New Witnesses for God (Volume 3 of 3)

CHAPTER XXXVIII

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

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

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.