V.

Another item of interest in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is the predicted clamor that should be raised against it. Here follows the prophecy—the Lord is speaking to the first Nephi:

Behold, there shall be many at that day when I shall proceed to do a marvelous work among them; * * * when I shall remember the promises which I have made unto thee, Nephi; * * * that the words of your seed shall proceed forth out of my mouth unto your seed; and because my words shall hiss forth many of the Gentiles shall say, A Bible, A Bible, we have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.[34]

It is notorious that this cry was raised—and even now is raised at times—against the Book of Mormon. It was relied upon not only as the chief but also the all-sufficient argument against accepting the book, as is abundantly proved by reference to the arguments of the Elders in answer to the objections urged against it.[35]For example in Orson Pratt's most excellent work, "Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon," there are such headings as these—and in the body of this work under the respective topics he meets and entirely overthrows all sectarian argument that the Book of Mormon ought to be rejected because it claims to be a new revelation: "To Expect More Revelation is not Unscriptural;" "To Expect More Revelation is not Unreasonable;" "More Revelation is Indispensably Necessary."—(a) for Calling the Officers of the Church—(b) To Point out the Duties of the Officers in the Church—(c) To Comfort, Reprove and Teach the Church—(d) To Unfold to the Church the Future; "The Bible and Traditions Without Further Revelation an Insufficient Guide." From these topics may be gathered the class of objections urged against the Book of Mormon; and as Elder Pratt so admirably treats that subject, I do not deem it necessary to enter into that field, since all may inform themselves how complete the victory of the Elders has been in that controversy by reference to Elder Pratt's works. I am interested in the matter here only to the extent of pointing out the fact that the prophecy that the Book of Mormon would be met with the cry—"A Bible, a Bible, we have a Bible and there cannot be any more Bible," has been fulfilled.[36]

Closely associated with the sectarian notion of the cessation of revelation and miracles is also the idea that the Hebrew scriptures comprised all the records in which God had vouchedsafed a revelation to man. That is, the Hebrew volume comprised the whole of sacred scripture. In 1829 at the city of Cincinnati, during the very great debate which there took place between Alexander Campbell and Robert Owen—an unbeliever in the Bible,—on the Evidences of Christianity, the following very positive question was submitted in writing to Mr. Campbell:

Are the books composing the Old and New Testaments the only books of divine authority in the world?

To this question Mr. Campbell gave this very emphatic answer—and up to that time at least, I do not hesitate to say that he voiced the sentiments of all Christendom; and this was the answer of Mr. Campbell:

"I answer, emphatically yes."[37]

The "yes" Mr. Campbell writes in italics.

The foreging should be modified by this explanation, viz: all divisions of Christendom are not agreed upon all the books that comprise what is called the Bible. It is well known that the Catholics regard as canonical some books which the Protestants hold to be apocryphal, and in addition to the written word of God, I am mindful that the great Roman Catholic church adds the unwritten word of God. In other words, the traditions of the church are regarded as the word of God. The Protestants generally accept the books of the English authorized version of the Holy Scriptures, translated in 1611, and known as King James' Translation, pointing out by name those books which were regarded as of doubtful origin and which for that reason they call the apocrypha. The Roman Catholic church accepts the books enumerated in what is known as the Douay edition of the Bible, of 1609; revised and corrected in 1750. It would therefore be proper to say that each of these great divisions of Christendom would claim that the list of books comprised within the respective editions of the Bible which they accept are the only books of divine authority in the world.

The answer which the Lord in the Book of Mormon is represented as making to this sectarian view of revelation; as also to this clamor against the Book of Mormon, is in every way worthy of him:

Thou fool, that shall say, a Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. * * * Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together, the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word, ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be, until the end of man; neither from that time henceforth and forever. Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible, ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written; for I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them: for out of the books which shall be written, I will judge the world, every man according to his works, according to that which is written. For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth, and they shall write it. And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews. And it shall come to pass that my people which are of the house of Israel shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possession; and my word also shall be gathered in one.[38]

And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word, ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be, until the end of man; neither from that time henceforth and forever. Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible, ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written; for I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them: for out of the books which shall be written, I will judge the world, every man according to his works, according to that which is written. For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth, and they shall write it. And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews. And it shall come to pass that my people which are of the house of Israel shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possession; and my word also shall be gathered in one.[38]

I say this answer is worthy of God to utter, and worthy of man to heed. It lifts us entirely out of narrow, sectarian views of revelation, and breathes a universal spirit of interest and love for mankind. It carries within itself the evidence of a divine inspiration. Its very worthiness of God is a testimony of its truth. How petty and unworthy in contrast with it is that sectarian Christian view that would limit God's revealed word to the few books contained in the Bible! How partial and unjust does that same sectarian view of revelation make God appear! If there is one doctrine more emphasized in the teachings of the New Testament that another, it is that God is no respecter of persons; "but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."[39]With this fact in mind let us test the two conceptions of God's dealings with man in the matter of revelation. The narrow, sectarian, "Christian" view, and the Book of Mormon view; and this for the purpose of ascertaining which would be the more worthy of God, which most like him.

We have learned in the previous chapters of this work that America was inhabited by highly civilized races before the discovery of it by Europeans; that in the western world there flourished civilizations equal to those of the same period in the eastern hemisphere; cities that, judging from their ruins, equalled in greatness Tyre and Sidon and Nineveh and Babylon; and empires that rivalled in power and extent, Egypt, Persia and Macedonia. Millions of God's children through successive generations lived in them and died and were buried. The sectarian view of revelation would ask us to believe that God sent prophets and holy men to teach and instruct his children in the eastern hemisphere; that he revealed to them something of his own character and attributes; that by revelation direct from heaven, accompanied by demonstrations of his own marvelous power, he made known to them something of the object of their existence, and gave them the hope of eternal life; that in the meridian of time he sent his Only Begotten Son among them, in order that life and immortality might be more clearly brought to light; that the matchless Son of God by example as well as by precept taught the inhabitants of the old world the way of life—the divine will—in a word, taught the Gospel—organized a Church to perpetuate his doctrines—commissioned apostles and others to carry on the work of salvation; and thus made ample provisions for carrying the Gospel throughout Asia, Africa and Europe—for the Church of Christ in the East was organized where these natural divisions of the old world center—yet, while the Lord made all these efforts for the instruction and salvation of his children in the eastern hemisphere, this sectarian idea that the Bible contains all the revelation God has ever given would compel us to believe that he altogether neglected his children of the western world! No prophet was sent to them with a message to explain the mystery of existence, to let them know whence their origin, the object of their existence, or bid them indulge the pleasing hope of immortality. No angel from the bright worlds on high came to reveal the splendor of heaven, or show the path which leads to endless bliss; no messenger came even from the wilderness crying repentance to them, and making the announcement that the kingdom of heaven was at hand; no Messiah of gentle mien, yet of serene majesty, taught them the mystery of the divine love which works out man's redemption, healed their sick, raised their dead, or even so much as blessed their children. No; according to the sectarian Christian theory of the extent of revelation, God neglected them entirely—left them to perish in darkness and ignorance and unbelief; unknowing and unknown! Is such a view as this worthy of God? Does it comport with the attributes of impartial love towards his children? Is it not a travesty upon the qualities of justice and mercy as we believe those qualities to exist in God? Does it not smack rather of man's bigotry and narrowness, and above all, of human ignorance?

Turn now to the Book of Mormon theory of revelation as set forth in the words just quoted from the writings of the first Nephi, and couple with them the words of another Nephite prophet:

Behold, the Lord doth grant upon all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word; yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.

What a contrast in the sectarian and Book of Mormon view of revelation! The one so narrow, and so contracted to limits unworthy of God! The other so world-embracing, noble, generous, and worthy of God! The one so exclusive as to limit divine inspiration to the prophets of the Hebrew race; the other so broad as to include all the great teachers of mankind—

"The Bactrian, Samian Sage, and all who taught the right."

In these Book of Mormon passages we have the grandest conception respecting God's dispensations of his word found in human speech. They recognize God's obligation—born of his Fatherhood and love—to make known his word and will in some form to all nations and races of men. They recognize as constituting a noble brotherhood of God-inspired men, the sages of all races and ages, who have taught their fellow men better things than they knew before. The wise men among Assyrians and Egyptians as well as the shepherd-patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are to be regarded as inspired of God. Jethro, the priest of Midian, though not of Israel, as well as Moses, possessed divine wisdom; and even counseled the Hebrew prophet-prince, to the latter's advantage. The sages of Greece, from Thales to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, belong to the same glorious band. So also the great teacher of India, Siddhartha, Buddah—the enlightened; Kongfutse, the teacher of God's children in China; Mohammed, the prophet of Arabia; the teachers of philosophy and reformers of Europe—some professed Christians, some not, some even making war upon apostate Christendom; but I include all those within the honored band of the God-inspired who have come with some measure of the truth to bless mankind, to alleviate somewhat the hard conditions in which men struggle, and who have raised the thoughts and hopes of man to higher and better things. "The path of sensuality and darkness," says a profound modern teacher of moral philosophy, "is that which most men tread; a few have been led along the upward path; a few in all countries and generations have been wisdom-seekers or seekers of God; they have been so because the Divine Word of wisdom has looked upon them, choosing them for the knowledge and service of himself."[40]Not that these teachers, sages, prophets have each come with a fullness of truth; or that they possessed the gospel of Jesus Christ with divine authority to administer its sacred ordinances; not so. Such truths as they possessed were often fragmentary, and mingled with them was much that was human, hence imperfect, and confusing. But so much of truth as they possessed was God-given, and they but instruments of God to set it free that the truth might bless mankind. Our Book of Mormon passages only require us to believe concerning this world-band of inspired teachers, that they come with that measure of God's word which in the divine wisdom it is fitting that men among whom they are called to labor should receive; and this doctrine in relation to the dispensation of God's word to man is so generous and noble in its scope, so far above the narrow, sectarian conceptions of the age and vicinity where the Book of Mormon was brought forth, that it constitutes a striking evidence in support of its claims.

Closely connected with this matter of the world's clamor against the Book of Mormon, and their protestations in favor of the Bible, is the declaration of I Nephi as to the treatment of that same Bible by Christendom. In one of the great visions granted to this Nephi, and expounded by an angel, he beholds a book, the Bible, go forth from the Jews to the Gentiles. Now Nephi's account of the matter:

And the angel of the Lord said unto me, Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew, it contained the plainness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God; wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity, unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God; and after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the foundation of a great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away; and all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord; that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God: and after these plain and precious things were taken away, it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity: thou seest because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God; because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceeding great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.[41]

It is disputed, by some, that any such thing as here described has taken place with reference to the Bible, and labored arguments are made to prove that contention.[42]

Into that contention it is not necessary to enter at length. It will be sufficient to show that there are many books referred to in the several books comprising the Old and New Testaments that are not to be found in that collection. Books that are spoken of as containing revelations; books written by prophets and apostles, and evidently as much entitled to a place in the canon of scriptures as those that are now there. What has become of them? Who is responsible for their absence? Pointing to the excellence of those books we have is no compensation for the absence of those we have not. So long as the books of scripture we hold in reverence, as containing the word of God, speak of other books and epistles that contained revelations from the Spirit of God that are not in the Bible, it is useless to contend that our collection of sacred books, called the Bible, contains the whole word of God. These absent books may, as Nephi declares they do, contain many precious and plain parts of God's truth, which would have preserved the Christian world from many of the doctrinal errors into which it has been plunged for want of knowledge. Again I ask, who is responsible for the absence of these books? Nephi declares that "a great and abominable church" is responsible for their absence, that that church took them away. I do not believe that Nephi here had reference to any one of the many divisions of Christendom. Nephi, in fact, recognized the existence of two churches only. One he styles, "the church of the Lamb of God;" and the other he bluntly calls "the church of the devil."[43]"And whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God, belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; the whore of all the earth."[44]

The church then that withheld from the world the part of the word of God, as developed in the teachings and writings of the apostles, was undoubtedly apostate Christendom; massed under the general title of the "great and abominable church," without reference to any of its divisions of sub-divisions; and that is the power that withheld and destroyed some parts of the scriptures. In proof of which I cite the following references to sacred books and writings both in the Old and New Testaments, which are not to be found in it.

First, books of the Old Testament:

The scriptures that existed in the days of Abraham, older than the five books of Moses, for Abraham was before Moses. These scriptures are referred to by Paul as follows: "And the scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham." (Gal. iii: 8).

The book of the covenant, through which Moses instructed Israel. (Exo. xxiv: 7).

The book of the wars of the Lord. (Num. xxi: 14).

The book of Jasher. (Josh. x: 13, and Sam. i: 18).

The book of the manner of the kingdom. (Sam. x: 25).

Books containing three thousand proverbs, a thousand and five songs, a treatise on natural history by Solomon. (I. Kings iv: 32, 33).

The acts of Solomon. (I. Kings xi: 41).

The book of Nathan the prophet. (I. Chron. xxix: 29).

The book of Gad the Seer. (I. Chron. xxix: 29).

The book of Nathan the prophet. (I. Chron. xxix: 29 and II. Chron. ix: 29).

The prophecy of Ahijah, the Shilonite. (II. Chron. ix: 29).

The visions of Iddo the Seer. (II. Chron. ix: 29).

The book of Shemaiah the prophet. (II. Chron. xii: 15).

The story of the prophet Iddo. (II. Chron. xiii: 22).

The book of Jehu. (Chron. xx: 34).

Second, books of the New Testament.

It is evident from the preface of St. Luke's Gospel, that "many" who were eye witnesses of the things most surely believed among the Christians, took it in hand by means of writing books to set them forth in order. (Luke 5: 1-4). But of the writings of those eye witnesses, it can scarcely be said that we have the works of "many" of them.

Jude, speaking of some characters which he likens unto "raging waves of the sea foaming out their own shame," says, "And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and all of their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (Jude 15, 16). From this it appears that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, was favored with a vision even of the second coming of the Son of God, and prophesied of judgment overtaking the ungodly at that coming. This prophecy of Enoch's was in existence in the days of Jude, "the servant of Christ," or else he would not be able to quote from it. May not this prophecy of Enoch's have been among the "scripture" with which Abraham was acquainted, mentioned above?

There should also be another epistle of Jude. That writer says, "When I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3). We have but one epistle of Jude yet he wrote another epistle to the saints on a very important subject, "The common salvation," and he "gave all diligence" in writing upon it. Would not the epistle on the "common salvation" be as important as that one we have from Jude's pen?

Paul, in writing to the Ephesians, states that God made known unto him, by revelation, a certain mystery; "as," says he, "I wrote afore in few words whereby when ye read ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." (Eph. iii: 3, 4). Here Paul evidently refers to another epistle which he had written to the Ephesians, but of which the world today has no knowledge. This epistle contained a revelation from God.

When the great apostle to the Gentiles wrote to the Colossians, he gave them these directions: "When this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Loadicea." (Col. iv: 16). Here, then, is another epistle of Paul's, the Epistle to the Laodiceans, which he himself refers to, but of which the world knows nothing, except this reference to it—it is not in the Bible.

In the first letter to the Corinthians you find this statement: "I wrote unto you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators." (Cor. v: 9). That book, then, which the world has so long regarded as the first epistle to the Corinthians, is not really the first epistle which Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, for in the quotation given above, taken from the so-called First Epistle to the Corinthians, the writer speaks of an epistle which he previously had written to them, in which he counseled them "not to keep company with fornicators." Doubtless many other instructions and important principles were contained in this other Epistle to the Corinthians.

How many other books and epistles, written by inspired men of those days, were suppressed by "the great and abominable church"—apostate Christendom—we may not know, but these here incidentally mentioned have certainly been suppressed. Moreover, I have not mentioned all that are spoken of. I have carefully avoided referring to any about which doubts can be entertained, or which could be said to form parts of the books we have. Deeming it better that the list of absent books should be shorter than to mention any of which it could be said they are to be found as fragments, or portions of the books now in the Bible, but known by other names.[45]

It may be urged, with reference to the Old Testament at least, that it came from the Jews to the Gentiles in its present form, and that it was not the Gentiles, not the apostate church of the third and fourth century of the Christian Era that mutilated in any form the Old Testament scriptures. But let us not take too narrow a view of Nephi's vision-prophecy, concerning the corruption of the word of God, or the power which he saw corrupting it. It may be that he had in mind in his vision as much the apostate Jewish church as the apostate Christian church, and looking upon the question from that view point we know this: that a century or two before the advent of Christ the Jews apparently had grown weary of the honorable mission which God had given to them; namely, that of being his witnesses among the nations of the earth; and their leading teachers, especially in the two centuries preceding the coming of the Messiah, were taking every step that their ingenuity could devise for harmonizing the truths which God had made known to them with the more fashionable conceptions of God as entertained by one or the other of the great sects of philosophy among the Romans. The way had been prepared for the achievement of this end, in the first place, by the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into the Greek language (the first great instance of the "Book that proceedeth forth from the mouth of a Jew" going to the Gentiles), which version of the Old Testament is usually called the Septuagint, or the LXX. This latter name is given to it because of a tradition that the translation was accomplished by seventy, or about seventy, elders of the Jews. The most generally accepted theory concerning it, however, is that it was a work accomplished at various time between 280 B. C. and 150 B. C. The books of Moses being first translated as early as the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 284-264 B. C., while the Prophets and Psalms were translated somewhat later. It is not, however, the time or manner in which the translation was accomplished that we are interested in, but the character of the translation itself; and of this, Alfred Edersheim, in his "Life and Times of Jesus, the Messiah," in the division of his work which treats of the preparation for the Gospel, says of this Greek translation:

Putting aside clerical mistakes and misreadings, and making allowance for errors of translation, ignorance, and haste, we note certain outstanding facts as characteristic of the Greek version. It bears evident marks of its origin in Egypt, in its use of Egyptian works and references, and equally evident traces of its Jewish composition. By the side of slavish and false literalism there is great liberty, if not license, in handling the original; gross mistakes occur along with happy renderings of very difficult passages, suggesting the aid of some able scholars. Distinct Jewish elements are undeniably there, which can only be explained by reference to Jewish tradition, although they are much fewer than some critics have supposed. This we can easily understand, since only those traditions would find a place which at the early time were not only received, but in general circulation. The distinctly Grecian elements, however, are at present of chief interest to us. They consist of allusion to Greek mythological terms, and adaptations of Greek philosophical ideas. However few, even one well-authenticated instance would lead us to suspect others, and in general give to the version the character of Jewish Hellenising. In the same class we reckon what constitutes the prominent characteristics of the LXX version, which, for want of better terms, we would designate as rationalistic and apologetic. Difficulties—or what seemed such—are removed by the most bold methods, and by free handling of the text; it need scarcely be said, often very unsatisfactorily. More especially, a strenuous effort is made to banish all anthropomorphisms, as inconsistent with their ideas of the Deity.[46]

Later the same authority points out the fact that the Septuagint version of the Hebrew scriptures became really the people's Bible to that large Jewish world through which Christianity was afterwards to address itself to mankind. "It was part of the case," he adds, "that this translation should be regarded by the Hellenists as inspired like the original. Otherwise it would have been impossible to make final appeal to the very words of the Greek; still less to find in them a mystical and allegorical meaning."[47]

The foundation thus laid for a superstructure of false philosophy there was not wanting builders who were anxious to place a pagan structure upon it. About the middle of the second century B. C., one Aristobulus, a Hellenist Jew of Alexandria, sought to so explain the Hebrew scriptures as "to bring the Peripatetic philosophy out of the law of Moses, and out of the other Prophets." Following is a sample according to Edersheim, of his allegorizing:

Thus, when we read that God stood, it meant the stable order of the world; that he created the world in six days, the orderly succession of time; the rest of the Sabbath, the preservation of what was created. And in such manner could the whole system of Aristotle be found in the Bible. But how was this to be accounted for? Of course, the Bible had not learned of Aristotle, but he and all other philosophers had learned from the Bible. Thus, according to Aristobulus, Phythagoras, Plato, and all the other sages, had really learned from Moses, and the broken rays found in their writings were united in all their glory in the Torah.[48]

Following Aristobulus in the same kind of philosophy was Philo, the learned Jew of Alexandria, born about the year 20 B. C. He was supposed to be a descendant of Aaron, and belonged to one of the wealthiest and most influential families among the merchant Jews of Egypt; and he is said to have united a large share of Greek learning with Jewish enthusiasm. He followed most earnestly in the footsteps of Aristobulus. According to him, all the Greek sages had learned their philosophy from Moses, in whom alone was all truth to be found. "Not indeed, in the letter," says Edersheim, "but under the letter of Holy Scripture. If in Numbers xxiii: 19 we read 'God is not a man,' and in Deut. i:31 that the Lord was 'as a man,' did it not imply on the one hand revelation of absolute truth by God, and on the other, accommodation to those who were weak? Here then, was the principle of a two-fold interpretation of the word of God—the literal and the allegorical. * * * * * * To begin with the former: the literal sense must be wholly set aside, when it implies anything unworthy of the Deity—anything unmeaning, impossible, or contrary to reason. Manifestly this canon, if strictly applied, would do away not only with all anthropomorphisms, but cut the knot where difficulties seemed insuperable. Again, Philo would find an allegorical, along with the literal, interpretation indicated in the reduplication of a word, and in seemingly superfluous words, particles, or expressions. These could, of course, only bear such a meaning on Philo's assumption of the actual inspiration of the Septuagint version."

When one thinks of the mischief that may arise from such perversions of scripture by the application of Philo's principles of interpretation, we do not marvel that some of the Jews regarded the translation of the Seventy "to have been as great a calamity to Israel as the making of the golden calf." "The Jews who remained faithful to the traditions of their race," says Andrew D. White, "regarded this Greek version as profanation, and therefore there grew up the legend that on the completion of the work there was darkness over the whole earth during three days. This showed clearly Jehovah's disapproval."[49]

Referring to the Talmudic canon of interpretation of the Greek versions, Edersheim says, "they were comparatively sober rules of exegesis." But "not so," he remarks, "the license which Philo claimed, of freely altering the punctuation of sentences and his notion that, if one from among several synonymous words was chosen in a passage, this pointed to some special meaning attaching to it. Even more extravagant was the idea that a word which occurred in the Septuagint might be interpreted according to every shade of meaning which it bore in the Greek, and that even another meaning might be given it by slightly altering the letters."

In all this one may see only too plainly the effort to harmonize Jewish theology with Greek philosophy—an effort to be rid of the plain anthropomorphism of the Hebrew scriptures, for the incomprehensible "being" of Greek metaphysics.

Thus not only is it evident that books are omitted from the Hebrew scriptures, but by faulty translations and by false interpretations the pure stream of God's revelation has been corrupted. In pointing out the purposes for which the Book of Mormon was written, I said, among other things, that its purpose was to restore to the knowledge of mankind plain and precious truths concerning the Gospel which men have taken out of the Jewish scriptures, or obscured by their interpretations. And this I insist it does, and in proof of the assertion refer to the many great truths mentioned in the preceding chapter; those truths concerning the purpose of Adam's fall; the object of man's earth-life, the doctrine of opposite existences and the whole scheme of the Gospel. To these I may add, also, that the Book of Mormon reaffirms and by reaffirming authoritatively restores the great truth of the anthropomorphism of God. That is, it affirms that in form God is like man; or, in other words, and in a better form of the comparison man was created in the image or likeness of God. It restores also the great truth of the anthropopathy of God. That is to say, in mental, moral, and spiritual attributes God is like man; or, more correctly speaking, man is the offspring of Deity, and possesses the mind attributes of God, differing only in the degree of their development. Man is of the same race as God—the offspring of Deity. This is not taught in any formal manner, but is to be learned from the whole tenor of the book.

With reference to the form of God, the Book of Mormon has two very important and very emphatic passages on the subject. The first Nephi, in a great vision given to him of the future, was attended by a spirit who gave him explanations, as the several parts of his vision passed before him. And now Nephi's account:

And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me, Look! and I looked, and beheld a tree; * * * and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding all beauty, and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow. And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit, I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree, which is precious above all. And he said unto me: What desirest thou? And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof; for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet, nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another.[50]

The second passage alluded to is found in the book of Ether. The prophet Moriancumr, the brother of Jared, when about to depart with his colony in barges across the great deep, had prepared certain stones which he prayed the Lord to make luminous, that they might have light in the barges while on their journey. He had approached the Lord with great faith, and expressed full confidence in the power of God to do the thing for which he prayed; and now the Book of Mormon statement of the matter:

And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones, one by one with his finger; and the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear. * * * And the Lord said unto him, Arise, why hast thou fallen? And he said unto the Lord, I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood. And the Lord said unto him, Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so, you could not have seen my finger. * * * And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord shewed himself unto him, and said, Because thou knowest these things you are redeemed from the fall; therefore you are brought back into my presence; therefore I shew myself unto you. Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have light, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. And never have I shewed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that thou art created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning, after mine own image. Behold, this body, which you now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit, will I appear unto my people in the flesh.[51]

The following passages, when combined, may be regarded as a further revelation of the truth here set forth: III. Nephi xi: 24, 25, xxvii: 27, xxviii: 10, I. Nephi xi: 8-11, and Ether iii: 6-16.[52]

No Gentile Kings in America.

The prophet Jacob, brother of the first Nephi, addressing himself to the Nephites, said:

Behold, this land, saith God, shall be a land of thine inheritance, and the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land. And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles; and I will fortify this land against all other nations; and he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God; for he that raiseth up a king against me shall perish, for I, the Lord, the King of heaven, will be their king, and I will be a light unto them forever, that hear my words.[53]

There are many decrees of God concerning America as a choice land, which will be noted in the place I have assigned for their consideration, but here I am concerned only with this remarkable prophecy, viz., that the land of America (both continents) is consecrated to liberty, and there shall be no kings upon the land "who shall rise up unto the Gentiles." Note the limits of the prophecy. It is not extended to the native races of America, but to the Gentiles who shall inhabit the land. That is to say, there shall be no kings upon the land "who shall rise up unto the Gentiles."

A rather bold prediction this, whether the utterances he accredited to Jacob, in the first half of the 5th century B. C., or to Joseph Smith in 1830. In any event the prophecy, so far, has been fulfilled; and today from the frozen north, Alaska, to the straits of Magellan in the south continent, the "new world" under the consecration of God, is blessed with freedom, and republican, not monarchial, institutions, obtain.

It may be objected that this prophecy has failed because of two notable attempts to establish monarchies in the New World by European governments, one in Brazil, the other in Mexico. Let us investigate these two attempts.

By an accidental discovery along the east shore of South America, by Cabral, a Portuguese navigator, (1500 A. D.,) that section of the south continent now known to us as Brazil, became a colony of the kingdom of Portugal. It remained so until 1822, when Dom Pedro, the son of King John VI., of Portugal, sided with the people of Brazil in declaring the independence of the country, and was crowned Emperor under the title of Dom Pedro I.

His rule, however, was tyrranical, and the people at length rose against him, in 1831, dragged him to the public square of Rio de Janeiro and forced him to remove from his head the imperial crown, and thus his reign ended in public disgrace.

His son became emperor under the title of Dom Pedro II. As he was a child of but six years when his father abdicated in his favor, Brazil was governed by regents until 1841, when the Prince, having attained his majority, was proclaimed emperor. It is said of him that from the first he proved himself an intelligent, liberal and humane ruler, and during his reign Brazil made great advancement in civilization and material prosperity. He was so strongly attached to constitutional forms, and governed so entirely through his ministers, that he can scarcely be regarded as a monarch at all. In November, 1889, he acquiesced in the wishes of the people, abdicated his throne in favor of a republican form of government, and retired to Portugal. Since that time Brazil has remained a republic.

The attempts to establish monarchy in Mexico arose under the following circumstances: In 1862, France, Great Britain, and Spain sent a joint military expedition to Mexico to enforce payment of certain claims. When their ostensible object was attained Great Britain and Spain withdrew; but Napoleon III, Emperor of France, confident that the war between the states of the American Union would end in dissolution of the Union, regarded the conditions as favorable to the establishment of a Latin empire in the Western world which he hoped would be a counterpoise to the Anglo Saxon republics; and invited Archduke Maximilian, brother of the Austrian Emperor, to accept the crown of the proposed new government, Napoleon promising to maintain an army of twenty-five thousand French soldiers for his protection. This proposition the Archduke accepted, and was hailed emperor of Mexico.

Meantime the United States government refused to recognize any authority in Mexico except that of the deposed President of the Republic, Juarez; but in consequence of the civil war then at its heighth was unable to resist this flagrant violation of the Monroe Doctrine.[54]The civil war closed, however, notice was served upon the French emperor that his soldiers must be withdrawn from Mexico, and he judged it expedient to comply, though it was a dastardly desertion of Maximilian, whose situation at once became precarious. In vain his faithful consort, Carlotta, journeyed from court to court in Europe intreating assistance for her husband, and denouncing Napoleon's dissertion of him. Her successive disappointments finally overthrew her reason. No hand in Europe was raised to maintain monarchy in Mexico. Juarez, the deposed President of the republic of Mexico, made short work of the empire. He captured Maximilian, and had him shot as a usurper, June 19, 1867. The event cast a gloom over all Europe, but no king nor potentate sought to avenge the execution. May it not be that those nations were as much awed, though unconsciously, by the spirit of the decree of God concerning the land of America, as by the policy of the government of the United States laid down in the Monroe Doctrine? And, indeed, may not the Monroe Doctrine itself be regarded as a heaven-inspired decree by a competent national agency to make of effect the old Nephite prophecy, "there shall be no kings on this land?" "The French empire," says Ekwin A. Grosvenor, professor of European History in Amherst College, and author of "Contemporary History of the World"—"The French empire never recovered from the shock of this Mexican failure."

The Emperor, Napoleon III, engaged in a war with Germany in 1870, in which himself and France suffered the most humiliating defeat ever inflicted on a modern state or its ruler. He himself was captured at the surrender of Sedan and imprisoned for sometime at Wilhelmshohe, near Cassel. Meantime he was deposed by the French people who established a Republican form of government, in place of the Empire. Some two years after his imprisonment he died an exile at Chiselhurst, England. The Empress, Eugenie, was also forced into exile and was for same years the guest of England. On June 1, 1879, Napoleon's son, Imperial, the only son of the Emperor, was killed by the Zulus in south Africa, thus blotting out, we may say, the entire family of the French Monarch, and fulfilling in a marked manner the terms of this prophecy: "And he that raiseth up a King against me shall perish."

The foregoing attempts in Brazil and Mexico to found monarchies in the New World cannot properly be regarded as proving the failure of the Book of Mormon prophecy. The monarchies existed for a short time only, and were so precarious while they lasted, and ended so disastrously for those making the attempt to establish them, that they emphasize the force of the prophecy rather than prove its failure. They are as slight exceptions tending to prove a rule. It is not said in the Book of Mormon that attempts would not be made to set up kings, but that such attempts should end disastrously for those making them; and that no kings should be established, that is permanently established, in the new world. Surely no candid mind will read this prophecy and consider all the facts involved in the attempts to establish monarchies in America, but will say that they have ended disastrously, and that this prophecy has been verily fulfilled.

1. Vol. I, Chapter xx.

2. "There is more solid proof in favor of a prophet being divinely sent when his words are fulfilled than in all the miracles he can work." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. X., 194.) "Prophecies are permanent miracles, whose authority is sufficiently confirmed by their completion, and are therefore solid proofs of the supernatural origin of a religion, of whose truth they were intended to testify: such are those to be found in various parts of the scriptures relative to the coming of the Messiah, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the unexampled state in which the Jews have ever since continued—all so circumstantially descriptive of the events that they seem rather histories of past than predictions of future transactions," Soame Jenyns, "A View of the Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion," p. 313.

3. Ether xiii.

4. Omni i: 19-22.

5. The matter is dealt with more at length in Volume I., Chapter xx.

6. Moroni x: 4, 5.

7. John vii: 16, 17.

8. So confident was President Brigham Young in the matter of the Holy Spirit bearing witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon that on one ocassion he said: "Nothing short of the Holy Ghost will do us any lasting good. I told you, in the beginning of my remarks, the truth as it is in heaven and on earth, as it is with angels, and with prophets, with all good people, and with every sinner that dwells upon the earth. There is not a man or woman who on hearing the report of the Book of Mormon but the spirit of the Almighty has testified to them of its truth; neither have they heard the name of Joseph Smith but the spirit has whispered to them, 'He is the true Prophet.' It is the spirit which is invisible to the natural mind of man, that produces effects apparently without causes, and creates mysteries, marvels, and wonders in the earth. These things we behold, but we cannot with the natural mind account for them, nor divine their ultimate end." (A discourse by President Young, delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, June 13, 1852, "Deseret News." Vol. 4, No. 6.)

9. Matt. iii: 16; John i: 32-34.

10. I. Cor. xii: 3.

11. John xv: 26.

12. John xiv.

13. John xvi.

14. I. Nephi xiii: 35-37.

15. "Leaves from My Journal," Edition of 1909, pp. 84, 85.

16. F. D. Richards, Church Historian, in a sketch of the life of Wilford Woodruff, "Improvement Era," Vol. I, p. 871.

17. "Leaves from My Journal," Edition of 1909, pp. 88, 89.

18. "Leaves from My Journal," Edition of 1909, pp. 95, 96.

19. "Life of Heber C. Kimball," Orson F. Whitney, p. 402, 403.

20. "Life of Heber C. Kimball" (Whitney), pp. 34, 35.

21. St. John xvi: 13.

22. "My First Mission," p. 23.

23. Chapter xvi.

24. Ibid, chapter xviii.

25. Ibid, chapters xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii of "New Witnesses," Vol. I.

26. Ibid, chapter xxiv.

27. II. Nephi xxvii: 12, 13.

28. Ether v: 3.

29. II. Nephi xxviii: 2-14.

30. Mormon viii.

31. Church History, Vol. I, chapter xxxi.

32. History of the Church, Vol. III, chapter xii.

33. Ibid, chapter xiii. Seventeen were killed outright, twelve were savagely wounded. All that were killed had to be hurriedly thrown into an old well and buried without ceremony.

34. II. Nephi xxix: 1-3.

35. See New Witnesses, Vol. I, chapter viii; also Vol. II., ch. xxxvii, and notes.

36. Those who would have further evidence upon the subject are referred to all the early controversial literature of the Church, and especially to a Public Discussion between Elder John Taylor and three sectarian ministers in France, which "Discussion" is published with the early editions of Orson Pratt's works, and in which, among other similar passages occurs the following: "Rev. Mr. Carter. But the great consideration is, that these persons (Mormon Elders) pretend to add to; and supercede the Word of God. Now the Bible is the sheet-anchor of Christians, and it neither needs the Book of Mormon nor any other book, nor the assistance of Joe Smith or any other Joe. The awful voice of prophecy has spoken for the last time, and the cause of inspiration is closed."

37. Evidences of Christianity, p. 352.

38. II. Nephi xxix: 7-14.

39. Acts x: 34, 35.

40. The teacher alluded to is Frederick Denison Maurice, Professor of Modern Philosophy in the University of Cambridge. I feel much indebted to this teacher myself, and cannot recommend too highly, I am sure, his "History of Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy," two volumes, London, Macmillan & Co., 1872.

41. I. Nephi xiii: 24-29.

42. See "Golden Bible" (Lamb), Appendix "A," pp. 323-340.

43. I. Nephi xiv: 10.

44. Upon this subject I have elsewhere said: "The church of the devil" here alluded to, I understand to mean not any particular church among men, or any one sect of religion, but something larger than that—something that includes within its boundaries all evil wherever it may be found; as well in schools of philosophy as in Christian sects; as well in systems of ethics as in systems of religion—something that includes the whole empire of Satan—what I shall call "The Kingdom of Evil." * * The question was once submitted to me, "Is the Catholic church the church here referred to—the church of the devil?" "Well," said I, in answer, "I would not like to take that position, because it would leave me with a lot of churches on my hands that I might not then be able to classify." So far as the Catholic church is concerned, I believe that there is just as much truth, nay, personally I believe she has retained even more truth than other divisions of so-called Christendom; and there is just as much virtue in the Roman Catholic church as there is in Protestant Christendom; and I am sure there is more strength. I would not like, therefore, to designate the Catholic church as the church of the devil. Neither would I like to designate any one or all of the various divisions and subdivisions of Protestant Christendom combined as such church; nor the Greek Catholic church; nor the Buddhist sects; nor the followers of Confucius; nor the followers of Mohammed; nor would I like to designate even the societies formed by deists and atheists as constituting the church of the devil. The Book of Mormon text ought to be read in connection with its context—with the chapter that precedes it and the remaining portions of the chapter in which the expression is found—then, I think, those who study it in that manner will be forced to the conclusion that the prophet here has in mind no particular church, no particular division of Christendom, but he has in mind, as just stated, the whole empire of Satan, and perhaps the thought of the passage would be more nearly expressed if we use the term "the Kingdom of Evil" as constituting the church of the devil. "(Defense of the Faith and the Saints," Vol. I, pp. 30-31.)

45. Such is Lamb's argument on this point. "Golden Bible," p. 325.

46. "Jesus, the Messiah," By Edersheim, Vol. I., pp. 27-8, eighth edition.

47. Ibid, p. 29.

48. Ibid, p. 36.

49. "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology," Vol. II, pp. 289, 290. By the way, may not this tradition about the three days' darkness over the whole earth at the completion of this regarded profanation of the Jewish scriptures, when they thus went forth for the first time to the Gentiles, be a misapplication of the prediction which Nephi declares was spoken of by the old Jewish prophet Zenos—whose works Lehi's colony carried with them into the wilderness—whom Nephi declares "spake concerning the three days of darkness which should be a sign of his [Messiah's] death unto those who should inhabit the isles of the sea" (I. Nephi xix: 10)? May not the matter referred to by Professor White be an interpretation of this old Jewish prophecy concerning the three days of darkness?

50. I. Nephi xi: 8-11.

51. Ether iii: 6-16.

52. See collection of passages in the author's "Mormon Doctrine of Deity," pp. 213-217.

53. II. Nephi x: 10-14.

54. This "Monroe Doctrine" derives its name from a message sent to Congress by President James Monroe, in 1823, in the course of which he said: "The American continents, by the free and independent condition which they had assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power." He further declared that any attempt by a European power to oppress or control an independent American nation would be regarded as "the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United states."

Back to Index Next