only desire to call attention to the fact that these are Nephite names brought over into our language by the translation of the Nephite records, though reference to the passage[[39]] where the tables are given will plainly indicate to the interested enquirer that there is stated a system of relative values in these coins that bears evidence of its being genuine.
Alluding to this matter of names in a general way I suggest that there is nothing more difficult in literature than to originate new names. As a matter of fact names do not suggest things, but things suggest names. Men do not bring into existence names and then fasten them upon things, but they see an object, they hear a sound, or become acquainted with an idea, and the object, the sound or the idea suggests a name. So that names, speaking generally, arise from things already existing and are not formed arbitrarily. The names in the Book of Mormon could come into existence in one of two ways only. Either Joseph Smith arbitrarily created them, or else he found them in the Nephite record. Since originating new names is so extremely difficult, the probability in the case lies on the side of Joseph Smith finding them in the Nephite record. If any one should doubt of the difficulty of originating new names I would invite him to make the experiment. In this connection I remember with what ease an old teacher of mine in English put down a somewhat presumptuous class mate. The teacher had expatiated on the excellence of the Proverbs of Solomon, when the aforesaid class mate expressed his contempt of things so simple. "Proverbs," exclaimed he, to those sitting near him, "why, it's easy enough to write proverbs." The good Doctor who was our teacher happened to overhear the remark and said to the speaker, "Suppose you write us a few." My class mate tried: and the more he tried the farther from proverbs he got. He had not learned that proverbs were the "pure literature of reason:" the statement of "absolute truths without qualification;" "the sanctuary of the intuitions of humanity." And so with this matter of originating names. It may seem a simple thing, but those who entertain such an idea let them give us a few new names. Now, the Book of Mormon has a number of proper names that are not new. These are chiefly Bible names and are found in Nephite writings because the Nephites brought with them to the western hemisphere copies of so many of the sacred books of the Jews as were in existence at the time of their departure from Judea, 600 B. C., parts of which were multiplied by copying and helped form part of the Nephite literature; hence they sometimes used Bible names. But the Book of Mormon also gives us a long list of absolutely new names, both of men and of places, though in many in stances, as already pointed out, the names of cities and the districts or country surrounding them took the name of some noted person in some way or other prominently connected with the history of the place. I have already pointed out that a marked distinction exists between Nephite names and Jaredite names, so that we may see that the Book of Mormon gives us two lists of new names, one Jaredite, the other Nephite, which fact, when coupled with the well recognized difficulty of originating names, renders the performance all the more remarkable. It not only demonstrates the originality of the Book of Mormon, but must be admitted to be either a striking demonstration of wonderful genius on the part of the Prophet Joseph Smith, or else a very strong evidence in support of the claims of the Book of Mormon. And since the list of new names is quite too large to refer to the genius of one single writer for their origin, I think the latter conclusion represents the truth in the case.
Footnotes
[1]. Vol. II., chapter viii.
[2]. Alma iv: 1-5.
[3]. Alma i: 23, 24.
[4]. Helaman iii: 32, 33.
[5]. Helaman iii: 32, 33.
[6]. Helaman xi: 21-24
[7]. Ether xiv: 33.
[8]. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Hackett edition Vol. III., p. 2062.
[9]. In the first chapter of Ether there is given a list of names of Jaredite kings, twenty-six in all. In the first thirteen names—half of the number—representing the most ancient Jaredite times, there are only four that could possibly be derivatives; these are Oriah, Coriantumr, Riplakish, Morianton, while in the latter half of the list of names there are at least six derivatives. Beginning with the most ancient they are—Hearthom, Amnigaddah, Coriantumr, Shiblon, Ethem, Coriantor.
[10]. It is not until we reach the middle and later period of Nephite times that we meet with such names as Amlici, Antiomno, Amalickiah, Nephiah, Moronihah, Kishkuman, Pecumeni, Lachoneus, Giddianhi, Gidgiddoni, Zemnarihah, Ammaron, Ammonihah, and many others that are plainly derivative names.
[11]. While there can be no more than conjecture upon this point the likelihood of the thing, I am inclined to believe, is all on the side of his marriage and the perpetuation of his race. Coriantumr had doubtless every reason to believe that he was the sole survivor of his people, and he could have no greater anxiety than that his race should be perpetuated. In support of this theory it may be urged that in the Nephite history, about 41 B. C., we learn of a very strong and mighty leader in war, bearing the name "Coriantumr," who was a descendant of Zarahemla (Helaman i: 15: 32), the leader of the descendants of Mulek's colony when discovered by Mosiah I, about 200 B. C. It was Mulek's colony, it will be remembered, who found Coriantumr, the Jaredite, and with whom he lived some nine months. May it not be reasonably supposed that this noted man among the Nephites, bearing the name of the old Jaredite chieftain was a descendant of his, since we find that chieftain's name strangely appearing among the Nephites? And may it not be urged that here we have one of those obscure instances in the history of a great people unlikely to be provided for by conspirators constructing a book to be imposed up the world as a revelation from God?
[12]. It is quite possible also that the word Shiblon among the Nephites came from the Jaredites. Unfortunately the orthography of this name is given in two ways in the translation of the Jaredite abridgment, "Shiblom" and "Shiblon;" but if the Jaredite name is Shiblon, it may be that the name among the Nephites was taken from the Jaredites as suggested.
[13]. Ether vii: 4-9.
[14]. Ether vii: 6, 16, 17; also xiv: 6-11.
[15]. Helaman v: 14.
[16]. Alma li: 30.
[17]. Helaman i: 22.
[18]. Helaman i: 23.
[19]. Alma l: 14.
[20]. Alma lxii: 32.
[21]. Alma lxii: 30.
[22]. Alma lxii: 30.
[23]. Alma lvi: 14.
[24]. Alma lvi: 14.
[25]. Rollin's Ancient History, Vol. I., pp. 266, 227.
[26]. Ibid.
[27]. Genesis xi: 9.
[28]. Osborn, Ancient Egypt and the light of Modern Discoveries, p. 205.
[29]. Plato (Jowett), Vol. II., p. 517.
[30]. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Hackett Ed., Vol. III., p. 2060.
[31]. Ibid.
[32]. Ether xv: 8.
[33]. Ether ii: 3.
[34]. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, article "Names," Vol. III., p. 2061.
[35]. Ether ix: 19.
[36]. I. Nephi xvii: 5.
[37]. Alma xxxvii: 38-40. I. Nephi xvi: 10-30. I. Nephi xviii: 12-21. II. Nephi v: 12.
[38]. Alma xxxvii: 23.
[39]. Alma xi.
CHAPTER XXXVIII
INTERNAL EVIDENCES—THE BOOK OF MORMON FORMS OF GOVERNMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE TIMES AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY EXISTED.
In the Book of Mormon three forms of government are said to have existed among the various peoples inhabiting the western world. These are, first, a Monarchial form; second, a sort of Republic or rule of Judges; third, an Ecclesiastical government, or rule of priests, ending finally in the rule of military chieftains. The Book of Mormon giving as it does, though only in an incidental way, a description of these several forms of government, presents a crucial test of its claims to being a translation of an ancient record. For if in describing any one of these forms of government it should be out of harmony with well known facts concerning ancient forms of government, or if it ascribes to them qualities or powers out of harmony with the times or circumstances under which they existed, then doubt is thrown upon the claims of the book to being a translation of an ancient record. To illustrate the proposition now laid down: It is well known that to the ancients the only form of monarchy was what we call a "simple" or "absolute" monarchy; that is, a form of government in which all powers of government are centered in one person. Such a thing as a division of the powers of government into co-ordinate branches, relegating several functions to distinct persons or groups of persons, was unknown to the ancients. The ideas prevailing in modern times which have brought into existence our "mixed" or "constitutional monarchies" had not as yet been discovered by the ancients; hence if such modern ideas concerning monarchy should be found in the Book of Mormon governments, involving the existence of cabinets, parliaments or distinct judiciary departments it would at least be very prejudical to the claims of the book to being an ancient record.
Again in respect of democratic forms of government: the only form known to the ancient was "simple" democracy. The form of government by which the people acted directly upon governmental affairs. The principle of representation in democracies was not as yet discovered in times contemporary with the Book of Mormon republic, therefore if in the Nephite republic, or the "reign of the Judges," as that form of government is sometimes called in the Book of Mormon, there should be found the representative principle, which is really a modern refinement in government, that fact too would be prejudicial to its claims being an ancient record. Per contra, if these modern ideas respecting monarchial and democratic forms of government are absent from the kingdoms and republics described in the book, then it would be at least presumptive evidence of the genuineness of its claims; for if the Book of Mormon had been the product of a modern author, or authors, there would very likely be found in it some of the modern ideas of government, both in its monarchies and in its republics, and especially would this be probable if its authors were illiterate men and not acquainted with these facts concerning government among ancient peoples. Under those circumstances the ancient and modern forms would inevitably be confounded because modern illiterate authors would not possess sufficient discretion to keep them separated.
Monarchies.
I am aware that the Book of Mormon account of the Jaredite monarchy is so very limited that we can form but little idea as to its nature; but the little there is said of it is strictly in harmony with the ancient forms of monarchy. That is, the kings were absolute, the source of all law and the center of all political power. They were inducted into their office by formal anointing, according to ancient custom. [[1]] They are sometimes associated with them on the throne the son who had been selected to succeed in the kingly authority, which is also in accordance with ancient custom.[[2]]
Respecting the nature of the Nephite kingdom also but little can be learned from the Book of Mormon because matters concerning government are only mentioned in an incidental way, but from what little is said we are justified in forming the same conclusions regarding it as in regard to the Jaredite Monarchy. That is, it was "simple" or "absolute" monarchy. The remarks of Mosiah II in relation to the power of a king for good or evil leads to the conclusion that the power of a Nephite king was most absolute; and that with the Nephite monarch as with the Jaredite, the king was the source of all laws and the center of all political authority. The remarks referred to are as follows:
And behold, now I say unto you, ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king, save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood. For behold, he has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God; and he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people; yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever does not obey his laws, he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him, he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness.[[3]]
This certainly is a description of arbitrary powers vested in the king. And what is true of the Nephite monarchy is equally true of the Lamanite kingdoms—judging from those rare and brief glimpses one gets of Lamanite governments in the Book of Mormon. Among all three peoples—Jaredites, Nephites, Lamanites—wherever kingly government is described it is the same—it is "simple," "absolute," "ancient" monarchy.[[4]] There is no indication anywhere of the existence of cabinets or parliaments; or of the division of political authority into executive, legislative or judicial co-ordinate branches. Nor is there any indication that there was ever an attempt to blend the various primary forms of government—monarchy, aristocracy, democracy—into a mixed government, a government embracing elements from all three of these recognized primary forms. Such mixed governments are modern creations; refinements in the science of government unattempted by the ancients. The ancients, in fact, held them to be impossible, mere visionary whims, solecisms. Even a man of the excellent understanding of Tacitus declared that if such a government were formed it could never be lasting or secure.
Reign of the Judges—Republic.
It is however in the matter of the Nephite "reign of the Judges" or the "Nephite Republic" that an illiterate, modern writer would most likely have betrayed himself. Especially an American writer strongly imbued with the excellence, to say nothing of the sanctity, of the American form of government.
That Joseph Smith, as also his early and later associates, were imbued with such opinions concerning the American system of government is notorious. Joseph Smith declared the constitution of the United States to have resulted from the inspiration of God: "And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers, and are in authority over you, according to the laws and constitution of the people which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles, that every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto them, that every man be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."[[5]]
On another occasion the Prophet said: "Hence we say, that the constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner; it is to all those who are privileged with the sweets of its liberty, like the cooling shades and refreshing waters of a great rock in a thirsty and weary land. It is like a great tree under whose branches men from every clime can be shielded from the burning rays of [oppression's] sun."[[6]]
Still more especially would an illiterate modern writer be likely to betray himself if the American system of government was practically the only one of which he had any definite knowledge. If then his description of a "reign of judges," based upon democratic principles, among an ancient people, escape not only some but all modern refinements of democratic government—some of which were unknown until employed in the establishment of the republic of the United States [[7]]—then indeed are we well within the realm of the marvelous. And this we may claim for the Book of Mormon description of the "reign of the judges," viz. that while it outlines a government based upon the central principle of democracy—government by the people[[8]]—yet there is nothing modern in that republic. The principle of representation no where appears; a division of the political power into co-ordinate and independent departments no where appears; there is no indication of a federation even, much less any of those modern refinements which distinguish modern federated republics from more ancient federated republics.
Of course democratic government existed from very ancient times and there have also been from of old confederated republics, but the government of the United States rests upon some principles that are recognized as entirely modern. The principal differences between the modern republics and the ancient are these: first, the modern republics recognize the principle of representation: that is, masses of the people delegate authority to act for them to selected representatives; second, the powers of government are lodged in three distinct co-ordinate departments, the law making, the law executing, and the law determining departments; third, the federal government has the same division of political power as the respective states, viz., legislative, executive and judicial; and also has conferred upon it power, within the limits prescribed by the constitution, to act directly through its own instrumentalities upon the citizens of the respective states. The last item the French philosopher De Tocqueville, in speaking of the republic of the United States, declared to be a wholly novel theory which he characterizes as a great discovery in modern political science. "In all the confederations which precede the American constitution of 1789," he says, "the allied states, for a common object, agree to obey the injunctions of a federal government; but they [the respective states] reserve to themselves the right of ordaining and enforcing the execution of the laws of the union. The American states which combined in 1789, agreed that the federal government should not only dictate but should execute its own enactments. In both cases the right is the same but the exercise of the right is different; and this difference produced the most momentous consequences. The new word which ought to express this novel thing does not yet exist." (De Tocqueville, U. S. Constitution, Vol. I.)
Ecclesiastical Government.
The government which obtained in the era following the advent of Messiah in the western world was also in harmony with the conditions prevailing in those days. That is, the ecclesiastical government supplied by the Church founded by Messiah appears to have superseded all other form of government through the two hundred years which succeeded that event; nor, indeed, up to the close of the Book of Mormon period, 420 A. D., except here and there a reference made to "kings" among that division of the people who styled themselves Lamanites; but I take it that even these "kings" among the Lamanites more nearly resembled military chieftains than monarchs at the head of settled governments. In the division of the people called Nephites there is no reference either to a reign of judges or of kings or other form of government than this Church or Ecclesiastical government, so that what I have previously said upon this subject[[9]] will be found correct, viz., the people after the establishment of the Church of Christ among them found its institutions and authority sufficient, as well in secular as in spiritual affairs. That such a government as this should take the place of governments formerly existing, I repeat, was in harmony with conditions that obtained after the advent of Messiah. I have already called attention to the fact that government becomes necessary because of the vices and injustice of men. That its chief function is to restrain men from injuring one another and thus give security to society. When all the people are righteous government becomes well nigh unnecessary, or operates at least in a very limited sphere, and the form of government becomes a matter of more or less indifference. Now it will be remembered that in the awful judgments of God which had swept over the western world at Messiah's crucifixion the more ungodly part of the people were destroyed, and those who survived were afterwards thoroughly converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ by his advent and the ministry of his servants, so that there was inaugurated an era of peace and perfect righteousness. For two centuries at least there was a veritable golden age in the American continents, during which time the simple laws of righteousness promulgated by the gospel were all sufficient as a rule of conduct, and men practically forgot the reign of kings and the reign of judges. When wickedness once more began to stalk through the land it may be that the hitherto prevailing ecclesiastical governments gave way to the rule of military chieftains, both among the Nephites and Lamanites, though among the later such chieftains were sometimes called "kings."
That the monarchial and republican forms of government described in the Book of Mormon should be in harmony with the principles of those ancient political systems, and that the kind of government which obtained after the advent of Messiah among the Nephites should be in such perfect harmony with the conditions that obtained in that period, is internal evidence of marked significance in support of the claims of the Book of Mormon. To see it in its full strength one should ask himself what would be the state of the case if the descriptions of monarchial and democratic government were not in harmony with the restricted ideas of ancient governments, but were full of modern ideas and refinements of government; and if the facts existing after the advent of Messiah and the introduction of the Nephite golden age were utterly at variance with the kind of government that we are ready to believe then obtained. It should be remembered that if inconsistencies in the Book of Mormon forms of government would be so damaging against its claims to being an ancient record, then consistency in its forms of government should be allowed equal weight in support of its claims to being an ancient record.
The Events to which Importance is Given in the Book of Mormon are in Harmony with the Character of the Writers.
In considering this subject we must bear in mind the purposes for which the Book of Mormon was written. The purposes are set forth in detail in chapter III.
Here it will be sufficient to say that the main purpose of the Book of Mormon is to be a witness for Jesus, the Christ; for the truth of the Gospel as the power of God unto salvation.
Notwithstanding these purposes are adhered to throughout the work it is very noticeable, and indeed one cause of complaint against the book, that it gives great prominence, at least in the parts made up of Mormon and Moroni's abridgments, to wars; to minute descriptions of battles, the construction of fortifications, and the affairs of war in general. This doubtless arises from the fact that Mormon and Moroni were both military chieftains, and notwithstanding their general purpose was to make prominent the religious events which happened among the Nephites and Jaredites, and the hand-dealings of God with those peoples, yet when these writers came to give an account of wars, it is but to be expected, by the very nature of things, that they could not refrain from recording those events which would have such a powerful attraction for them. Involuntarily they were drawn into a description of those events, and unconsciously gave them prominence in their narratives. So I say the events to which importance is given in the Book of Mormon are in harmony with the character of the writers, a fact which is still further emphasized by the nature of the first part of the volume. We have seen that 149 of the 157 pages constituting that first part is written by the first Nephi and his brother Jacob, prophets and priests of God. In their writings wars are mentioned only in the most incidental way, but there is an abundance of religious teaching, and prominence is given to visions, dreams and revelations, and that because those writers were, in the main, prophets and priests of God. It should also be noted, of course, that the time in which these earlier writers lived was not so much a period of warfare as subsequent centuries among the Nephites. It is to be observed, then, in conclusion upon this point, that the very prominence given to wars and battle-movements in Mormon's and Moroni's part of the volume is but in keeping with the nature of things—an additional evidence of consistency in the work—the events to which importance is given are in harmony with the character of the writers.
Complexity in the Structure of the Book of Mormon in Harmony with the Theory of its Origin.
I hesitated some time before adopting the above as a heading for this division of the subject, because I was aware, and am still aware of the fact that it scarcely presents the thought I would have considered; and I know how easily, by a slight variation, it could be made subject to the smart retort that the complexity of the structure of the Book of Mormon is in harmony with the theory of its merely human origin since it is simplicity, not complexity, which is the sign manual of things divine. Still, for all that, I have concluded to make use of this faulty title, for want of a better, confident that when my whole thought under it is developed it will result in producing evidence for the truth of the claims of the book.
That the structure of the Book of Mormon is complex all who read it know. The first part of it is made up of the translation of unabridged records, the small plates of Nephi. The second part is made up of the translation of abridged books (Mormon's abridgment), Mormon, however, retaining for the several parts of his abridgment the title of the respective books he abridged.
I have already pointed out the fact[[10]] that Mormon's condensed narrative from the original Nephite records makes up the body of his work; with occasional direct quotations from the original records, and the whole more or less confused by his running comments, unseparated from the body of his work save by the sense of the text. All this is complex enough surely, but the end is not yet; for within the old Nephite records Mormon had at hand while doing the work of abridgment, there were still other books. That is, books within books; as, for instance, the Book of Zeniff within the Book of Mosiah, which see. [[11]] Also the account of the church founded by the first Alma, likewise within the book of Mosiah. Also the account of the missionary expedition to the Lamanites by the young Nephite princes, sons of King Mosiah II., within the book of Alma, which see.[[12]] Mormon, coming to these books within books, followed that order also in his abridgment; so that as in the original Nephite records, we have books within books, so within Mormon's abridgment we have abridged records within abridged records. Then, as if to cap the climax of complexity in structure, Mormon writes a book of his own to which he gives his own name. That is, calls it the Book of Mormon; the last two chapters of which, however, are written by Moroni. Then follows what may be called the third part of the Book of Mormon—Moroni's abridgment of the twenty-four plates of Ether, which gives us so much of the history as we have of the Jaredites. By this arrangement the history of the first people to occupy the western hemisphere, (after the flood), comes last in the Book of Mormon; and Moroni's abridgment of the Jaredite record has much of the complexity of his father's abridgment of the Nephite records.
Now, with all this before the mind of the reader—whether he regards Joseph Smith, Solomon Spaulding, or Sidney Rigdon as the author of the Book of Mormon—I submit to him the question: Would either ingenuity or stupidity in a modern author suggest such complexity in the structure of a book as this? Can a parallel case be pointed to in the modern making of books?
If the Book of Mormon were modern in structure and its author or authors had the conception that this western world was peopled by a colony coming from the Euphrates valley, in very ancient times, and subsequently by two other colonies from Judea, one leaving 600 B. C. and the other shortly afterwards, in giving the history of those people, would not the modern author have begun with the most ancient colony and treated the history of the respective peoples in the order of their occupancy of the western continents? Then, again: If the Book of Mormon is mere fiction, the idle coinage of an inventive, modern author, why three migrations?
If the object of the modern author was merely to convey an idea how a civilized race in ancient times occupied the western world, why would not the first migration—the Jaredite—have answered all his purposes? Or why not take the second migration—the Nephite—for the accomplishment of such a purpose? Why complicate it by bringing in the migration of Mulek's colony, when the simple treatment of developing the Nephite colony into national proportions would have been sufficient for the purpose of a work of fiction? One other question I would submit relative to the Jaredite record and the strange place it occupies in the Book of Mormon. The plates of Ether were found by an expedition sent out from Zeniff's colony about 123 B. C., and were translated shortly afterwards by Mosiah II., who was a seer; that is, he was able to use Urim and Thummim in the translation of strange languages. Now, why did not Mormon include an abridgment of Mosiah's translation of the plates of Ether in his abridgment of Nephite records, allowing it to stand in his collection of plates as his abridgment of the Book of Zeniff stands within his abridgment of the Book of Mosiah, instead of passing the matter by and leaving it for his son Moroni to make a translation direct from the Book of Ether, thus throwing the history of the first inhabitants of the western world, after the flood, to the very last part of the record? Candidly, does the complex structure of the Book of Mormon appeal to one as at all modern in its arrangement? Are modern books so constructed? And yet, notwithstanding all the complexity in the structure of the book, each part is so in harmony with every other part, and with the whole, that really, after all, it is a very simple book, and one readily understood. It is clear that the very peculiar circumstances under which the Book of Mormon was compiled by the original Nephite writers, and that neither the ingenuity nor the stupidity of Joseph Smith, nor of any other modern writer, is responsible for this peculiar structure of the book. And, moreover, since the book in its details retains harmonious consistency with the plan of its structure, must not such a fact be conceded to be an incidental evidence in favor of its claims?
Footnotes
[1]. Ether vi: 27. Ibid. ix: 15-22. Ibid. x: 10 et. seq.
[2]. Ether ix: 14, 15, 21, 22. Ibid. x: 13.
[3]. Mosiah xxix: 21-23. See also remarks, chapters x, and xiii.
[4]. Perhaps it may be thought that an exception should be made in the matter of Lamanite kingdoms, of which I have spoken (chapter xiii) as constituting at one period of Lamanite history, a sort of confederacy of kingdoms; but this does not affect the statement of the text which is dealing with the form of government. I believe myself justified in saying that whether reference is made to the petty Lamanite kingdoms or the central kingdom to which they were tributary, the principle in government will be found the same—the king is the source of all political power, the monarchy is "simple," the kingly power absolute.
[5]. Doc. & Cov., Sec. ci: 76-80.
[6]. Letters of Joseph Smith, from Liberty Prison, under date of March 25, 1839—to the Church of the Latter-day Saints. History of the Church, Vol. III., p. 304.
[7]. See De Tocqueville's Constitution of the U. S., Vol. I.
[8]. See Chapter xiii.
[9]. Ante pp. 216-7.
[10]. See Ante Chapter xxxvii.
[11]. Book of Mosiah, p. 181 (current edition).
[12]. Book of Mormon, p 283 (current edition).
CHAPTER XXXIX
INTERNAL EVIDENCES—THE ORIGINALITY OF THE BOOK OF MORMON AN EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIMS.
How far originality may be insisted upon as a necessary element in a book avowedly containing a revelation from God is an open question; just as how far originality in a prophet may be insisted upon is. In both cases, however, it cannot be doubted but that originality would be regarded as evidence of considerable weight in favor of the divinity of the message of either prophet or book. Somehow men look for originality in any thing that purports to be a revelation from God, come how it will. They look for a word "from the inner fact of things" in a revelation. A new word that shall add somewhat to the sum of known things, and spoken in a way to attract anew the attention of men. And yet it must not be forgotten that "every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven * * * bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old"[[1]]—the old, mark you, as well as the new—and one of olden time doubted even if there really was any new thing under the sun. "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, see, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us."[[2]]
From all which I conclude that while in a way originality may be regarded as affording some evidence in favor of the claims of a prophet and his message, or of a book and its revelation, still originality is not an indispensable quality in either prophet or book. Contemporary prophets, or prophets living in succession, may come burdened with the same word of the Lord, with the same divine message; but the one who speaks secondly or thirdly, and hence with all claim to originality gone, is none the less God's messenger; and the word he speaks may not with safety be rejected for that it lacks the quality of originality. So, too, with books. It would be a senseless manner of handling the scriptures to reject the books called first and second Chronicles because they chiefly duplicate the matter of the books called first and second Kings, and have little originality to commend them to our acceptance. So with the books of the New Testament. Accepting for our purpose here the order in which they stand in the commonly received versions of the New Testament, as the order in which the books were written, shall the book of Mark be rejected because in the main it deals with the same matter that engages the attention of Matthew, and there is but little on the score of its originality of matter to commend it as an inspired book? The same question could be asked in relation to the book of Luke. The truth is that God in books as in prophets sometimes requires more than one for a witness to his message, and hence repeats the revelation in a number of inspired books, in which case the books merely repeating the revelation are as truly inspired, as truly scripture as the one in which the message first appeared, although it could be said that the quality of originality is wholly wanting.
Since the Book of Mormon feigns the introduction of no new religion, but gives merely an account of the introduction of the Christian religion in the western hemisphere, by inspired teachers, both before and after the coming of Messiah, and by the personal ministry of Messiah after his resurrection; and as the Christian religion is always the same, in all times and in all lands, it must have been the same when introduced into America as when taught in Judea—where is room for originality? Is not originality by the very nature of the claims of the Book of Mormon excluded? The reader, I believe, will recognize the force of the question; and I take occasion here to remark that the point in the question exhibits the weakness of those objections that are sometimes urged against the Book of Mormon on the score of sameness of matter in it and the New Testament; and also it exhibits how senseless is the clamor for the existence of some new moral or religious truth[[3]] in the Book of Mormon, not to be found in the Old or New Testaments.
Since, then, the Book of Mormon, so far as it treats of religion, treats of the Christian religion, it is comparison not contrast that should be made; sameness, not difference that should be looked for; identity of moral and religious truths, not differences; accordance with old truths, rather than the existence of new ones. The Christian religion may not be contrasted with itself; and as the fullness of the gospel was revealed in the proclamation of it in Judea, it would be sufficient if a dispensation of the same gospel proclaimed in America is in strict accordance with that taught in Judea. In fact this is all that the nature of the case strictly requires. Still, after the reasonableness of all this is established, there may be claimed for the Book of Mormon an originality in the fact of the existence of new and important Christian truths in its pages; as, also an originality of emphasis placed on certain other Christian truths.
This much that a proper estimate may be formed of the value of originality as an evidence of the divine authenticity or inspiration of a book; neither giving an exaggerated value to it on the one hand, nor accounting it of little or no importance on the other.
I.
Originality of Structure.
In enumerating the several particulars in which the Book of Mormon manifests originality, I would name its peculiar structure—so at variance with all modern ideas of book making—pointed out in the treatment of the last subdivision of chapter xxxviii, and ask the reader to consider that treatise brought over into this subdivision, and the peculiar structure of the Book of Mormon made one, and the first, of the evidences of its originality.
II.
Originality in Names.
So also as to names; so far as they are original, I would have that fact considered as another, the second, evidence of the originality of the Book of Mormon; and so much of that treatise as deals with the originality of the names, (see chapter xxxvii) considered as brought over into this subdivision.
III.
In the Manner of its Coming Forth.
In the manner of its coming forth no less than in its structure and its names, the Book of Mormon is original. It must be remembered that at the time of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon such a thing as a new revelation from God was utterly unlooked for. Indeed it was the consensus of Christian opinion and teaching that the time of revelation had passed; that the days of miracles were over; that God in the Christian dispensation to mankind (the dispensation in which Messiah ministered in person) spoke the final word; that no more divine communication would be given. Speculating upon this very subject in connection with the desirability for knowledge respecting the ancient inhabitants of America, Ethan Smith, in his "View of the Hebrews; or the Tribes of Israel in America," says, most emphatically:
We are to expect no new revelation from heaven, and the days of miracles are thought to be past. We probably must look for just such evidence to exhibit to the world that people so long lost [as the ten Tribes of Israel], as is in fact exhibited by the natives of America.[[4]]
It is well to remember that this was said some years before the Book of Mormon was published, and I repeat that it represents the generally accepted Christian idea concerning revelation and miracles. Furthermore, it is notorious that the prime objection urged against the Book of Mormon was the fact that it claimed to be a new revelation from God; and the arguments found in the discourses and writings of the early Elders of the Church clearly prove that the chief contention over the Book of Mormon in those early days was on this point.[[5]] It follows, therefore, that Joseph Smith's account of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was brought forth and translated was a very original one; for it involved a revelation from God to make known its existence, and what men call a miracle to secure its translation. Here, then, was not only originality, but a bold contradiction of what was supposed to be the most completely settled doctrine of modern Christendom, viz. that the age of revelations and miracles had forever passed away. It is scarcely probable that imposters would move along such lines as these. The proclamation of a new revelation making known the existence of a new volume of scripture was the most remarkable innovation upon Christian opinion that the world had ever witnessed. Orthodoxy stood aghast at the presumption as they called it; and seemed for a time to forget all other points of controversy in order to concentrate their attack upon this innovation of their most cherished idea. They thought the very claim that the Book of Mormon involved a new revelation from God was sufficient to justify its rejection. Yet never was opposition so completely demolished in controversy as this sectarian argument against new and continual revelation. So completely was it overthrown that we to-day scarcely ever hear it mentioned. With this, however, I have nothing further to do. My only point at present is that there was a bold originality in Joseph Smith's account of the coming forth and translation of the Book of Mormon, which, in addition to contravening the accepted Christian opinion of the times on the subject of revelation and miracles, carried with it much weight in support of the claims made for this American volume of scripture; for surely imposters seeking to foist a book upon the world either for obtaining fame or money would never be found moving along lines so diametrically opposite to accepted opinions.
IV.
Its Accounting for the Peopling of America.
In its account of peopling America no less than in its structure and the manner in which its existence was made known and its translation accomplished, the Book of Mormon is original. All the books on American antiquities that could possibly have been accessible to Joseph Smith and his associates favored the theory of migrations from northeastern Asia by way of Behring Straits where the Asiatic and American continents approach each other. See Josiah Priest's American Antiquities, preface. Ethan Smith, referring to the authorities that he was acquainted with on this subject, says:
All seem to agree that the Indians came from the northwest, and overspread the continent to the south. * * * * * I forbear to offer any further remarks upon these testimonies incidentally afforded by this most celebrated author, [meaning Humboldt]. Let them be duly weighed by the judicious reader; and he surely cannot doubt but that the natives of America came from the north over Behring's Straits; and descended from a people of as great mental cultivation, as were the ancient family of Israel.[[6]]
Not only were such the prevailing views at the time Ethan Smith wrote, 1825, but even to this day the same general opinion prevails among authorities;[[7]] that is, that America was peopled from Asia by way of Behring Straits. The migrations of the Book of Mormon, however, contravene this quite generally accepted theory. While it is supposed that the Jaredites passed out of the Euphrates valley and wandered several years eastwardly through Asia, they crossed the Pacific and landed in the south part of the north continent of America and settled in a district of country they afterwards called Moron, near what was afterwards the Nephite province called Desolation, which was in the region of country known to us as the Central American States.[[8]] The Nephite colony, as we have seen[[9]], landed on the west coast of South America about thirty degrees south latitude; and Mulek's colony is supposed to have landed somewhere in the south part of the North American continent. These Book of Mormon accounts of migrations to the American continents constitute the widest possible departure from usually accepted theories upon the subject.
V.
The Nativity of Ancient American Peoples.
The Book of Mormon is original with reference to the facts it presents respecting the nativity of its peoples. On this point, more is sometimes claimed by believers in the Book of Mormon than is warranted by the facts in the case. For example, it is sometimes stated that the Israelitish origin of the native Americans was first asserted by the Book of Mormon. That is not true. Long before the advent of the Book of Mormon James Adair, whose work was published in 1775, advanced the theory that the native American Indians were the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel, and argued for the truth of his theory at great length.[[10]] Ethan Smith, in his work we have several times quoted, advances the theory that the native Indians were the "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel," the very title of his book—"View of the Hebrews; or the Tribes of Israel in America"—is the evidence of his holding that theory.
It is therefore a mistake to say that the idea of Israelitish descent of the native American Indians originated with the Book of Mormon. Indeed the theory that the native Americans were the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel found many advocates both in Europe and the United States, especially, I may say, in the New England states, before 1830. Wherein the Book of Mormon is original in respect of this matter is that while declaring the Israelitish descent of the ancient people of America, it directly contravenes the idea that the native Americans, are the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, by incidentally declaring those tribes to be in another part of the world, and Jesus announcing to the Nephites his intention to appear unto them, and administer among them.[[11]] Of course reference to Israelitish descent is here made to the two last migrations only, that is, to the colony of Lehi, and the colony of Mulek. The colony of Jared were doubtless of the same race, but of earlier ancestors, among whom the patriarch Shem. The Book of Mormon refers to Lehi's colony as made up of descendants of Manasseh [Lehi] and Ephraim [Ishmael][[12]] while the colony of Mulek were Jews.
From this it appears that the Book of Mormon is as boldly original in declaring the nativity of these colonies that peopled America with teeming millions of their descendants, as it is in its account of the course of their migrations or the manner in which the Book of Mormon came forth. For, in limiting the nativity of these colonies to the descendants of Joseph and of Judah, it as radically contravenes existing opinions upon the subject as it does in respect of the manner in which the book came forth, and the course of migration.
VI.
Accounting for the Existence of Christian Ideas in America.
The Book of Mormon is original in the matter of accounting for the existence of Christian ideas and doctrines among the native Americans. I would have this statement so understood as to include all Bible ideas, since right conceptions of Christianity in its fullness includes the Old Testament and the dispensation of God to the children of men described therein as part of the Christian heritage, as well as the specific Christian dispensation which is described in the New Testament.
The manner in which the Book of Mormon accounts for Christian ideas and doctrines among native Americans is, first, by detailing the facts of direct revelation of Christian truths to the ancient inhabitants of America, as, for instance, in the case of the Prophet Moriancumer among the Jaredites, where that great prophet is represented as being permitted to stand in the revealed presence of the preexisting spirit of Jesus Christ, and to hear the proclamation that in him should all mankind have life and that eternally; and that as he appeared unto that prophet in the spirit, so would he appear unto his people in the flesh; and that those who would believe on his name should become his sons and daughters.[[13]] Also the revelation of Christian truths vouchsafed to the first Nephi; who, in vision, some hundreds of years before the advent of Christ, was permitted to foresee the birth of the Redeemer, the labors of his forerunner, John the Baptist, who prepared the way before him, and much of the Judean ministry of Christ, including his crucifixion, his resurrection, and the establishment of his ministry through twelve Apostles; so also his advent and ministry among the inhabitants of the western world,[[14]] ending in the establishment of the Christian sacraments, and of the Christian Church, as the sacred depository of Christian truths. Secondly, the Book of Mormon accounts for the existence of Christian ideas and doctrines among native American races by declaring the Nephites to be in possession of the Hebrew scriptures extant among that people from the beginning up to 600 B. C., including the five books of Moses, some of the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah.[[15]] And also ascribing to the Jaredites the knowledge of most ancient events through scriptures in their possession, dealing with events from the Tower of Babel back to the very days of Adam.[[16]] It is, then, by most direct means of the revelations of God to the ancient inhabitants of America and the personal ministration of Jesus Christ among them and the knowledge imparted by these several volumes of very ancient scripture that the Book of Mormon accounts for the existence of Christian ideas and Christian truths among the native Americans.
There is nothing like this in the theories of men to account for the existence of these truths in America. In the first place let the reader be assured that it is quite generally conceded by the very best authorities that ideas closely analogous to Christian truths are found in the traditions of the native Americans. "Most ancient and modern authors," says De Roo, "agree in saying that the Christian religion has been taught on our [the American] continent at an epoch not so very much anterior to the Columbian discovery. Bastian establishes the latter opinion by the numerous analogies he points out between the religious belief and practices of the Christians and those of American aborigines. Von Humboldt admits the parity to be so striking as to have given the Spanish missionaries a fine opportunity to deceive the natives by making them believe that their own was none other than the Christian religion. 'Not a single American missionary who has, until this day, left any writing has forgotten to notice the evident vestiges of Christianity which has in former time penetrated even among the most savage tribes,' says Dr. de Mier, commenting on Sahagun's History. Quite a number of ancient writers, such as Garcilasso de la Vega, Solorzano, Acosta, and others are equally explicit in asserting that several Christian tenets and practices were found among our aborigines; but they deny their introduction by Christian teachers, giving, strange to say, to the devil the honor of spreading the light of Christianity, in spite of his hatred of it."[[17]] Later he says:
No modern student of American antiquity fails to notice the close and striking resemblances between several leading particulars of Christian faith, morals, and ceremonies and those of ancient American religions. Sahagun, who wrote in Mexico about the middle of the sixteenth century, and took such great pains to be correctly informed in regard to all religious rites of our aborigines, states already that all the Spanish missionaries who wrote in America before him had pointed out the numerous vestiges of Christianity to be found even among the savage Indian tribes.[[18]]
Devil propaganda of Christianity was quite a favorite theory with many of the early Spanish writers, while others advanced the theory that Christian apostles had evangelized the western hemisphere. Among the latter was the Archbishop of San Domingo, Davilla Padilli, a royal chronicler who wrote a book to prove that Christian apostles had formerly preached in the West Indies. So also Torquemada holds the same opinion, although he admits of the possibility of the devil teaching Christianity. More modern writers seek to account for the existence of these Christian analogies in other ways. Prescott for instance, in his Conquest of Peru, says:
In the distribution of bread and wine at this high festival, [the feast of Raymi] the orthodox Spaniards who first came into the country saw a striking resemblance to the Christian communion; as in the practice of confession and penance, which, in a most irregular form indeed, seems to have been used by the Peruvians, they discerned a coincidence with another of the sacraments of the Church. The good fathers were fond of tracing such coincidences, which they considered as the contrivance of Satan, who thus endeavored to delude his victims by counterfeiting the blessed rites of Christianity. Others, in a different vein, imagined that they saw in such analogies the evidence that some of the primitive teachers of the gospel, perhaps an apostle himself, had paid a visit to these distant regions and scattered over them the seeds of religious truth. But it seems hardly necessary to invoke the Prince of Darkness, or the intervention of the blessed saints to account for coincidences which have existed in countries far removed from the light of Christianity, and in ages, indeed, when its light had not yet risen on the world. It is much more reasonable to refer such casual points of resemblance to the general constitution of man and the necessities of his moral nature.[[19]]
Of which I think De Roo very justly remarks: "The Christian mysteries admitted by the ancient Peruvians and Mexicans could hardly find their origin in man's constitution; nor are religious practices, like baptism, fasting, celibacy, and a cloistered life, to be considered as necessities of man's moral, yet corrupt nature. More reasonable and better historical causes should be found to account for the presence of Christian faith and Christian rites in ancient America."[[20]]
H. H. Bancroft also concedes the existence of rites among native Americans analogous to those existing among Jews and Christians, but regards them as mere coincidences. He says:
Many rites and ceremonies were found to exist among the civilized nations of America that were very similar to certain others observed by the Jews and Christians in the old world. The innumerable speculators on the origin of the aboriginal inhabitants of the new world, or at least on the origin of their civilization, have not neglected to bring forward these coincidences—there is no good reason to suppose them anything else—in support of their various theories.[[21]]
On which De Roo remarks: "Coincidences, so many, so striking, in faith, in morals, and liturgy! Coincidences, indeed, little short of wonders!"
Nadaillac also would refer these "coincidences" to natural causes. He says "No dissemination of merely Christian ideas, since the conquest [by the Spaniards] is sufficient to account for these myths [having in mind the traditions of the creation, flood, migrations, Christian analogies, etc.], which appear to have their root in the natural tendencies of the human mind in its evolution from a savage state."[[22]]
And so in these various ways men would account for the existence of Christian ideas and doctrines; but it was reserved for Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the dispensation of the fullness of times, through the Book of Mormon, to announce the boldly original idea that knowledge of Christian truths and doctrines had their origin among native American peoples in direct revelation to them from God; in the personal ministration of the Lord Jesus Christ, after his resurrection from the dead; and from being in possession of ancient scriptures which to the Nephites, no less than to the Jews, made known God's plan of redemption for mankind through the personal suffering and resurrection of his Son Jesus Christ. I hold that the very originality and boldness of these assertions respecting the direct means by which the people of America in ancient times received their knowledge of Christian truths, and which so far transcend the timid and tentative speculations of men, even of the most intelligent and courageous, have about them an atmosphere of truth that is most convincing; moreover, I cannot help but believe that originality in respect of such things as are here set down; structure, names, the manner of coming forth, in its account of peopling America, the nativity of American people, and lastly this accounting for the existence of Christian ideas among native American races, is of a vastly greater importance than originality in mere phraseology or style of composition.
Footnotes
[1]. Matt. xiii: 52.
[2]. Ecclesiastes i: 9, 10.
[3]. For this clamor see a brief discussion on the Book of Mormon between the writer and an "Unknown" writer in "The Salt Lake Tribune," impressions of Nov. 22, 29; and December 6, 13, 1903. See also "The Golden Bible" (Lamb), Edition of 1887, p. 207-213. Also the views of the Rev. Dr. Wm. M. Paden, of the First Presbyterian Church; Salt Lake City, quoted by the writer in a discourse on "The Fifth Gospel"—Third Nephi—"Defense of the Faith and the Saints," Vol. I, pp. 373-399.
[4]. View of the Hebrews, 2nd Edition, (1825) pp. 168, 169.
[5]. See the works of Orson and Parley P. Pratt; John Taylor's Discussion with three ministers in France; early volumes of Millennial Star, Spencer's Letters—in fact all the early Church literature. Of late opponents of the Book of Mormon have not pressed this point of controversy, since the sectarian arguments respecting it have been utterly demolished. For a brief consideration of the various points of that argument see "New Witnesses for God," Vol. I., Ch. viii.
[6]. View of the Hebrews, pp. 187, 188
[7]. See chapter xxix, especially taking account of foot note references.
[8]. Dictionary of the Book of Mormon, Reynolds, p. 168. And Vol. II, pp. 139-40.
[9]. Vol. II, pp. 157-8.
[10]. See this volume, pp. 46-48.
[11]. See III. Nephi xv, xvi, xvii.
[12]. The statement here that Ishmael was of Ephraim is set down upon the authority, first, of inference. The inference is based upon the fact as already stated that there are promises in the Hebrew scriptures respecting Ephraim which cannot be realized so far as we know, except through the seed of Ephraim dwelling upon the land of America, as we have seen in considering the evidence of the Bible for the truth of the Book of Mormon; and as Lehi and his family were of the tribe of Manasseh, and Mulek's colony being Jews, it leaves the family of Ishmael, and perhaps Zoram, the servant of Laban to introduce the descendants of Ephraim into the western world. Second, a number of Latter-day Saints, familiarly acquainted with the Prophet Joseph Smith, declare that in conversation they had known him to say that in Mormon's abridgment of the book of Lehi (which supplied the 116 pages of manuscript lost by Martin Harris) it was plainly stated that Ishmael was of the tribe of Ephraim. Among those who heard such remarks was the late Elder Franklin D. Richards, of the Council of the Apostles and Church Historian, who records his recollection of the Prophet's statement in the following manner:
"One day in the autumn of that year, (1843) as I was passing near, (the "Nauvoo Mansion") it being in warm weather, I observed the door standing open and the Prophet Joseph inside conversing with one of the brethren, leaning against the counter. It being a public house, I ventured to walk in, and scarcely had more than time to exchange usual civilities, when this brother said: 'Brother Joseph, how is it that we call the Book of Mormon the Stick of Joseph, in the hands of Ephraim, when the book itself tells us that Lehi was of the lineage of Manasseh? I cannot find in it about the seed of Ephraim dwelling on this land at all.' Joseph replied: 'You will recollect that when Lehi and his family had gone from Jerusalem out into the wilderness, he sent his son Nephi back to the city to get the plates which contained the law of Moses and many prophecies of the prophets, and that he also brought out Ishmael and his family, which were mostly daughters. This Ishmael and his family were of the lineage of Ephraim, and Lehi's sons took Ishmael's daughters for wives, and this is how they have grown together, 'a multitude of nations in the midst of the earth.'
"'If we had those one hundred and sixteen pages of manuscript which Martin Harris got away with, you would know all about it, for Ishmael's ancestry is made very plain therein. The Lord told me not to translate it over again, but to take from Nephi's other plates until I came to the period of time where the other translation was broken off, and then go on with Mormon's abridgment again. That is how it came about that Ishmael's lineage was not given in the Book of Mormon, as well as Lehi's."'—Frankling D. Richards, "The Contributor," Vol. XVII, p. 425.
[13]. Ether iii.
[14]. I. Nephi x: 11, 12.
[15]. See I. Nephi v: 11.
[16]. Ether i: 3-6.
[17]. History of America Before Columbus, P. De Roo, Vol. I., 423, 424.
[18]. Ibid. p. 517.
[19]. Conquest of Peru, Vol. I., pp. 96, 97.
[20]. History of America Before Columbus, Vol. I., pp. 523-4.
[21]. Native Races, Vol. III., pp. 438-9
[22]. Prehistoric America, p.531.
CHAPTER XL
INTERNAL EVIDENCES.—THE ORIGINALITY OF THE BOOK OF MORMON AN EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIMS. (Continued.)
VII.
The Fall of Adam—The Purpose of Man's Earth Existence.
In the matter of some Christian truths, it sets forth, as well as in some it emphasizes, the Book of Mormon is original; and in none more so than in dealing with the doctrine of Adam's fall, and the purpose of man's existence.
In the second book of Nephi, chapter ii, occurs the following direct, explicit statement:
Adam fell that men might be: and men are that they might have joy.
This sentence is the summing up of a somewhat lengthy discussion on the atonement, by the prophet Lehi. It is a most excellent and important generalization, and is worthy to be classed with the great generalizations of the Jewish scriptures, such for instance as that in the closing chapter of Ecclesiastes, "Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man;" Paul's famous generalization: "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive:" or the Apostle James' summing up of religion: "Pure religion, and undefiled before God and the Father, is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep one's self unspotted from the world." Or of Messiah's great summing up of the whole law and gospel; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment, and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and all the prophets." I care not whether you regard the literary excellence of this Book of Mormon generalization or the importance of the great truths which it announces, I repeat, it is worthy in every way to stand with the great generalizations quoted above. It deals with two of the mightiest problems of theology:
1st, The reason for Adam's fall;
2nd, The purpose of man's existence.
Before entering into a consideration of these doctrines, however, I must establish the fact of their Book of Mormon originality; for I fancy there will be many who at first glance will be disposed to question their being original with that book. It must be conceded, of course, that the fact of man's fall is frequently mentioned in the Bible. The story of it is told at length in Genesis.[[1]] It is the subject of some of Paul's discourses;[[2]] and, indeed, it underlies the whole Christian scheme for the redemption and salvation of mankind. Yet, strange to say, there is not to be found a direct, explicit, and adequate statement in all the Jewish scriptures as to why Adam fell. The same may be said with reference to the second part of this passage. That is, there is nowhere in Jewish scriptures a direct, explicit, adequate statement as to the object of man's existence.
These statements with reference to the absence of anything in Holy scripture on these two important points, will, I know, be regarded as extremely bold; and especially when made with reference to so large a body of literature as is comprised in the Bible. Yet I make them with confidence; and am helped to that conclusion from the fact that nowhere in the creeds of men, based upon Jewish and Christian scripture, is there to be found a direct statement upon these two subjects that has in it the warrant of explicit, scriptural authority. Nowhere in the creeds of men—the creeds of men! those generalizations of Christian truths as men have conceived those truths to be; those deductions from the teachings of Holy scripture—nowhere in them, I repeat are these two great theological questions disposed of on scriptural authority.
The Westminister Confession of Faith, which embodies the accepted doctrine of one of the largest sects of Protestant Christendom, while it indeed has a word, in fact several sections on the subject of Adam's fall and its consequences, it contents itself with stating the fact of it, the manner of it, as also, that God permitted it, "having purposed to order it to his own glory," yet in such manner as himself not to be chargeable with the responsibility of the sin; but nowhere is there an explanation of why Adam fell. With reference to the purpose of man's creation—included in the treatment of the purpose of creation in general—the creed ascribes the purpose of all the creative acts of God to be "The manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom and goodness."[[3]] and in an authoritative explanation of this part of the creed it is said, "The design of God in creation was the manifestation of his own glory." And again: "Our confession very explicitly takes the position that the chief end of God in his eternal purposes and in their temporal execution in creation and providence is the manifestation of his own glory. The scriptures explicity assert that this is the chief end of God in creation.[[4]]. * * * * * The manifestation of his own glory is intrinsically the highest and worthiest end that God could purpose to Himself."[[5]]
The only business I have here with this declaration of the purpose of God in creation—including the creation of man, of course—is simply to call attention to the fact that it nowhere has the direct warrant of scripture.
The creed of the "Episcopalian Church," whose chief doctrines are embodied in "The Book of Common Prayer," is silent upon the two subjects in question, viz., "why" Adam fell; the "object" of man's existence. The "Articles of Faith," it is true, speak of the "fall" of Adam, and its effects upon the human race, but nowhere is it said "why" Adam fell; or a "reason" given for man's existence. The creed proclaims faith in God, "the Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and invisible;" but nowhere declares the purpose of that creation, and consequently has no word as to the "object" of man's existence.
The exposition of the Catholic creed on the same points, as set forth in the Douay Catechism is as follows—and first as to the fall:
Man was created in "the state of original justice, and perfection of all natural gifts;" this "original justice" was lost "by Adam's disobedience to God in eating the for-bidden fruit;" but nowhere is there anything said as to the reason for this fall from the state of "original justice."
As to the purpose of man's creation, the Catechism has the following:
Ques. What signify the words creation of heaven and earth?
Ans. They signify that God made heaven and earth and all creatures in them of nothing, by his word only.
Ques. What moved God to make them?
Ans. His own goodnesss, so that he may communicate himself to angels and to man for whom he made all other creatures.[[6]]
Speaking of the creation of the angels, the same work continues:
Ques. For what end did God create them (the angels).
Ans. To be partakers of his glory and to be our guardians.
Referring again to man's creation the following occurs:
Ques. Do we owe much to God for creation?
Ans. Very much, because he made us in such a perfect state, creating us for himself, and all things else for us.[[7]]
From all which it may be summarized that the purposes of God in the creation of man and angels, according to Catholic theology, is—
First, that God might communicate himself to them; Second, that they might be partakers of his glory.
Third, that he created them for himself, and all things else for them.
While this may be in part the truth, and so far excellent, it has no higher warrant of authority than human deduction, based on conjecture, not scripture; and it certainly falls far short of giving to man—as we shall see—that "pride of place" in existence to which his higher nature and his dignity as a son of God entitles him.
If in these creeds of the greater divisions of Christendom there is found no clear and adequate explanation of the reason of Adam's fall, or the purpose of man's existence, it may be taken for granted that none of the minor divisions of Christendom have succeeded where these have failed, since these larger divisions of Christendom embody in their creeds the hived theological wisdom and the highest scholarship of the Christian ages.
The originality of these two Book of Mormon Doctrines established, let us now consider if they are true and of what value they are, and what effect they will probably have upon the ideas of men. I shall treat them separately first, and in relation afterwards.
"Adam fell that men might be."
I think it cannot be doubted when the whole story of man's fall is taken into account that in some way—however hidden it may be under allegory—his fall was closely associated with the propagation of the race. Before the fall we are told that Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence;[[8]] but after the fall "The eyes of them both were opened and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons,"[[9]] and also hid from the presence of the Lord.
In an incidental way Paul gives us to understand that Adam in the matter of the first transgression "was not deceived," but that the woman was.[[10]] It therefore follows that Adam must have sinned knowingly, and perhaps deliberately; making choice of obedience between two laws pressing upon him. With his spouse, Eve, he had received a commandment from God to be fruitful, to perpetuate his race in the earth. He had also been told not to partake of a certain fruit of the Garden of Eden; but according to the story of Genesis, as also according to the assertion of Paul, Eve, who with Adam received the commandment to multiply in the earth, was deceived, and by the persuasion of Lucifer induced to partake of the forbidden fruit. She, therefore, was in transgression, and subject to the penalty of that law which from the scriptures we learn included banishment from Eden, banishment from the presence of God, and also the death of the body. This meant, if Eve were permitted to stand alone in her transgression, that she must be alone also in suffering the penalty. In that event she would have been separated from Adam, which necessarily would have prevented obedience to the commandment given to them conjointly to multiply in the earth. In the presence of this situation, therefore, it is to be believed that Adam was not deceived, either by the cunning of Lucifer or the blandishments of the woman, deliberately, and with a full knowledge of his act and its consequences, and in order to carry out the purpose of God in the existence of man in the earth, shared alike the woman's transgression and its effects, and this in order that the first great commandment he had received from God, viz.—"Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it"—might not fail of fulfillment. Hence "Adam fell that man might be."
The effect of this doctrine upon the ideas of men concerning the great Patriarch of our race will be revolutionary. It seems to be the fashion of those who assume to teach the Christian religion to denounce Adam in unmeasured terms; as if the fall of man had surprised, if, indeed, it did altogether thwart, the original plan of God respecting the existence of man in the earth. The creeds of the churches generally fail to consider the "fall" as part of God's purpose regarding this world, and, in its way, as essential to the accomplishment of that purpose as the "redemption" through Jesus Christ. Certainly there would have been no occasion for the "redemption" had there been no "fall;" and hence no occasion for the display of all that wealth of grace and mercy and justice and love—all that richness of experience involved in the gospel of Jesus Christ, had there been no "fall." It cannot be but that it was part of God's purpose to display these qualities in their true relation, for the benefit and blessing and experience and enlargement and ultimate uplifting of man; and since there would have been no occasion for displaying them but for the "fall," it logically follows that the "fall," no less than the "redemption," must have been part of God's original plan respecting the earth-probation of man. The "fall," undoubtedly was a fact as much present to the fore-knowledge of God as was the "redemption;" and the act which encompassed it must be regarded as more praise-worthy than blame-worthy, since it was essential to the accomplishment of the divine purpose. Yet, as I say, those who assume to teach Christianity roundly denounce Adam for his transgression. An accepted teacher of Catholic doctrine says:
The Catholic Church teaches that Adam, by his sin, has not only caused harm to himself, but to the whole human race; that by it he lost the supernatural justice and holiness which he received gratuitously from God, and lost it, not only for himself, but also for all of us; and that he, having stained himself with the sin of disobedience, has transmitted not only death and other bodily pains and infirmities to the whole human race, but also sin, which is the death of the soul.[[11]]
And again:
Unhappily, Adam, by his sin of disobedience, which was also a sin of pride, disbelief, and ambition, forfeited, or, more properly speaking, rejected that original justice; and we, as members of the human family, of which he was the head, are also implicated in that guilt of self-spoliation, or rejection and deprivation of those supernatural gifts; not, indeed, on account of our having willed it with our personal will, but by having willed it with the will of our first parent, to whom we are linked by nature as members to their head.[[12]]
Still again, and this from the Catholic Douay Catechism:
Q. How did we lose original justice?
A. By Adam's disobedience to God in eating the forbidden fruit.
Q. How do you prove that?
A. Out of Rom. v: 12, "By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and so into all men death did pass, in whom all have sinned."
Q. Had man ever died if he had never sinned?
A. He would not, but would live in a state of justice and at length would be translated alive to the fellowship of the angels.[[13]]
From a Protestant source I quote the following:
In the fall of man we may observe: (1) The greatest infidelity. (2) Prodigious pride. (3) Horrid ingratitude. (4) Visible contempt of God's majesty and justice. (5) Unaccountable folly. (6) A cruelty to himself and to all his posterity.[[14]]
Another Protestant authority says:
The tree of knowledge of good and evil revealed to those who ate its fruit secrets of which they had better have remained ignorant; for the purity of man's happiness consisted in doing and loving good without even knowing evil.[[15]]
From these several passages as also indeed from the whole tenor of Christian writings upon this subject, the fall of Adam is quite generally deplored and upon him is laid a very heavy burden of responsibility. It was he, they complain, who,
Brought death into the world, and all our woe.
One great division of Christendom in its creed, it is true, in dealing with the fall, concedes that "God was pleased according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit [the fall] having purposed to order it to his own glory."[[16]]
And in an authoritative explanation of this section they say, "That this sin [the fall] was permissively embraced in the sovereign purpose of God." And still further in explanation:
Its purpose [i. e., of the fall] being God's general plan, and one eminently wise and righteous, to introduce all the new created subjects of moral government into a state of probation for a time in which he makes their permanent character and destiny depend upon their own action.
Still, this sin, described as being permissively embraced in the sovereign purpose of Deity, God designed "to order it to his own glory;" but it nowhere appears according to this confession of faith that the results of the fall are to be of any benefit to man. The only thing consulted in the theory of this creed seems to be the manifestation of the glory of God—a thing which represents God as a most selfish being—but just how the glory of God can be manifested by the "fall" which, according to this creed, results in the eternal damnation of the overwhelming majority of his "creatures," is not quite apparent.
Those who made this Westminister Confession, as also the large following which accept it, concede that their theory involves them at least in two difficulties which they confess it is impossible for them to overcome. These are, respectively: First, "How could sinful desires or volitions originate in the soul of mortal agents created holy like Adam and Eve;" and, second, "how can sin be permissively embraced in the eternal purpose of God and not involve him as responsible for the sin?" "If it be asked," say they, "why God, who abhors sin, and who benevolently desires the excellence and happiness of his creatures, should sovereignly determine to permit such a fountain of pollution, degradation, and misery to be opened, we can only say, with profound reverence, 'Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight."'[[17]]
These difficulties, however, are the creed's and those who accept it, not ours, and do not further concern our discussion at this point.
Infidels—under which general term (and I do not use it offensively) I mean all those who do not accept the Christian creeds, nor believe the Bible to be a revelation—infidels, I say, quite generally deride the fall of man as represented both in the creeds of Christendom and in the Bible. They regard the tremendous consequences attendant upon eating the forbidden fruit as altogether out of proportion with the act itself, and universally hold that a moral economy which would either design or permit such a calamity as the fall is generally supposed to be, as altogether unworthy of an all-merciful and just Deity. Thomas Paine referring to it says:
"Putting aside everything that might excite laughter by its absurdity, or detestation by its profaneness, and confining ourselves merely to an examination of the parts, it is impossible to conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power, than this story is.[[18]]
In their contentions against the story of Genesis, no less than in their war upon "the fall" and "original sin" in the men made creeds of Christendom, infidels have denounced God in most blasphemous terms as the author of all the evil in this world by permitting, through not preventing, the fall; and they as soundly ridicule and abuse Adam for the part he took in the affair. He has been held up by them as weak and cowardly, because he referred his partaking of the forbidden fruit to the fact that the woman gave to him and he did eat; a circumstance into which they read an effort on the part of the man to escape censure, perhaps punishment, and to cast the blame for his transgression upon the woman. These scoffers proclaim their preference for the variations of this story of a "fall of man" as found in the mythologies of various peoples, say those of Greece or India.[[19]] But all this aside. The truth is that nothing could be more courageous, sympathetic, or nobly honorable than the course of our world's great Patriarch in his relations to his wife Eve and the "fall." The woman by deception is led into transgression, and stands under the penalty of a broken law. Banishment from the presence of God; banishment from the presence of her husband, if he partakes not with her in the transgression; dissolution of spirit and body—physical death—all await her! Thereupon, the man, not deceived, but knowingly (as we are assured by Paul), also transgresses. Why? In one aspect of the case in order that he might share the woman's banishment from the dear presence of God, and with her die—than which no higher proof of love could be given—no nobler act of chivalry performed. But primarily he transgressed that "Man might be." He transgressed a less important law that he might comply with one more important, if one may so speak of any of God's laws. The facts are, as we shall presently see, that the conditions which confronted Adam in his earth-life were afore time known to him; that of his own volition he accepted them, and came to earth to meet them.
Man an Immortal Spirit.
Man is an immortal spirit. By saying that, I mean not only a never ending existence for the "soul" of man in the future, through the resurrection, but a proper immortality that means the eternal existence of the "ego"—interchangeably called "mind," "spirit," "soul," "intelligence." I mean existence before birth as well as existence after death. I believe that an "immortality" which refers to continued existence after death only is but half a truth. A real immortality is forever immortal, and includes an existence before life on earth as surely as an existence after death.[[20]] This view of the intelligence or spirit of man is supported by the Bible. Without going into the subject at length I call attention to the fact that Jesus himself had very clear conceptions of his own spirit-existence before his birth into this world; a fact which is evident from the declaration he made to the Jews when he said, "Verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am."[[21]] (i. e. existed). And again, in his prayer in Gethsemane, "O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."[[22]] This spirit pre-existence extends also to all the children of men; who, in their physical structure and even in faculties of mind, so nearly resembled Jesus, though, of course, immeasurably below him in the developed excellence of those qualities. We read of the "sons of God shouting for joy" in heaven when the foundations of the earth were laid;[[23]] of the war in heaven when Michael and his angels fought against the dragon (Satan), and the dragon and his angels fought, and he with them was cast out into the earth.[[24]] These were the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, and who are reserved in everlasting chains unto the judgment of the last days.[[25]] "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee," said the Lord to Jeremiah, "and sanctified thee and ordained thee a prophet unto the nations;"[[26]] "We have had fathers of the flesh, and we give them reverence," said Paul to the Hebrews, "Shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the father of spirits and live?"[[27]] All of which passages tend to prove that not only Jesus but the spirits of all men existed before they tabernacled in the flesh. This of course is but a brief glance at the question as supported by the Jewish scriptures.[[28]]
The Book of Mormon while not in any formal manner teaching this doctrine of the pre-existence of the spirits of men, does so very effectually in an incidental way. For example: the Lord Jesus, long ages before his advent into earth-life, revealed himself to the Book of Mormon character known as the Brother of Jared, and in doing so he said:
Behold I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people; * * * and never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image [likeness]? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image. Behold this body which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit, will I appear unto my people in the flesh.[[29]]
Here a great doctrine is revealed. Not only the fact of the pre-existence of the spirit of Jesus, the Christ, that is, the existence of his spirit in tangible, human form before his earthly existence, but a like existence for the spirits of all men is proclaimed. Moreover, it is made known that as Jesus appeared in the spirit to this Jaredite prophet, so would he appear unto his people in the flesh. That is to say, the bodily form of flesh and bone would conform in appearance to the spirit form; the earthly would be like unto the heavenly, the human, to the divine. And so with all men.
Christian theologians are thought to have discovered a great truth when in the preface of St. John's Gospel they found the doctrine of the co-eternity and co-divinity of the Father and the Son in the holy trinity; namely,
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. * * * And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.[[30]]
The identity between the "Word" of this passage and Jesus—the "Word made flesh" is complete. And he was in the beginning with God—co-eternal with him; and the "Word was God."—that is, he was divine, he was more, he was Divinity—he was Deity.
In a revelation to Joseph Smith this same truth is repeated and more is added to it, as follows:
Verily, I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the first-born. * * * Ye [referring to the Elders in whose presence the revelation was given] were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is spirit [that is, that part of man which is spirit, that was in the beginning with the Father]. * * Man [i. e., the race, the term is generic] was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.[[31]]
The doctrine in the foregoing quotation is in harmony with the Book of Mormon and with the Bible; but goes beyond them in that it gives us the understanding "that intelligence was not created or made, neither indeed can be." That is to say, the individual intelligence in all men was not created, or made, "neither indeed can be"—it is not only not created but is uncreatable.
There is something in man, then, that is eternal, uncreate. Just what that is, the form of it, or the mode of its existence, we may not know, since it has not pleased God so far to reveal these aspects of it. But he has revealed the fact of its existence, the fact of its eternity, the fact that it is an intelligence. One must needs think, too, that the name of this eternal entity—what God calls him—conveys to the mind some idea of his nature. He is called an "Intelligence;" and this I believe is descriptive of him. That is, intelligence is the entity's chief characteristic. If this be a true deduction, then the entity must be conscious; conscious of self and of other things than self. He must have the power to distinguish himself from other things—the "me" from the "not me." He must have power of deliberation, by which he sets over one thing against another; with power also to form a judgment that this or that is a better thing or state than some other thing or state. Also there goes with this idea of intelligence a power of choosing one thing instead of another, one state rather than another—the power to will to do this or that, else existence is meaningless, worthless, mockery. These powers are inseparably connected with any idea that may be formed of an intelligence. One cannot conceive of an intelligence existing without these qualities any more than he can conceive of an object existing in space without dimensions. The phrase, "the light of truth." is given in the revelation above quoted as the equivalent of an "Intelligence" here discussed; by which it is meant to be understood, as I think, that intelligent entities perceive truth, are conscious of truth, they know that which is, hence "the light of truth," that which cognizes truth—"intelligences." These intelligences are begotten[[32]] spirits that exist in human form. They exist so before they tabernacle in the flesh. In this manner, first, and eternally, as an individual intelligence, and secondly as a begotten spirit in human form, Jesus existed; so the spirits of all men existed; so Adam existed, a Son of God, for so the scriptures declare him to be.[[33]]
In addition to teaching the doctrine of the pre-existence of man's spirit, the Book of Mormon teaches also the indestructibility of the spirit. The prophet Alma expressly says, that "the soul would never die;"[[34]] which, according to Orson Pratt, in a foot note on the passage, means that the "soul" could "never be dissolved, or its parts be separated so as to disorganize the spiritual personage;" and since the Book of Mormon teaches the pre-existence of this "soul," or "spirit," and also teaches its continued existence between death and the resurrection,[[35]] as also its indestructibility after the resurrection,[[36]] it is very clear that the Book of Mormon teaches what I have called "proper immortality of the soul;" an immortality that extends pastward as well as foreward in time; or, in other words, declares its essential, its eternal existence; hence its necessary existence, hence that it is a self-existing entity.
In thinking then upon this earth career of Adam's, it must be thought of in connection with that pre-existence of his, of that eternal existence of his, and of his knowledge of what would befall him when he came to the earth. He came on no fool's errand, to be betrayed by chance happenings. If redemption through Jesus Christ was a foreknown circumstance,—and it was—and he was appointed as the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,"[[37]] to bring to pass man's redemption, then surely the circumstance of man's fall was known, doubtless pre-determined upon, and in some way essential to the accomplishment of the purposes of God; not an accidental or even a temporary thwarting of them; but as much a part of God's plan with reference to man's earth-existence, as any circumstance whatsoever connected with that existence.
Let us now consider the second part of Lehi's Generalization:
Men are that they might have joy.
That is to say, the purpose of man's earth-life is in some way to be made to contribute to his "joy," which is but another way of saying, that man's earth-life is to eventuate in his advantage.
"Men are that they might have joy!" What is meant by that? Have we here the reappearance of the old Epicurean doctrine, "pleasure is the supreme good, and chief end of life?" No, verily! Nor any other form of old "hedonism"[[38]]—the Greek ethics of gross self-interest. For mark, in the first place, the different words "joy" and "pleasure." They are not synonymous. The first does not necessarily arise from the second, "joy" may arise from quite other sources than "pleasure," from pain, even, when the endurance of pain is to eventuate in the achievement of some good: such as the travail of a mother in bringing forth her offspring; the weariness and pain and danger of toil by a father, to secure comforts for loved ones. Moreover, whatever apologists may say, it is very clear that the "pleasure" of the Epicurean philosophy, hailed as "the supreme good and chief end in life," was to arise from agreeable sensations, or what ever gratified the senses, and hence was, in the last analysis of it—in its roots and branches—in its theory and in its practice—"sensualism." It was to result in physical ease and comfort, and mental inactivity—other than a conscious, self-complacence—being regarded as "the supreme good and chief end of life." I judge this to be the net result of this philosophy since these are the very conditions in which Epicureans describe even the gods to exist;[[39]] and surely men could not hope for more "pleasure," or greater happiness than that possessed by their gods. Cicero even charges that the sensualism of Epicurus was so gross that he represents him as blaming his brother, Timocrates, "because he would not allow that everything which had any reference to a happy life was to be measured by the belly; nor has he," continues Cicero, "said this once only, but often."
This is not the "joy," it is needles to say, contemplated in the Book of Mormon. Nor is the "joy" there contemplated the "joy" of mere innocence—mere innocence, which say what you will of it, is but a negative sort of virtue. A virtue that is colorless, never quite sure of itself, always more or less uncertain, because untried.[[40]] Such a virtue—if mere absence of vice may be called virtue—would be unproductive of that "joy" the attainment of which is set forth in the Book of Mormon as the purpose of man's existence; for in the context it is written, "They [Adam and Eve] would have remained in a state of 'innocence.' Having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." From which it appears that the "joy" contemplated in our Book of Mormon passage is to arise from something more than mere innocence, which is, impliedly, unproductive of "joy." The "joy" contemplated in the Book of Mormon passage is to arise out of man's rough and thorough knowledge of evil, of sin; through knowing misery, sorrow, pain and suffering; through seeing good and evil locked in awful conflict; through a consciousness of having chosen in that conflict the better part, the good; and not only in having chosen it, but in having wedded it by eternal compact; made it his by right of conquest over evil. It is a "joy" that will arise from a consciousness of having "fought the good fight," of having "kept the faith." It will arise from a consciousness of moral, spiritual and physical strength. Of strength gained in conflict. The strength that comes from experience; from having sounded the depths of the soul; from experiencing all emotions of which mind is susceptible; from testing all the qualities and strength of the intellect. A "joy" that will come to man from a contemplation of the universe, and a consciousness that he is an heir to all that is—a joint heir with Jesus Christ and God; from knowing that he is an essential part of all that is. It is a joy that will be born of the consciousness of existence itself—that will revel in existence—in thoughts of and realizations of existence's limitless possibilities. A "joy" born of the consciousness of the power of eternal increase. A "joy" arising from association with the Intelligences of innumerable heavens—the Gods of all eternities. A "joy," born of a consciousness of being, of intelligence, of faith, knowledge, light, truth, mercy, justice, love, glory, dominion, wisdom, power; all feelings, affections, emotions, passions; all heights and all depths! "Men are that they might have joy;" and that "joy" is based upon and contemplates all that is here set down.
We may now consider the "fall of man" and the "purpose of his existence" as related subjects—as standing somewhat in the relationship of means to an end. We shall now be able to regard the "fall of man," not as an accident, not as surprising, and all but thwarting, God's purposes, but as part of the divinely appointed program of man's earth-existence.
Here, then, stands the truth so far as it may be gathered from God's word and the nature of things: There is in man an eternal, uncreate, self-existing entity, call it "intelligence," "mind," "spirit," "soul"—what you will, so long as you recognize it, and regard its nature as eternal. There came a time when in the progress of things, (which is only another way of saying in the "nature of things") an earth career, or earth existence, because of the things it has to teach, was necessary to the enlargement, to the advancement of these "intelligences," these "spirits," "souls." Hence an earth is prepared; and one sufficiently advanced and able, by the nature of him to bring to pass the events, is chosen, through whom this earth-existence, with all its train of events—its mingled miseries and comforts, its sorrows and joys, its pains and pleasures, its good, and its evil—may be brought to pass. He comes to earth with his appointed spouse. He comes primarily to bring to pass man's earth life. He comes to the earth with the solemn injunction upon him: "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it." But he comes with the knowledge that this earth-existence of eternal "Intelligences" is to be lived under circumstances that will contribute to their enlargement, to their advancement. They are to experience joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure; witness the effect of good and evil, and exercise their agency in the choice of good or of evil. To accomplish this end, the local, or earth harmony of things must be broken. Evil to be seen, and experienced, must enter the world, which can only come to pass through the violation of law. The law is given—"of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die." The woman forgetful of the purpose of the earth mission of herself and spouse is led by flattery and deceit into the violation of that law, and becomes subject to its penalties—merely another name for its effect. But the man, not deceived, but discerning clearly the path of duty, and in order that earth-existence may be provided for the great hosts of spirits to come to earth under the conditions prescribed—he also transgresses the law, not only that men might be, but that they might have that being under the very circumstances deemed essential to the enlargement, to the progress of eternal Intelligences. Adam did not sin because deceived by another. He did not sin maliciously, or with evil intent; or to gratify an inclination to rebellion against God, or to thwart the Divine purposes, or to manifest his own pride. Had his act of sin involved the taking of life rather than eating a forbidden fruit, it would be regarded as a "sacrifice" rather than a "murder." This to show the nature of Adam's transgression. It was a transgression of the law—"for sin is the transgression of the law"[[41]]—that conditions deemed necessary to the progress of eternal Intelligences might obtain. Adam sinned that men might be, and not only "be," but "be" under conditions essential to progress. But Adam did sin. He did break the law; and violation of law involves the violator in its penalties, as surely as effect follows cause. Upon this principle depends the dignity and majesty of law. Take this fact away from moral government and your moral laws become mere nullities. Therefore, notwithstanding Adam fell that men might be, in his transgression there was at bottom a really exalted motive—a motive that contemplated nothing less than bringing to pass the highly necessary purposes of God with respect to man's existence in the earth—yet his transgression of law was followed by certain moral effects in the nature of men and in the world. The harmony of things was broken; discord ruled; changed relations between God and men took place, darkness, sin and death stalked through the world, and conditions were brought to pass in the midst of which the eternal Intelligences might gain those experiences that such conditions have to teach.
Now as to the second part of the great truth—"men are that they might have joy"—viewed also in the light of the "Intelligence" or "spirit" in man being an eternal, uncreated, self-existing entity. Remembering what I have already said in these pages as to the nature of this "joy" which it is the purpose of earth-existence to secure, remembering from what it is to arise—from the highest possible development—the highest conceivable enlargement of physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual power—what other conceivable purpose for existence in earth-life could there be for eternal Intelligences than this attainment of "joy" springing from progress? Man's existence for the manifestation alone of God's glory, as taught by the creeds of men, is not equal to it. That view represents man as but a thing created, and God as selfish and vain of glory. True, the Book of Mormon idea of the purpose of man's existence, is accompanied by a manifestation of God's glory; for with the progress of Intelligences there must be an ever widening manifestation of the glory of God. It is written that the "glory of God is Intelligence;" and it must follow, as clearly as the day follows night, that with the enlargement, with the progress of Intelligences, there must ever be a constantly increasing splendor in the manifestation of the glory of God. But in the Book of Mormon doctrine, the manifestation of that glory is incidental. The primary purpose is not in that manifestation, but in the "joy" arising from the progress of Intelligences. And yet that fact adds to the glory of God, but our book represents the Lord as seeking the enlargement and "joy" of kindred Intelligences, rather than the mere selfish manifestation of his own, personal glory. "This is my work and my glory," says the Lord, in another "Mormon" scripture, "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, as man;"[[42]] and therein is God's "joy." A "joy" that grows from the progress of others; from bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of "man." Not the immortality of the "spirit" of man, mark you, for that immortality already exists, but to bring to pass the immortality of the spirit and body in their united condition, and which together constitutes "man."[[43]] And the purpose for which man is, is that he might have "joy;" that "joy" which, in the last analysis of things, should be even as God's "joy," and God's glory, namely, the bringing to pass the progress, enlargement, and "joy" of others.
It is gratifying to know that this Book of Mormon definition of life and its purpose, so far as it affects the human race, is receiving unconscious support from some of the first philosophers of modern days, among whom I may mention Lester F. Ward, author of "Outlines of Sociology" and other scientific and philosophical works; a Lecturer in the School of Sociology of the Hartford Society for Education Extension. His "Outlines of Sociology" was published in 1904, and in the chapter of that work, in which he discusses the relation of sociology to psychology, (chapter v), he deals with the question of life and its object. For the purpose of clearly setting forth his thought, he says:
"The biological [i. e. that which pertains merely to the life] must be clearly marked off from the psychological [i. e. as here used, that which pertains to feeling] standpoint. The former," he continues, "is that of function, the latter that of feeling. It is convenient, and almost necessary, in order to gain a correct conception of these relations to personify Nature, as it were, and bring her into strong contrast with the sentient [one capable of perception is here meant] creature. Thus viewed, each may be conceived to have its own special end. The end of Nature is function, i. e. life. It is biological. The end of the creature is feeling, i. e. it is psychic. From the standpoint of Nature, feeling is a means to function. From the standpoint of the organism, function is a means to feeling. Pleasure and pain came into existence in order that a certain class of beings might live, but those beings, having been given existence, now live in order to enjoy."
Throughout the chapter he maintains that the purpose of man's existence is for pleasure, but of course, holds that this pleasure is that of the highest order, and not merely sensual pleasure. Finally, applying the principles he lays down to the human race, its existence, the purpose of that existence, and the means through which the end is to be obtained—he adopts the following formula:
The object of nature is function [i. e., life].
The object of man is happiness.
The object of society is effort.
Now, with very slight modifications, this formula may be made to express the doctrine of Lehi in the Book of Mormon, as representing the divine economy respecting man:
Earth-life became essential to the progress of intelligences.
Adam fell that man's earth-life might be realized.
The purpose of man's existence is that he might have joy.
The purpose of the gospel is to bring to pass that joy.
In condensed form it may be made to stand as follows:
The object of God in man's earth-life is progress.
The object of man's existence is joy.
The object of the gospel and the church is effort.
A formula which so closely resembles this philosopher's—and his philosophy is that of many other advanced modern thinkers—that it justifies me in making the claim that the trend of the best modern thought on these lines is coming into harmony with the truths stated in the Book of Mormon.
VIII.
The Agency of Man.
Respecting the "free agency" of man the Book of Mormon is quite pronounced as to the fact of it, as the following quotations attest:
I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, according to their wills; whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction.[[44]]
Again,
The Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to chose liberty and eternal life, through the great mediation of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.[[45]]
The doctrine of the free agency of man could scarcely be more strongly set forth than it is in these passages.
A word in relation to this question of free agency. Of course it is recognized as one of the great theological questions that has puzzled mankind. By the phrase, free agency is here meant to represent that power or capacity of the mind or spirit to act freely and of its own volition, with reference to these matters, that are within the power of its achievement. That is to say, it is not meant that by an act of will man may overcome the force we call gravitation, and leave the earth at his pleasure; or that he can pluck down the moon by an act of will; or influence a mass of people at his will and against theirs; or create two mountains without a valley between them; but what is meant is, that man possesses the quality of determining his own actions, his own course with reference to things that are within the realm of the possibility of his achievement, and more especially, with reference to moral questions; that man has the power to take a course in harmony with those moral ideals that he has created by his own intellectual force or that have been created for him by his education, or the environment in which he has lived; that he can decide for himself to walk in harmony with these ideals, or that wontingly, and against all that he conceives to be to his best interest, he can violate them and walk contrary to what in his heart he knows to be right and true. This constitutes his freedom, his agency, and it is because of this fact that he is morally responsible for his conduct.
I have nowhere else found a statement of the facts involved in free agency so clearly set forth as in Guizot's "History of Civilization," from which I summarize the following:
1. Power of Deliberation—The mind is conscious of a power of deliberation. Before the intellect passes the different motives of action, interests, passions, opinions, etc. The intellect considers, compares, estimates, and finally judges them. This is a preparatory work which precedes the act of will.
2. Liberty, Free Agency or Will—When deliberation has taken place—when man has taken full cognizance of the motives which present themselves to him, he takes a resolution, of which he looks upon himself as the author, which arises because he wishes it and which would not arise unless he did wish it—here the fact of agency is shown; it resides in the resolution which man makes after deliberation; it is the resolution which is the proper act of man, which subsists by him alone; a simple fact independent of all the facts which precede it or surround it.
3. Free Will, or Agency Modified—At the same time that man feels himself free, he recognizes the fact that his freedom is not arbitrary, that it is placed under the dominion of a law which will preside over it and influence it. What that law is will depend upon the education of each individual, upon his surroundings, etc. To act in harmony with that law is what man recognizes as his duty; it will be the task of his liberty. He will soon see, however, that he never fully acquits himself of his task, never acts in full harmony with his moral law. Morally capable of conforming himself to his law, he falls short of doing it. He does not accomplish all that he ought, nor all that he can. This fact is evident, one of which all may give witness; and it often happens that the best men, that is, those who have best conformed their will to reason, have often been the most struck with their insufficience.
4. Necessity of External Assistance—This weakness in man leads him to feel the necessity of an external support to operate as a fulcrum for the human will, a power that may be added to its present power and sustain it at need. Man seeks this fulcrum on all sides; he demands it in the encouragement of friends, in the councils of the wise; but as the visible world, the human society, do not always answer to his desires, the soul goes beyond the visible world, above human relations, to seek this fulcrum of which it has need. Hence the religious sentiment develops itself; man addresses himself to God, and invokes his aid through prayer.
5. Man Finds the Help He Seeks—Such is the nature of man that when he sincerely asks this support he obtains it; that is, seeking it is almost sufficient to secure it. Whosoever, feeling his will weak, invokes the encouragement of a friend, the influence of wise councils, the support of public opinion, or who addresses himself to God by prayer, soon feels his will fortified in a certain measure and for a certain time.
6. Influence of the Spiritual World on Liberty—There are spiritual influences at work on man—the empire of the spiritual world upon liberty. There are certain changes, certain moral events which manifest themselves in man without his being able to refer their origin to an act of his will, or being able to recognize the author. Certain facts occur in the interior of the human soul which it does not refer to itself, which it does not recognize as the work of its own will. There are certain days, certain moments in which it finds itself in a different moral state from that which it was last conscious of under the operations of its own will. In other words, the moral man does not wholly create himself; he is conscious that causes, that powers external to himself, act upon and modify him imperceptibly—this fact has been called the grace of God, which helps the will of man.
After giving full weight to all the facts here set forth—and certainly each one enters as a factor into the question of man's freedom—the Book of Mormon doctrine stands true. There is such a quality of man's mind. He is conscious of it. Conscious of the power of deliberation; conscious of the existence of moral obligation pressing upon him; conscious of his own weakness that makes him feel unable to rise to the high level of his full duty; conscious of his need of external assistance; conscious of his will being made stronger by appealing to the counsel of his friends, and appealing to God for help through prayer; conscious of the fact that he is in different states of moral feeling at different times, owing, doubtless, to this appeal that he makes to external aids—yet, in the last analysis of it all, he remains conscious of the fact that what he does, not only can be, but is, a self-determining act, and he remains conscious of the power that he could do otherwise if he would. This consciousness and this freedom are the most stupendous facts in human existence, and upon their reality—upon their truth—depends all the glory of that existence. Arriving here the outlook concerning man's possibilities for the future is immense. Sir Oliver Lodge speaking of man, after arriving at this point in his development, the attainment of consciousness and free will, recently said:
On this planet man is the highest outcome of the process so far (i. e., the process of development), and is, therefore, the highest representation of Deity that here exists. Terribly imperfect as yet, because so recently evolved, he is nevertheless a being which has at length attained to consciousness and free-will, a being unable to be coerced by the whole force of the universe, against his will; a spark of the divine Spirit, therefore, never more to be quenched. Open still to awful horrors, to agonies of remorse, but to floods of joy also, he persists, and his destiny is largely in his own hands; he may proceed up or down, he may advance towards a magnificent ascendency, he may recede towards depths of infamy. He is not coerced: he is guided and influenced, but he is free to choose. The evil and the good are necessary correlatives; freedom to choose the one involves freedom to choose the other.[[46]]
This is the doctrine then of the Book of Mormon: the existence in man as a quality of his mind or spirit freedom and power to will, to determine for himself his course. He may choose good or evil. The freedom of righteousness, or the bondage of sin. If man finds his will strengthened in favor of choosing the good by appealing for help to external aids, to God through prayer, and that help comes in the form of the grace of God, and becomes a factor in helping man into a state of righteousness, it should be remembered that the act of appealing for external help was the exercise of man's free agency. He willed to do good and sought help to carry out his determination; and the assistance of the grace of God so obtained in no way operates to destroy the freedom of man's will. In concluding this subject, it may be said that the Book of Mormon in an authoritative way settles conclusively the great theological question of the free agency of man.
W. H. Mallack, in his work on "The Reconstruction of Religious Belief" (1905), has a most fascinating chapter on human freedom[[47]] in which he illustrates on broad lines the universal though unconscious assumption of the fact of human freedom in both literature and history. Of the characters created by the great poets, he remarks: "They interest us as born to freedom, and not naturally slaves, and they pass before us like kings in a Roman triumph. Once let us suppose these characters to be mere puppets of heredity and circumstance, and they and the works that deal with them lose all intelligible content, and we find ourselves confused and wearied with the fury of an idiot's tale." On the criticism of historical characters he says: "All this praising and blaming is based on the assumption that the person praised or blamed is the originator of his own actions, and not a mere transmitter of forces." And further, all debating on the value of historical characters would be meaningless, "if it were not for the inveterate belief that a man's significance for men resides primarily in what he makes of himself, not in what he has been made by an organism derived from his parents, and the various external stimuli to which it has automatically responded." Our author also points out the truth that forgiveness itself among men (and he might well have extended his argument to the forgiveness God imparts to men also) assumes the fact of human freedom—else what is there to be forgiven! The believer in freedom says to the offending party, "I forgive you for the offense of not having done your best." The assumption is that the offender could have refrained from giving one offense—he had freedom and power to have done otherwise. One not believing in human freedom would say to the offending party: "I neither forgive nor blame you; for, although you have done your worst, your worst was your best also" & having no freedom, he was under no obligation; his action was indifferent, neither good nor bad; there was no blame or praise possible; he is neither a subject for mercy nor justice to act upon.
In the course of the discussion to which attention is called, our author has contributed an idea worthy of all acceptation and is valuable for the reason that it goes outside the beaten paths followed in the free will controversy: "When most people talk of believing in moral freedom, they mean by freedom a power which exhausts itself in acts of choice between a series of alternative courses; but, important though such choice, as a function of freedom is, the root idea of freedom lies deeper still. It consists in the idea, not that a man is, as a personality, the first and the sole cause of his choice between alternative courses, but that he is, in a true, even if in a qualified sense, the first cause of what he does, or feels, or is, whether this involves an act of choice, or consists of an unimpeded impulse. Freedom of choice between alternatives is the consequence of this primary faculty. It is the form in which the faculty is most noticeably manifested; but it is not the primary faculty of personal freedom itself."
I believe this fact in relation to man's freedom; that it is a quality capable of manifesting itself in other modes than choice between alternatives; that it may project an unimpeded line of conduct, and yet in this world its chief manifestations are in a choice between things opposite and we shall see later, according to the Book of Mormon, that conditions in this world are so ordained in the existence of opposites—antinomies—that man may exercise this quality of freedom in the choice of alternatives.
IX.
The Atonement.
After giving an account of the fall of man, substantially as found in Genesis, the Nephite prophet Alma, is represented in the Book of Mormon as teaching his son Corianton the doctrine of the atonement, as follows:
###Alma's Doctrine of Atonement.
And now we see by this, that our first parents were cut off, both temporally and spiritually, from the presence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own will.
Now, behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness;
Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal; that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death;
Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them [in which] to prepare; it became a preparatory state.
And now remember, my son, if it were not for the plan of redemption (laying it aside), as soon as they were dead, their souls were miserable, being cut off from the presence of the Lord.
And now there was no means to reclaim men from this fallen state which man had brought upon himself, because of his own disobedience;
Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions, of repentance of men in this probationary state; yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.
And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.
And now the plan of mercy could not be brought about, except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.
Now repentance could not come unto men, except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.
Now, how could a man repent, except he should sin? How could he sin, if there was no law, how could there be a law, save there was a punishment?
Now there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.
Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die, would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?
And also, if there was no law given against sin, men would not be afraid to sin.
And if there was no law given if men sinned, what could justice do, or mercy either; for they would have no claim upon the creature?
But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise justice claimeth the creature, and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.
But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works; according to the law and justice;
For, behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.
What! do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, nay! Not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.
And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal purposes, which were prepared from the foundation of the world. And thus cometh about the salvation and the redemption of men, and also their destruction and misery;
Therefore, O my son, whosoever will come, may come, and partake of the waters of life freely; and whosoever will not come, the same is not compelled to come; but in the last day, it shall be restored unto him, according to his deeds.[[48]]
Summarizing the foregoing we have the following as the result: The effect of Adam's transgression was to destroy the harmony of things in this world. As a consequence of his fall man is banished from the presence of God—a spiritual death takes place and man becomes sensual, devilish, unholy, is cursed, we say, with a strong inclination to sinfulness. Man is also made subject to a temporal death, a separation of the spirit and body. Much might have been gained by this union of his spirit with his body of flesh and bone could it have been immortal, but that is now lost, by this temporal death, this separation of spirit and body. These conditions would have remained eternally fixed as the result of the operation of law—inexorable law, called "the justice of God," admitting of nothing else; for the law was given to eternal beings and by them violated, and man is left in the grasp of eternal justice, with all its consequences upon his head and the head of his progeny. And the justice of the law admitted the conditions, admitted that the penalties affixed should be effective, but this is justice—stern, unrelenting justice; justice untempered by mercy. But mercy must in some way be made to reach man, yet in a way also that will not destroy justice; for justice must be maintained, else all is confusion—ruin. If justice be destroyed—if justice be not maintained—. "God will cease to be God." Hence mercy may not be introduced into the divine economy of this world without a vindication of the broken law by some means or other, for divine laws as well as human ones are mere nullities if their penalties be not in force.
The penalty of the law then, transgressed by Adam, must be executed, or else an adequate atonement must be made for man's transgression. This the work of the Christ. He makes the atonement. He comes to earth and assumes responsibility for this transgression of law, and gathers up into his own soul all the suffering due to the transgression of the law by Adam. All the suffering due to individual transgression of law—the direct consequences of the original transgression—from Adam to the end of the world. The burden of us all is laid upon him. He will bear our griefs and carry our sorrows. He will be wounded for our transgressions, and be bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace will be upon him; on him is laid the iniquity of us all; by his stripes shall we be healed.[[49]] That is to say, having gathered into himself all the suffering and sorrows due to all the sinning that shall be in the world, he is able to dictate the terms upon which man may lay hold of mercy—by which mercy may heal his wounds—and these terms he names in the conditions of the gospel, the acceptance of which brings complete redemption. The Christ brings to pass the resurrection of the dead. The spirit and the body are eternally re-united; the temporal death—one of the effects of Adam's trangression—is overcome. There is no more physical death; the "soul"[[50]]—the eternally united spirit and body are now to be immortal as spirit alone before was immortal. The man so immortal is brought back into the presence of God, and if he has accepted the terms of the gospel by which he is redeemed from the effects of his own, as well as from Adam's transgression, his spiritual death is ended, and henceforth he may be spiritually immortal as well as physically immortal—eternally with God in an atmosphere of righteousness—the spiritual death is overcome.
Such I make out to be the Book of Mormon doctrine of the atonement, and the redemption of man through the gospel.
X.
The Doctrine of Opposite Existences.
Closely connected with the doctrine of the agency of man, the purpose of his existence and his redemption from the fallen state, is what I shall call the Book of Mormon doctrine of "opposite existences," what the scholastics would call "antinomies." The doctrine as stated in the Book of Mormon—the time of its publication—1830—remembered, especially when taken in connection with the consequences it supposes in the event of abolishing the existence of evil, is strikingly original and philosophically profound; and reaches a depth of thought beyond all that could be imagined as possible with Joseph Smith or any of those associated with him in bringing forth the Book of Mormon.
The statement of the doctrine in question occurs in a discourse of Lehi's on the subject of the atonement. The aged prophet represents happiness or misery as growing out of the acceptance or rejection of the atonement of the Christ, and adds that the misery consequent upon its rejection is in opposition to the happiness which is affixed to its acceptance:
For it must needs be [he continues] that there is an opposition in all things. If [it were] not so * * * righteousness could not be brought to pass; neither wickedness; neither holiness nor misery; neither good nor bad. Wherefore [that is, if this fact of opposites did not exist] all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it [the sum of things] should be one body, it must needs remain as dead, having no life, neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing [i. e., the absence of opposite existences which Lehi is supposing] must needs destroy the wisdom of God, and his eternal purposes; and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.[[51]]
The inspired man even goes beyond this, and makes existences themselves depend upon this law of opposites:
And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness, there is no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness, there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God, we are not, neither the earth: for there could have been no creation of things; neither to act nor to be acted upon, wherefore, all things must have vanished away.[[52]]
This may be regarded as a very bold setting forth of the doctrine of antinomies, and yet I think the logic of it, and the inevitableness of the conclusion unassailable. In his work, "Origin and Development of Religious Beliefs" S. Baring-Gould says:
The world presents us with a picture of unity and distinction; unity without uniformity, and distinction without antagonism. * * * Everywhere, around us and within us, we see that radical antinomy. The whole astronomic order resolves itself into attraction and repulsion—a centripetal and a centrifugal force; the chemical order into the antinomy of positive and negative electricity, decomposing substances and recomposing them. The whole visible universe presents the antinomy of light and darkness, movement and repose, force and matter, heat and cold, the one and the multiple. The order of life is resumed in the antinomy of the individual and the species, the particular and the general; the order of our sentiments in that of happiness and sorrow, pleasure and pain; that of our conceptions in the antinomy of the ideal and the real; that of our will in the conditions of activity and passivity.[[53]]
The existence of evil in the world has ever been a vexed problem for both theologians and philosophers, and has led to the wildest speculations imaginable. It will be sufficient here, however, if I note the recognition by high authority of the difficulties involved in the problem. Of those who have felt and expressed these difficulties, I know of no one who has done so in better terms than Henry L. Mansel in his contribution to the celebrated course of "Bampton Lecturers," in "The Limits of Religious Thought" (1858), in the course of which he says:
The real riddle of existence—the problem which confounds all philosophy, aye, and all religion, too, so far as religion is a thing of man's reason, is the fact that evil exists at all; not that it exists for a longer or a shorter duration. Is not God infinitely wise and holy and powerful now? and does not sin exist along with that infinite holiness and wisdom and power? Is God to become more holy, more wise, more powerful hereafter; and must evil be annihilated to make room for his perfections to expand? Does the infinity of his eternal nature ebb and flow with every increase or diminution in the sum of human guilt and misery? Against this immovable barrier of the existence of evil, the waves of philosophy have dashed themselves unceasingly since the birthday of human thought, and have retired broken and powerless, without displacing the minutest fragment of the stubborn rock, without softening one feature of its dark and rugged surface.[[54]]
This writer then proceeds by plain implication to make it clear that religion no more than philosophy has solved the problem of the existence of evil:
But this mystery [i. e., the existence of evil], vast and inscrutable as it is, is but one aspect of a more general problem; it is but the moral form of the ever-recurring secret of the Infinite. How the Infinite and the finite, in any form of antagonism or other relation, can exist together; how infinite power can coexist with finite activity; how infinite wisdom can coexist with finite contingency; how infinite goodnesss can coexist with finite evil; how the Infinite can exist in any manner without exhausting the universe of reality—this is the riddle which Infinite Wisdom alone can solve, the problem whose very conception belongs only to that Universal Knowledge which fills and embraces the Universe of Being.[[55]]
In the presence of these reflections it cannot be doubted, then, that the existence of moral evil is one of the world's serious difficulties; and any solution which the Book of Mormon may give of it that is really helpful, will be a valuable contribution to the world's enlightenment, a real revelation—a ray of light from the "inner fact of things." Let us consider if it does this.
In view of the utterances of the Book of Mormon already quoted I am justified in saying that evil as well as good is among the eternal things. Its existence did not begin with its appearance on our earth. Evil existed even in heaven; for Lucifer and many other spirits sinned there; "rebelled against heaven's matchless King," waged war, and were thrust out into the earth for their transgression.[[56]]
Evil is not a created quality.[[57]] It has always existed as the back ground of good. It is as eternal as goodnesss; it is as eternal as law; it is as eternal as the agency of intelligence. Sin, which is evil active, is transgression of law;[[58]] and so long as the agency of intelligences and law have existed, the possibility of the transgression of law has existed; and as the agency of intelligences and law have eternally existed, so, too, evil has existed eternally, either potentially or active and will always so exist.
Evil may not be referred to God for its origin. He is not its creator, it is one of those independent existences that is uncreate, and stands in the category of qualities of eternal things. While not prepared to accept the doctrine of some philosophers that "good and evil are two sides of one thing."[[59]] I am prepared to believe that evil is a necessary antithesis to good, and essential to the realization of the harmony of the universe. "The good cannot exist without the antithesis of the evil—the foil on which it produces itself and becomes known."[[60]] As remarked by Orlando J. Smith, "Evil exists in the balance of natural forces. * * * * * * It is also the background of good, the incentive to good, and the trial of good, without which good could not be. As the virtue of courage could not exist without the evil of danger, and as the virtue of sympathy could not exist without the evil of suffering, so no other virtue could exist without its corresponding evil. In a world without evil—if such a world be really conceivable, all men would have perfect health, perfect intelligence, and perfect morals. No one could gain or impart information, each one's cup of knowledge being full. The temperature would stand forever at seventy degrees, both heat and cold being evil. There could be no progress, since progress is the overcoming of evil. A world without evil would be as toil without exertion, as light without darkness, as a battle with no antagonist. It would be a world without meaning."[[61]] Or, as Lehi puts it, in still stronger terms—after describing what conditions would be without the existence of opposites:—
Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it [i. e. the sum of things] should be one body [i. e., of one character—so called good without evil] it must needs remain as dead, having no life, neither death, nor corruption, nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. Wherefore, it [the sum of things] must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing [the absence of opposites] must needs destroy the wisdom of God, and his eternal purposes; and also, the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.[[62]]
As there can be no good without the antinomy of evil, so there can be no evil without its antinomy, or antithesis—good. The existence of one implies the existence of the other; and, conversely, the non-existence of the latter would imply the non-existence of the former. It is from this basis that Lehi reached the conclusion that either his doctrine of antinomies, or the existence of opposites, is true, or else there are no existences. That is to say—to use his own words—
If ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness, there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness, there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not, there is no God, and if there is no God, we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon: wherefore, all things must have vanished away.[[63]]
But as things have not vanished away, as there are real existences, the whole series of things for which he contends are verities. "For there is a God," he declares, "and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them is; both things to act, and things to be acted upon."[[64]]
After arriving at this conclusion, Lehi, proceeding from the general to the particular, deals with the introduction of this universal antinomy into our world as follows:
To bring about his [God's] eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents * * * it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter; Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore man could not act for himself, save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.[[65]] And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God. And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies; wherefore he said, Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth. And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.
Then follows Lehi's treatise upon the reason for the fall, the purpose of man's existence, which have already been noticed.
Summary of the Foregoing Doctrines.
This then is the order of things—(though in this summary the order in which the various doctrines have been presented is not strictly followed, but one more in harmony with the proper order of the related things; but which order could not well be set forth until the foregoing discussion of them was had):—
1. The intelligent "Ego" in man, which we have called an "Intelligence," meaning, however, not a quality but the "Ego" itself, is an eternal entity; uncreate and uncreatable—an essential, a necessary, self-existent being.
2. These "Intelligences" the begotten of God, spirits; so that men are of the same race with God, are of the same "essence" or "substance," and are the sons of God by virtue of an actual relationship.
3. There came a time in the course of the existence of these spiritual personages when an earth-existence, a union of the spiritual personage with a body of flesh and bone, became necessary for his further development, for his enlargement; an existence where good and evil were in actual conflict, where the mighty and perhaps awful lessons which such conditions have to teach could be learned.
4. There are eternal opposites in existences, light—darkness; joy—sorrow; pleasure—pain; sweet—bitter; good—evil; and so following. Evil is an eternal existence, the necessary co-relative of the good, uncreate and may not be referred to God for its origin.
5. The spirits of men came to earth primarily to obtain bodies through which their spirits may act through all eternity. They came to effect a union of spirit and element essential to all their future development and their joy and their glory;[[66]] secondly they came to obtain such experiences as this earth-life has to give—to be taught by the things which they suffer; learning the lessons that sorrow and sin and death have to teach, finding both the strength and weakness of their own natures—proving the fidelity, valor and honor of their own spirits; making proof of their worthiness for that exceeding great and eternal weight of glory which God has designed for those who overcome and in all things prove faithful.
6. To lead the way in this great work, one sufficiently developed for such a task—Adam—is appointed to come to earth to open the series of dispensations designed of God for man in his earth-probation. He introduced those changes in the harmony of things necessary to the accomplishment of the purposes of God in the earth-life of man—he fell that man might be; and not only "be," but have that being, under the very conditions that have since prevailed.
7. Evil was introduced into this world through the transgression of Adam, and man falls under the censure of eternal and inexorable justice.
8. Through the Atonement of Christ, however, man is freed from the effects of Adam's trangression. The resurrection redeems him from the temporal death—the separation of the spirit and body, and he is brought back into the presence of God.
9. Through the Atonement of Christ mercy also has been brought into the world's moral economy; and, as well as justice, operates upon man. God's righteous law has been given to man. Man is a free moral agent and may choose to obey the law, or may choose to follow after wickedness. If he choose the latter, he falls under the justice of the law.
10. Through the Atonement the privilege of repentance is granted, and mercy claims the truly penitent, rescuing him from the otherwise inexhorable claims of the law, and setting him in the way of salvation through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.