IX.

It is objected to the Book of Mormon that it lacks "local coloring" and definiteness in respect of its geography; and it is usually contrasted to its disadvantage with the Bible in this respect. "I have not been able to find an edition of the Book of Mormon with maps in it," says one objector, "nor have I been able to find with perfect surety the location of the land in which Christ is supposed to have appeared to the Nephites."[34]

"We find almost nothing," continues Dr. Paden, "which would fit with the tropical climate; in fact, the general description would better coincide with Pennsylvania or New York."[35]"The grandest mountains in the world, and the highest table lands," says another objector, "are as entirely ignored as is the general shape of the two continents and other physical facts. While the physical characteristics of Palestine are woven as a web into almost every page of Bible history, the Book of Mormon is unable to appeal to a single geographical fact in confirmation of its pretended histories, except the general one that there was a 'land south' and a 'land north.'"[36]

This is an exaggerated statement of the supposed difficulty, and so also is it an exaggerated statement concerning the geography of the Bible. Suppose, for instance, you separate the Book of Isaiah from the rest of the library of books comprising the Bible, and how much of a figure does geography cut in that book? The same may be said of the book of Psalms, the book of Proverbs, and, separating the preface from it, the same could be said of the book of Deuteronomy. Mistakes in criticism of the Book of Mormon are continually made through entertaining the idea that the Book of Mormon in its structure is the same as the Bible; that it is the translation of a people's original literature, and that the books of Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, etc., are the books written by the men bearing those names. Whereas, what we have is but Mormon's abridgment of the writings of those men. The Book of Mormon, in other words, save for the writings of Nephi and Jacob (149 pages), and seven other writers[37]—whose entries upon the small plates of Nephi make but about eight pages—is an abridged record throughout. Historical events, doctrines, prophecies, not geographical descriptions, the location of cities, the course of rivers, the grandeur of mountains or the extent of valleys, will be the objective of Mormon's research through the larger Nephite records. I may say, therefore, in answer to this criticism of the Book of Mormon, while by no means granting all that is claimed in respect of its geographical defects—its imperfections in geography arise from the very nature of the book's construction. In such a work you do not look for geographical knowledge.

I may say also that as these pages go to press the question of Book of Mormon geography is more than ever recognized as an open one by students of the book. That is to say, it is a question if Mormon views hitherto entertained respecting Book of Mormon lands have not been a misconception by reason of premises forced upon its students by the declaration of an alleged revelation. In a compendium of doctrinal subjects, published by the late Elders Franklin D. Richards and James A. Little, the following item appears:

Lehi's Travels.—Revelation to Joseph the Seer:The course that Lehi and his company traveled from Jerusalem to the place of their destination: They traveled nearly a south, southeast direction until they came to the nineteenth degree of north latitude; then, nearly east of the Sea of Arabia, then sailed in a southeast direction, and landed on the continent of South America, in Chili, thirty degrees south latitude.[38]

The only reason so far discovered for regarding the above as a revelation is that it is found written on a loose sheet of paper in the hand writing of Frederick G. Williams, for some years second Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church in the Kirtland period of its history; and follows the body of the revelation contained in Doctrine and Covenants, Section vii., relating to John the beloved disciple, remaining on earth, until the glorious coming of Jesus to reign with his Saints. The hand-writing is certified to be that of Frederick G. Williams, by his son, Ezra G. Williams, of Ogden; and endorsed on the back of the sheet of paper containing the above passage and the revelation pertaining to John. The indorsement is dated April the 11th, 1864. The revelation pertaining to John has this introductory line: "A Revelation Concerning John, the Beloved Disciple." But there is no heading to the passage relating to the passage about Lehi's travels. The words "Lehi's Travels;" and the words "Revelation to Joseph the Seer," are added by the publishers, justified as they supposed, doubtless, by the fact that the paragraph is in the hand writing of Frederick G. Williams, Counselor to the Prophet, and on the same page with the body of an undoubted revelation, which was published repeatedly as such in the life time of the Prophet, first in 1833, at Independence, Missouri, in the "Book of Commandments," and subsequently in every edition of the Doctrine and Covenants until now. But the one relating to Lehi's travels was never published in the life-time of the Prophet, and was published no where else until published in the Richards-Little's Compendium as noted above. Now, if no more evidence can be found to establish this passage in Richards and Little's Compendium as a "revelation to Joseph, the Seer," than the fact that it is found in the hand writing of Frederick G. Williams, and on the same sheet of paper with the body of the revelation about John, the beloved disciple, the evidence of its being a "revelation to Joseph, the Seer," rests on a very unsatisfactory basis.

Yet this alleged "revelation" has dominated all our thinking, and influenced all our conclusions upon the subject of Book of Mormon geography. Whereas, if this is not a revelation, the physical description relative to the contour of the lands occupied by the Jaredites and Nephites, that being principally that two large bodies of land were joined by a narrow neck of land—can be found between Mexico and Yucatan with the isthmus of Tehuantepec between. If the investigation now going on shall result in relieving us of the necessity of considering ourselves bound to uphold as a revelation the passage in Richards and Little's Compendium, here considered, many of our difficulties as to the geography of the Book of Mormon—if not all of them in fact, will have passed away. In that event much found in this treatise of the Book of Mormon relative to the Nephites being in South America—written under the impression that the passage in the above named Compendium was, as is there set forth, a revelation—will have to be modified.

And let me here say a word in relation to new discoveries in our knowledge of the Book of Mormon, and for matter of that in relation to all subjects connected with the work of the Lord in the earth. We need not follow our researches in any spirit of fear and trembling. We desire only to ascertain the truth; nothing but the truth will endure; and the ascertainment of the truth and the proclamation of the truth in any given case, or upon any subject, will do no harm to the work of the Lord which is itself truth. Nor need we be surprised if now and then we find our predecessors, many of whom bear honored names and deserve our respect and gratitude for what they achieved in making clear the truth, as they conceived it to be—we need not be surprised if we sometimes find them mistaken in their conceptions and deductions; just as the generations who succeed us in unfolding in a larger way some of the yet unlearned truths of the Gospel, will find that we have had some misconceptions and made some wrong deductions in our day and time. The book of knowledge is never a sealed book. It is never "completed and forever closed;" rather it is an eternally open book, in which one may go on constantly discovering new truths and modifying our knowledge of old ones. The generation which preceded us did not exhaust by their knowledge all the truth, so that nothing was left for us in its unfolding; no, not even in respect of the Book of Mormon; any more than we shall exhaust all discovery in relation to that book and leave nothing for the generation following us to develop. All which is submitted, especially to the membership of the Church, that they may be prepared to find and receive new truths both in the Book of Mormon itself and about it; and that they may also rejoice in the fact that knowledge of truth is inexhaustible, and will forever go on developing.

This is an objection most vehemently urged by Rev. M. T. Lamb, author of "The Golden Bible," already several times quoted in this division of my treatise. Mr. Lamb takes the three lines of characters of Joseph Smith's transcript, and confronts them with afac simileof Landa's Maya Alphabet, and also engravings from some of the stone tablets from Palenque and Copan, and then triumphantly invites comparison in the following passages:

We ask the candid reader carefully to examine these characters, and then look back again to page 261. Those [Joseph's transcript from the plates] are the characters Joseph Smith tells us were universally used in Central America 1,500 and 2,000 years ago—while the ruins, the engraved stones, the chiselled marble, tell us that these [Mr. Lamb's reproduction of Landau's Maya Alphabet] were the characters actually used in that locality, and at that time. Look at the two attentively—see if you can discover any likeness whatever between them. A woeful fatality, is it not? that there should not happen to be even one of Mr. Smith's characters that bears a family likeness, or the least particle of resemblance to the characters actually used by the ancient inhabitants of Central America![39]

Commenting again upon the characters of Joseph Smith's transcript, Mr. Lamb says:

The longer you look at them the more modern and familiar they will become until Professor Anthon's designation, a "hoax" will not seem at all surprising even to a candid Mormon. And if that word is not the proper one, this certainly must be acknowledged, that they are the most unfortunate specimen of ancient characters that have ever been exhibited; for they have a fearfully suspicious look, and it would take the clearest possible evidence to drive away that suspicion from any intelligent and unprejudiced mind.[40]

These are rather formidable conclusions to force upon us from a basis of comparison so narrow as that furnished by the three lines of Joseph Smith's transcript. This preserved scrap, published first in the "Prophet," New York, December 21st, 1844[41]of three lines, or even that of seven lines preserved with the Whitmer Manuscript, are evidently not all that were submitted to Professor Anthon[42]by Martin Harris. Professor Anthon in describing the characters submitted to him as a transcript from the plates, says:

This paper in question was, in fact, a singular scroll. It consisted of all kinds of singular characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets, Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes; Roman letters inverted or placed sideways were arranged and placed in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle, divided into various compartments, arched with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican calendar by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived.

Neither the three lined transcript,[43]nor the seven, meets this description of Anthon's though they may have constituted a part, and doubtless were a part of what was submitted to Professors Anthon and Mitchell. But neither of the two transcripts furnishes data for the conclusions of Mr. Lamb, since we have in them so few of the Nephite characters as a basis of comparison. But even from data so meagre as that furnished by these transcripts, it is possible to show that Mr. Lamb and others who have made like objection are too hasty in their conclusions. On a separate page, I give a photographic reproduction of the ancient Maya Alphabet as engraved by Dr. Augustus Le Plongeon, from the mural inscriptions of the Mayas, and the Egyptian Hieratic Alphabet according to Messrs. Champollion, Le Jeune and Bunsen. The whole page is a photograph reproduction of a page from the preface of Le Plongeon's Work, "Sacred Mysteries Among the Mayas and the Quiches," page xii.

Ancient Maya Hieratic alphabet according to mural inscriptions. Egyptian Hieartic alphabet according to Messrs. Champollion, Le Jeune and Bunsen.

Transcript of Ancient Egyptian characters from Rawlinson's History of Egypt.

Transcript of Ancient Egyptian characters from Rawlinson's History of Egypt

Transcript from Nephite plates, by Joseph Smith.

Two things are to be observed with reference to these two alphabets: First, the strong resemblance between many of the American and Egyptian characters; second, the resemblance of some of the characters in the transcript from the Nephite plates to some of the characters in both the so-called Maya and the Egyptian Alphabet. And although the Nephite characters are so few, and some allowance must be made for unskilfulness in making the transcriptions, yet there is to be seen a strong family likeness between the characters of all three productions here presented, Mr. Lamb and others to the contrary notwithstanding. And that family likeness between the Nephite characters and Egyptian writing is made more impressive by the second page offac similiesherewith presented, consisting first of a photographic reproduction of a transcript, of the three kinds of writing employed by the Egyptians in ancient times, from the work of George Rawlinson, compared with Joseph Smith's transcript of Nephite characters. The first line from Rawlinson's work is the Hieroglyphic form of Egyptian writing, the second the Hieratic, the third the Demotic.[44]

It will be observed, as Mr. Rawlinson himself points out, that "there is not much difference between the hieratic and the demotic." The former is the earlier of the two. And now, notwithstanding the fact that the Nephites wrote in characters that they called "Reformed Egyptian"—which I understand to mean, in altered or changed Egyptian characters yet, I submit, that when the transcript of Nephite characters made by Joseph Smith is compared with the transcript from the works of Mr. Rawlinson, there is a strong family likeness very gratifying to believers in the Book of Mormon, and the force of Mr. Lamb's objection on this head is destroyed by these submitted facts, viz., the few Nephite characters preserved from Joseph Smith's transcripts, disclose a strong family resemblance to the ancient forms of Egyptian writing, and even some similarities to the ancient Maya Alphabet published by Le Plongeon.

1. I Peter i: 18-25. Rev. xiii: 8.

2. Titus i: 1, 2.

3. Heb. x: 1.

4. I. Cor. x: 1-4.

5. Mr. Campbell cites the first edition throughout.

6. Heb. xiii: 20.

7. II. Nephi v: 26. II. Nephi vi: 2.

8. Alma v: 44. Alma xiii.

9. Judges vi: 15.

10. Judges vi.

11. See this Vol. chapter xxxv.

12. Ephesians iii: 5, 6.

13. I. Nephi x; also book of Jacob, chapter v.

14. Col. i: 2, 3.

15. Isaiah xlii: 6, 7.

16. Isaiah xlix: 6-9 et seq., specially verses 20-22. Paul himself quotes Isaiah xlix: 6; see Acts xiii: 47. Simeon in the temple quotes Isaiah; see Luke ii: 30, 32.

17. I. Nephi xix: 10.

18. Alma viii: 7.

19. So Hyde: "He [Joseph Smith, through the Book of Mormon] determines none of the great questions pending in the world at large, but only the minor difficulties that would have been likely to have reached a western village." Hyde's "Mormonism," p. 281.

20. Moroni viii.

21. Following is Mosheim's description of baptism in the third century: "Baptism was publicly administered twice a year, to such candidates as had gone through a long preparation and trial; and none were present as spectators, but such as had been themselves baptized. * * * None were admitted to the sacred font until the exorcist, by a solemn menacing formula, had declared them free from bondage to the prince of darkness and now servants of God. * * * The persons baptized returned home, decorated with a crown and white robe; the first being indicative of their victory over the world and their lusts, the latter of their acquired innocence." (Mosheim's Institute, Century Three, chapter iv.) In describing baptism in the century previous—and the same things accompanied it in the third and fourth—he tells how "the baptized were signed with the cross, anointed, commended to God by prayer and imposition of hands, and finally directed to taste some milk and honey;" also how "Sponsors, or Godfathers, were employed for adults, and afterwards for children likewise." All of which mummeries were additions to the sublimely beautiful and simple ordinance of the baptism of the gospel.

22. See Science of Religion, p. 193-300.

23. "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors." (Graves), pp. 303-4.

24. Alma xxx: 44.

25. Helaman xii: 13-15.

26. "Golden Bible," p. 336.

27. "In the sixth century before our era," remarks Andrew D. White ("History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom," Vol. I, pp. 120, 121), "Pythagoras, and after him Philolaus, had suggested the movement of the earth and planets about a central fire; and, three centuries later, Aristarchus had restated the main truth with striking precision. Here comes in a proof that the antagonism between theological and scientific methods is not confined to Christianity; for this statement brought upon Aristarchus the charge of blasphemy, and drew after it a cloud of prejudice which hid the truth for six hundred years. Not until the fifth century of our era did it timidly appear in the thoughts of Martianus Capella; then it was again lost to sight for a thousand years, until in the fifteenth century, distorted and imperfect, it appeared in the writings of Cardinal Nicholas de Cusa."

28. "American Antiquities" (Priest), p. 272.

29. "Ancient America," (Baldwin), p. 42.

30. "Ancient America," (Baldwin), pp. 122, 123.

31. "Conquest of Mexico," (Prescott), Vol. I., p. 103.

32. "Pre-Historic America," (Nadaillac), p. 305.

33. Bancroft's Works, Vol. II., p. 502.

34. Dr. W. M. Paden, Pastor of the first Presbyterian Church, Salt Lake City, Utah, in a Discourse against the Book of Mormon, March 21, 1904.

35. Ibid.

36. Golden Bible, pp. 308, 309.

37. This work Vol. II., p. 138.

38. Compendium, p. 289.

39. "The Golden Bible," p. 265. I quote from the 1887 edition, which I understand to be the revised and enlarged one. [45]

40. Ibid., p. 260.

41. "The Prophet" was a Mormon weekly periodical, published by S. Brannan from May, 1844, to May 24, 1845.

42. A fac simile of which is given in Vol. II., p. 72.

43. Volume II., this work p. 76. This is from his letter to E. D. Howe; in a second letter to Rev. Coit, Anthon gives a similar description. (Ibid., pp. 79, 78.)

44. Boston 1882, two volumes. The photographed transcript will be found in Vol. I. of Rawlinson, p. 120.

OBJECTIONS TO THE BOOK OF MORMON (Continued).

It is charged against the Book of Mormon that many of its historical incidents are mere plagiarisms of historical and Biblical events. I shall only be able to indicate a few of these charges, and point out the means by which they may be fairly met. I call attention to the fact, in the first place, that some of the charges are absolutely false; that they are based on misquotations and misstated incidents. In other cases the comparison is very much strained to get the result of likeness, and throughout the likelihood of similarity in human experience is entirely overlooked.

Mr. John Hyde declares that Nephi's description of the rise of a great and abominable church immediately after the days of the Messiah on earth, together with his description of her pride, power, and cruelty, is a quotation from the book of Revelations, "A description of the Church of Rome;"[1]the abduction of the daughters of the Lamanites by the Priests of King Noah;[2]the martyrdom of Alma's converts in the land of Ammonihah;[3]and the slaughter of the converts of Ammon among the Lamanites,[4]are events "borrowed from the history of Nero, Caligula, and Fox's book of Martyrs."

In Alma's conversion, he sees "an imitation of Paul's miraculous conversion" with this difference; that Paul was struck with blindness for three days, and Alma is struck dumb for two days![5]In the remarks of King Mosiah on the advantages of a government by the people as against the rule of absolute monarchs, our author sees the doctrine of "Vox populi vox Dei,"[6]although that idea nowhere occurs in the passage to which he gives reference, and in fact, in no passage of the Book of Mormon. These citations from the long list that our author makes out will perhaps be sufficient from him. Those who wish to trace out this class of objections, as he makes them, may consult his work.[7]

A more recent writer enters into the same line of argument in greater detail.[8]His theory is that the author of the Book of Mormon set out to "beat the Bible" in the matter of wonderful things recorded. Thus in the "eight barges" of the Jaredites he sees an attempt to outdo the Bible account of Noah's "one ark." In a complete vision granted to the brother of Jared of the pre-existent spirit-personage of the Messiah, he sees the partial view of the same personage granted to Moses outdone. In the fact that the Nephite prophet, Abinadi, interpreted certain writings upon the wall of a temple, he sees an imitation of Daniel's exploit of reading the writing on the wall of Belshazzar's palace. In Ether's expressed doubt as to his own fate, whether he would be granted the privilege of translation or be required to pass through the ordeal of death, he sees the counterpart of the story of Elijah's ascent into heaven. In the retention of three of the Nephite apostles on earth until Messiah shall come in his glory, he sees the New Testament intimation and the early Christian notion that the apostle John might be granted such a privilege—if such it could be regarded—outdone. In the signs of Messiah's birth, granted to the Nephites—the night of continuous light and the appearance of a new star in the heavens; as also in the signs of his crucifixion and burial—three hours of tempest and earthquake while the Son of Man was on the cross, and three days of darkness while he lay in the tomb[9]—our author sees again an effort to outdo the Bible signs accompanying Messiah's birth and death.

In the account given in III Nephi[10]of the multitude being permitted to come in personal contact with the Savior one by one, and touch the scars of the wounds he had received in crucifixion, Rev. Lamb sees an effort to outdo the New Testament story of Thomas thrusting his hands in the wounds of our Savior, that he might be convinced of the reality of his resurrection. Indeed, the Reverend gentleman makes very much of this circumstance. He supposes the multitude granted this privilege numbered 2,500; and allowing that five persons would pass the Savior every minute, giving each one twelve seconds to thrust his hand into Messiah's side, and feel the print of the nails, would require "eight hours and twenty minutes of time!"[11]The Reverend Gentleman, however, neglected to give the matter due consideration. The number of the multitude, 2,500, is given at the close of the first day's visit of Messiah to the Nephites; whereas, the circumstance of the people being allowed to personally come in contact with the Savior, is an event that took place early in the day, almost immediately upon the Christ's appearance in fact, and when the "multitude" was much smaller than at the close of the day. Two circumstances lead to the belief that the crowd was greatly augmented through the day. For instance, after some considerable time had elapsed after his appearing, and after the multitude had gone forth and felt the wounds in his hands and feet, Jesus called for their sick and afflicted, that he might heal them. It is unreasonable to suppose that the blind and halt and sick were with the "multitude" when Jesus first appeared, as the latter were a party strolling about the temple viewing the changes wrought in the land by the recent cataclysms, while the sick and maimed with their attendants would doubtless be at their homes. Therefore, many of the people departed from the presence of Jesus to bring to him these afflicted ones; and as they went on this errand of mercy they doubtless spread the news of Christ's presence among them, with the result that the people were gathered together throughout the day.

Again, after blessing their afflicted ones, the Lord Jesus caused their children to be gathered together, that he might bless them; which doubtless in many cases caused parents to hasten again to their homes and ever as they went the news spread further and further of the Messiah's presence, until finally, at the close of the day's gathering, 2,500 were found to be present. It by no means follows, however, that all this number thrust their hands into the wounds of Messiah; but only the very much smaller number that was gathered about the temple in the land of Bountiful earlier in the day, when Messiah appeared to them.

Our author sees in these things I have quoted and some others that he details, plagiarisms of Bible events; and concludes that the Book of Mormon, instead of being what it claims to be, is largely but a collection of Bible events distorted by Joseph Smith's inventions.

It places a Christian minister, believing as he does in the divinity of both the Old and New Testament, at a very great disadvantage to make this kind of an argument. Suppose we were to apply it as a test of the New Testament? We could then say that the ascension of Jesus, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, is but an imitation of the glorious ascension of Elijah into heaven in the presence of a host of angels.[12]We could say that the special miracles wrought by the hands of Paul so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs and aprons to the afflicted, and "the diseases departed from them and the evil spirits went out of them," is but an imitation of what Elijah did when he sent his staff by the hands of his servant, commanding him to lay it on the face of the dead child of his Shunammite friend to restore him to life.[13]

"It might be said, also, that in the subsequent conduct of Elijah in restoring this same child to life, we have the original of the New Testament story of Jarius's daughter.[14]In this same chapter of Kings we have the following story of Elisha's miraculously feeding a multitude:

And there came a man from Baalshalisha, and brought the man of God bread of the firstfruits, twenty loaves of barley, and full ears of corn in the husk thereof. And he said, Give unto the people, that they may eat. And his servitor said, What, should I set this before an hundred men? He said again, Give the people, that they may eat: for thus saith the Lord, They shall eat, and shall leave thereof. So he set before them, and they did eat, and left thereof, according to the word of the Lord.

"Who can doubt," the Biblical sceptic might ask, "but what this story inspired that of the Evangelists concerning the miraculous feeding of five thousand people, in a desert place, from five loaves, and two fishes.[15]The excess of people mentioned in the New Testament—five thousand thus miraculously fed as against Elijah's one hundred—"could be pointed to as an effort of the New Testament writer to merely "outdo" in the marvelous the miracles of the Old Testament.

Again, it might be continued that the story of tenth Revelations, where a little book is given to John the apostle to eat, one that should be bitter in his belly, but in his mouth sweet as honey, is but a plagiarism of a very similar story told in Ezekiel where that prophet is commanded to eat the roll of the book, and it was in his mouth "as the honey for sweetness."[16]

Thus we might continue in drawing such parallels, but there would be neither profit nor argument in doing so. Such procedure is scarcely worthy the name of criticism. It reminds one of Shakespeare's Rosalind finding the doggerel verses of the love-sick swain, Orlando, hanging upon the trees of the forest of Arden, and of Rosalind reading them—

From the east to the western Ind,No Jewel is like Rosalind.All the pictures fairest lined,Are but black to Rosalind.Let no fair be kept in mind,But the fair of Rosalind.

Which doggerel the more sensible Touchstone, listening to—and impatient at withal—finally breaks in upon the fair reader with:

"I'll rhyme you so eight years together, dinners and suppers and sleepin-hours excepted:—for a taste—

If a hart do lack a hind,Let him seek out Rosalind.If the cat will after kind,So be sure will Rosalind.Winter garments must be lined,So must slendor Rosalind.They that reap must sheef and bind,Then to cart with Rosalind.Sweetest nut hath sourest rind,Such a nut is Rosalind.

So with like result one might run on with this kind of argument based upon the Book of Mormon's alleged plagiarisms from the Hebrew scriptures.

It is objected to the Book of Mormon that there nowhere appears in native American languages Book of Mormon names. "During the one thousand years of their recorded history," says one, "as given in the Book of Mormon, the old familiar names of Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Lemuel and others are constantly recurring; they held on to them with reverential pertinacity. If the Book of Mormon were a true record we should find these names in abundance among various Indian races scattered over both continents." The absence of Book of Mormon names in the native language, is held to be fatal testimony against the claims of the Book of Mormon by this writer.[17]

One recognizes here a real difficulty, and one for which it is quite hard to account. It must be remembered, however, that from the close of the Nephite period, 420 A. D., to the coming of the Spaniards in the sixteenth century, we have a period of over one thousand years; and we have the triumph also of the Lamanites over the Nephites bent on the destruction of every vestige of Nephite traditions and institutions. May it not be that they recognized as one of the means of achieving such destruction the abrogation of the old familiar names of things and persons? Besides there is the probable influx of other tribes and peoples into America in that one thousand years whose names may have largely taken the place of Nephite and Lamanite names.

I have already suggested that the name "Nahuas" and the adjective derived from it, "Nahuatl," are probably variations of the names "Nephi" and "Nephite," derived, it may be, together with the Bible names "Nepheg," "Nephish," "Nephishesim," and "Naphtali" from a common Hebrew root.[18]Also, that the name "Hohgates," by which names the seven mythical strangers were called who in ancient times settled at Point St. George on the Pacific coast near San Francisco, is a survival of the Book of Mormon name "Hagoth," who is prominent in the Book of Mormon narrative as the man who first started maritime migrations from South America, northward along the Pacific coast of North America.[19]

Mr. Priest, the author of "American Antiquities," declares that the word "Amazon," the name of the chief river of South America, is an Indian word.[20]Early in the century in which Messiah was born, four of the sons of the Nephite king, Mosiah II, departed from Zarahemla on a mission to the Lamanites. At that time the Lamanites occupied the lands formerly possessed by the Nephites, previous to the migration of the more righteous part of that people to Zarahemla—the old "land of Nephi." This land, so far as can be determined, corresponds somewhat to the modern country of Ecuador and perhaps the northern part of Peru.[21]In this region, it will be remembered, the river Amazon takes its rise. The leader of the Nephite missionary expedition referred to was Ammon, doubtless the oldest son of King Mosiah II.[22]Such were the achievements of this man; such his rank, and such his high character that it is not difficult or unreasonable to believe that his name was given by the people to the principal stream of the land, and that it has survived under the modern variation of the name Amazon.

Again, the word "Andes," the name of the chief mountain range in South America, is quite generally supposed, if not conceded by the best authorities, to come from the native Peruvian word "Anti," meaning copper.[23]

The Peruvians, in order to cultivate some mountainous parts of their country, terraced the mountain sides, facing the same with stone. These terraces the Spaniards called "Andenes," whence some suppose the name "Andes." "But the name," says Prescott, "is older than the Conquest, according to Varcilasso, who traces it to 'Anti,' the name of a province that lay east of Cuzco. 'Anta,' the word for copper, which was found abundant in certain quarters of the country, may have suggested the name of the province, if not immediately that of the mountains."[24]

In any event we have the words "Anti" and "Anta" established as native American words, and the word "Anti" is of frequent use in the Book of Mormon in a number of compound words, such as "Anti-Nephi-Lehi," the name of a Lamanite king or chief about B. C. 83.[25]The same name was given to his people, that is, they were called "Anti-Nephi-Lehi's,"[26]and possibly it may have been given to the land they occupied. If so it accounts for the word "Anti" surviving as the name of a province, according to Garcilasso, lying east of Cuzco.

We also have the word "Antiomno,"[27]the name of a Lamanite king; "Antionah," the name of a chief; "Antionum," both the name of a man,[28]and also the name of a city;[29]also the word "Antiparah," a Nephite city;[30]"Antipas," the name of a mountain;[31]and "Antipus," the name of a Nephite military leader.[32]

It is true these words in the Book of Mormon, are written as simple words, but they are susceptible of being regarded as compound words, as follows: "Anti-Omno," "Anti-Pas," "Anti-Parah," and so following. If the Peruvian terraces derived their name from this native word "Anti," then when applied to Nephite lands Anti-Onum would doubtless mean the terraced lands of Onum, and Anti-Parah, the name of a city, would doubtless be the terraced city of Parah, and so following.

But after all this is said it is still a matter of regret that more of the Nephite names, both of men and countries, have not survived in the native American languages. Still the field of knowledge of American antiquities has not yet been thoroughly explored, and when its buried cities and monuments shall be more thoroughly known all the evidences that can be demanded along these lines will doubtless be produced.

First Nephi gives the following account of building a temple in the New World:

And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon, save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land; wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceeding fine.[33]

This statement is unfairly dealt with by objectors. They generally represent it as saying that Nephi, in this description, holds out the idea that he duplicated Solomon's temple, excepting as to the richness of the materials employed in its construction. Then an elaborate description of the greatness and architectural grandeur of Solomon's temple is given. Attention is also called to the fact that the Hebrew nation bent all their energies through seven years of activity in constructing the temple of Solomon; that they were aided by surrounding peoples, notably by King Hiram and the Tyrians.

After all this is explained then comes what is supposed to be an insurmountable difficulty, namely: Lehi's colony that came from Jerusalem to America was a very small one, consisting of two families only, Lehi's and Ishmael's, and in addition the man Zoram, perhaps not exceeding a score of adult persons on their arrival in the promised land. Then after some time this colony is divided; the more righteous branch following Nephi, and the wicked following his elder brothers Laman and Lemuel. So that it is safe to conclude that during the lifetime of the first Nephi the colony remained a very small one; and since this temple was built about thirty years after the colony departed from Jerusalem, the Nephite division of it could not have included more than one hundred adults. How, then, it is triumphantly asked, could this small colony duplicate Solomon's temple, renowned for its architectural beauty and greatness, and which required seven years for the nation of the Hebrews to construct, assisted by surrounding people and the great treasuries which David, in his reign, had accumulated for that sacred purpose?

The answer to the objection is to be found in a denial of the construction put upon Nephi's description of his temple. That description does not warrant the conclusion that Nephi's temple was a duplicate of Solomon's, except as to the "manner of the construction," from which it is to be inferred that the general plan of the structure followed that of Solomon's, but it does not follow that it was anything like Solomon's in the extent or largeness of it; but in the arrangement of its courts; its several divisions and subdivisions were built "after the manner" and for the purposes for which Solomon's temple was constructed. So that the labored argument as to the inability of so small a colony as Lehi's duplicating Solomon's temple is merely so much wasted energy, since no one is bound to hold that in its dimensions and greatness the Nephite Temple equaled Solomon's temple. It was only like unto Solomon's temple in its arrangement and uses, but doubtless by this colony was regarded as a very great achievement, as undoubtedly it was, and they would likely speak of it in the superlative degree of admiration in describing it.

The Book of Mormon repeatedly affirms the Nephite knowledge of the fusion of metals, and their knowledge and use of both iron and steel. As many writers on American Antiquities deny the knowledge and use of these metals by the ancient Americans, their alleged existence in the Book of Mormon is generally regarded as a capital objection to that record. Not all the influential writers, however, are on that side of the question.

"There is no evidence," says Bancroft, "that the use of iron was known except the extreme difficulty of clearing forests and carving stone with implements of stone and soft copper."[34]

Referring to some of the stones in the ruins of Peruvian buildings, Prescott remarks:

Many of these stones were of vast size; some of them being full thirty-eight feet long, by eighteen broad, and six feet thick. We are filled with astonishment when we consider that these enormous masses were hewn from their native bed and fashioned into shape by a people ignorant of the use of iron.[35]

But why could not the argument of Wilkinson be followed when confronted with a similar problem respecting the ancient Egyptian works in stone? He allowed that the achievements of that ancient people in quarrying and shaping huge blocks of stone to be an evidence of their knowledge and use of iron, but that its tendency to decomposition and oxidation prevented any specimens of it from being preserved.[36]

Later, notwithstanding Prescott's disagreement with the argument, some of the best authorities sustained the conclusions of Wilkinson. George Rawlinson, for instance, in his "History of Ancient Egypt," says:

In metals Egypt was deficient. * * * * Copper, iron, and lead do, however, exist in portions of the eastern desert, and one iron mine shows signs of having been anciently worked.

"Then," he remarks, "the metal is found in form of specular and red iron ore. Still, none of these metals seem to have been obtained by the Egyptians from their own land in any considerable quantity. In a foot note he says this mine lies in the eastern desert between the Nile and Red Sea, at a place called Hammami."[37]Later, he says:

It has been much questioned whether iron was employed at all by the Egyptians until the time of the Greek conquest. The weapons and implements and ornaments of iron which have been found in the ancient cities are so few, while those of bronze are so numerous, and the date of the few iron objects discovered is so uncertain that there is strong temptation to embrace the simple theory that iron was first introduced into Egypt by the Ptolemies. Difficulties, however, stand in the way of a complete adoption of this view. A fragment of a thin plate of iron was found by Col. Vyse imbedded in the masonry of the great pyramid.[38]

Continuing, he says:

Some iron implements and ornaments have been found in the tombs with nothing about them indicative of their belonging to the late period. The paucity of such instances is partially, if not wholly accounted for, by the rapid decay of iron in the nitrous earth of Egypt, or when oxidized by exposure to the air. It seems very improbable that the Hebrew and Canaanites should for centuries have been well acquainted with the use of iron, and their neighbors of Egypt, whose civilization was far more advanced, have been ignorant of it. On these grounds the most judicious of modern Egyptologists seem to hold, that while the use of iron by the Egyptians in Pharaonic times was at the best rare and occasional, it was not wholely unknown, though less appreciated than we should have expected. Iron spear-heads, iron cycles, iron gimlets, iron bracelets, iron keys, iron wire were occasionally made use of, but the Egyptians on the whole were contented with their bronze implements and weapons, which were more easily produced and which they found to answer every purpose.[39]

May it not be argued with equal reason, that the Lamanites, after the conquest of the Nephites, found themselves in the same condition, that is, it was easier for them to convert copper into such implements as they desired than iron, until finally the use of iron was discontinued and the art of manufacturing it lost.

Baldwin says of the Peruvians:

Iron was unknown to them in the time of the Incas, although some maintain that they had it in the previous ages, to which belong the ruins of Lake Titicaca. Iron ore was and still is very abundant in Peru. It is impossible to conceive how the Peruvians were able to cut and work stone in such a masterly way, or to construct their great roads and aqueducts without the use of iron tools. Some of the languages of the country, and perhaps all, had names for iron; in official Peruvian it was called "quillay," and in the old Chilian tongue "panilic." "It is remarkable," observes Molina, "that iron, which has been thought unknown to the ancient Americans, has particular names in some of their tongues." It is not easy to understand why they had names for this metal, if they never at any time had knowledge of the metal itself. In the "Mercurio Peruano," (tome i., p. 201, 1791), it is stated that, anciently, the Peruvian sovereigns, "worked magnificent iron mines at Ancoriames, on the west shore of Lake Titicaca;" but I can not give the evidence used in support of this statement.[40].

DeRoo says:

Iron seems to have been unknown in America at the time of the Spanish discovery, but the Mound-Builders' graveyards, afford proof that they not only knew it, but manufactured it into tools and implements. In the sepulchral mound at Marietta (Ohio) there was found in the year 1819 a little lump of iron ore that had almost the specific gravity of pure iron, and presented the appearance of being partially smelted, while in the mound at Circleville oxidized iron was unearthed in the shape of a plate.[41]

Referring again to what was found in the mound at Marietta, he says:

In June of 1819, upon opening a mound at Marietta, some very remarkable objects were discovered, consisting of three large circular copper bosses thickly overlaid with silver, and apparently intended as ornaments for a buckler or a sword-belt. On the reverse were two plates fastened by a copper rivet or nail, around which was a flaxen thread, while between the plates were two small pieces of leather. The copper showed much signs of decay; it was almost reduced to an oxide; but the silver, though much corroded, resumed its natural brilliancy on being burnished. In the same tumulus was also found a hollow silver plate six inches long and two broad, intended apparently as the upper part of a sword-scabbard. The scabbard itself seems to have perished in the course of time, as no other portion of it was found, with the exception of a few broken, rust-eaten pieces of a copper tube, which was likely intended for the reception of the point of the weapon.[42]

Josiah Priest has the following passages on the subject of the discoveries of iron in the mounds of America:

We have examined the blade of a sword found in Philadelphia, now in Peel's Museum, in New York, which was taken out of the ground something more than sixty feet below the surface. The blade is about twenty inches in length, is sharp on one edge, with a thick back, a little turned up at the point, with a shank drawn out three or four inches long, on which was doubtless, inserted in the handle, and clenched at the end. It is known that the swords of all ancient nations were very short, on which account, their wars on the field of battle, were but an immense number of single combats.[43]

Describing what was found in one of the mounds at Circleville, in Ohio, upon the authority of Mr. Atwater, who was present when the mound was opened, he says:

The handle, either of a small sword, or a large knife, made of an elk's horn; around the end where the blade had been inserted, was a ferule of silver, which, though black, was not much injured by time; though the handle showed the hole where the blade had been inserted, yet no iron was found, but an oxide or rust remained, of similiar shape and size. The swords of the ancient nations of the old world, it is known, were very short. Charcoal, and wood ashes, on which these articles lay, were surrounded by several bricks, very well burnt. The skeleton appeared to have been burnt in a large and very hot fire. * * About twenty feet to the north of it (i. e. the skeleton) was another, with which was found a large mirror. * * * On this mirror was a plate of iron, which had become an oxide, but before it was disturbed by the spade, resembled a plate of cast iron. The mirror answered the purpose very well for which it was intended.[44]Iron was known to the antediluvians; it was also known to the ancients of the west. Copper ore is very abundant, in many places of the west; and, therefore, as they had a knowledge of it when they first came here they knew how to work it, and form it into tools and ornaments. This is the reason why so many articles of this metal are found in their works; and even if they had a knowledge of iron ore, and knew how to work it, all articles made of it must have become oxidized as appears from what few specimens have been found, while those of copper are more imperishable.[45]

Iron was known to the antediluvians; it was also known to the ancients of the west. Copper ore is very abundant, in many places of the west; and, therefore, as they had a knowledge of it when they first came here they knew how to work it, and form it into tools and ornaments. This is the reason why so many articles of this metal are found in their works; and even if they had a knowledge of iron ore, and knew how to work it, all articles made of it must have become oxidized as appears from what few specimens have been found, while those of copper are more imperishable.[45]

Quoting Mr. Atwater again, Priest says:

There is a tradition (among the Indians) that Florida had once been inhabited by white people, who had the use of iron tools; their oldest Indians say, when children, they had often heard it spoken of by the old people of the tribe, that anciently, stumps of trees covered with earth, were frequently found, which had been cut down by edged tools. Whoever they were, or from whatever country they may have originated, the account, as given by Morse, the geographer, of the subterranean wall found in North Carolina, goes very far to show they had a knowledge of iron ore; and consequently knew how to work it, or they could not have had iron tools, as the Shawanese Indians relate.[46]

Again:

On the river Gasconade, which empties into the Missouri, on the southern side, (about 70 miles west of St. Louis) are found the traces of ancient works, similar to those in North Carolina. In the saltpetre caves of that region, the Gasconade country, in particular, were discovered, when they were first visited, axes and hammers made of iron; which led to the belief that they had formerly worked those caves for the sake of the nitre. Dr. Beck, from whose Gazetteer of Missouri and Illinois, (p. 234), we have this account, remarks, however, that "it is difficult to decide whether these tools were left there by the present race of Indians, or a more civilized race of people. * * * * This author considers the circumstance of finding those tools in the nitre caves, as furnishing a degree of evidence that the country of Gasconade river was formerly settled by a race of men who were acquainted with the use of iron, and exceeded the Indians in civilization and a knowledge of the arts.[47]

In the town of Pompey, Onondaga county, New York, in one of the mounds where Mr. Priest describes the finding of glass, he also says:

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. * * * * 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 in Professor Beck's Gazatteer of that country. * * * * * 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 around 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.[48]

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 in Professor Beck's Gazatteer of that country. * * * * * 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 around 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.[48]

Again he states:

Anv'ls of iron have been found in Pompey, (Onondaga county) in the same quarter of the country with the other discoveries, as above related; which we should naturally expect to find, or it might be inquired how could axes, and the iron works of wagons, be manufactured?[49]

As I have before remarked, it has been contended that the ancient Americans knew nothing of the fusion of metals, but the presence of these materials for such purpose goes far towards dispelling that opinion. It is true that Mr. Priest advances the opinion that this forge and these crucibles found in New York, may have been of Scandinavian origin; still that is but a conjecture, and here I wish to introduce the testimony of Columbus, quoted by Nadaillac, who says:

The Mayas knew nothing of iron; copper and gold were the only metals they used, and it is doubtful whether they understood smelting metals. Christopher Columbus is said, however, to have seen, off the coast Honduras, a boat laden with crucibles, filled with ingots of metal and hatchets made of copper which had been fetched from a distance. ("Prehistoric America," p. 269).

Speaking again of discoveries in the ancient tumuli of America, Priest says:

A vast many instances of articles made of copper and sometimes plated with silver, have been met with on opening their works. Circular pieces of copper, intended either as medals or breast plates, have been found, several inches in diameter, very much injured by time. In several tumuli the remains of knives, and even of swords, in the form of rust, have been discovered. * * * * * But besides, there have been found very well manufactured swords and knives of iron, and possibly steel, says Mr. Atwater; from which we are to conclude that the primitive people of America, either discovered the use of iron themselves, as the Greeks did, * * * * or that they carried a knowledge of this ore with them at the time of their dispersion.[50]

Speaking of the discovery of a skeleton of a man in one of the mounds of Merrietta, Ohio, he says:

Two or three pieces of a copper tube were also found with this body, filled with iron rust. The pieces from their appearance composed the lower end of the scabbard near the point of the sword, but no sign of the sword itself, except a streak of rust its whole length.[51]

A. J. Connant, A. M., member of the St. Louis Academy of Science, and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, published the following, in 1879:

From an interesting account of certain mounds in Utah, communicated by Mr. Amasa Potter to the Eureka Sentinel, of Nevada, as copied by The Western Review of Science and Industry, I make the following extracts: The mounds are situated on what is known as the Payson Farm, and are six in number, covering twenty acres of ground. They are from ten to eighteen feet in height, and from 500 to 1,000 feet in circumference. "The explorations divulged no hidden treasure so far, but have proved to us that there once undoubtedly existed here a more enlightened race of human beings that that of the Indian who inhabited this country, and whose records have been traced back hundreds of years." While engaged in excavating one of the larger mounds, we discovered the feet of a large skeleton, and carefully removing the hardened earth in which it was embedded, we succeeded in unearthing a large skeleton without injury. The human framework measured six feet, six inches in length, and from appearances it was undoubtedly that of a male. In the right hand was a large iron or steel weapon, which had been buried with the body, but which crumbled to pieces on handling. Near the skeleton we also found pieces of cedar wood, cut in various fantastic shapes, and in a state of perfect preservation; the carving showing that the people of this unknown race were acquainted with the use of edged tools.[52]

Mr. Conant also refers with approval to several passages I have already quoted from Dr. Priest's works, and adds on his own account:

There are certain facts which have been quoted from time to time, which fit into none of the popular theories concerning the state of the arts of the Mound-builders. It has been stated, and often repeated, that they had no knowledge of smelting or casting metals, yet the recent discoveries in Wisconsin of implements of copper cast in molds—as well as the moulds themselves, of various patterns, and wrought with much skill—prove that the age of metallurgical arts had dawned in that region at least.And again: what shall be said concerning the traces of iron implements which have been discovered from time to time in the mounds, but more frequently at great depths below the surface of the soil. Though accounts of such discoveries are generally from reliable sources, they have latterly received no attention, and always have been considered as so much perilous ware which no one cared to handle.[53]

And again: what shall be said concerning the traces of iron implements which have been discovered from time to time in the mounds, but more frequently at great depths below the surface of the soil. Though accounts of such discoveries are generally from reliable sources, they have latterly received no attention, and always have been considered as so much perilous ware which no one cared to handle.[53]

Back to Index Next