Restoration of Priesthood Authority

Restoration Of Priesthood Authority

The next event, in chronological order, was the visit of a heavenly messenger, John the Baptist, who, under the direction of Peter, James, and John, appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and ordained them to the Aaronic Priesthood. Following is Joseph Smith's own account of this heavenly visitation and ordination:

Two days after the arrival of Mr. Cowdery (being the 7th of April) I commenced to translate the Book of Mormon, and he began to write for me.

We still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying:

Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.

Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me—after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood—for so we were commanded.

The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first Elder of the Church, and he (Oliver Cowdery) the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, 1829, that we were ordained under the hand of this messenger, and baptized. (Joseph Smith 2:67-72.)

From this visit of John the Baptist, we learn these great truths:

1. That one must be ordained to the necessary priesthood by one having authority before he can administer the ordinances of the gospel.

2. That the Aaronic Priesthood holds the keys of:
a. the ministering of angels;
b. the gospel of repentance;
c. baptism by immersion for remission of sins.


3. That this priesthood "shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."

4. That while the Aaronic Priesthood is divine authority from God, its administration is limited; that it "had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost"; that in conferring this priesthood upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, John the Baptist acted under the direction of Peter, James, and John, who held the keys of the priesthood of Melchizedek, which should thereafter be conferred upon them.


Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood

Therefore, in order that there might be a "restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (see Acts 3:21), it was necessary that these two priesthoods be restored again to men upon this earth.

Not long after this glorious event took place, Peter, James, and John, apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, conferred upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the Melchizedek Priesthood, including the holy apostleship as promised by John the Baptist, which gave them the necessary authority to organize the church and kingdom of God upon the earth in this dispensation. Accordingly, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized with six members at Fayette, Seneca County, New York, on the sixth day of April, 1830.


Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods

An understanding of the Aaronic, or Levitical, Priesthood, sometimes called the Lesser Priesthood (see D&C 107:14), and the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the functions and administrations of each, is very necessary to a proper understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the church he established upon the earth.

The question might be asked: "Under which order of priesthood do the present Christian churches claim to operate—the Aaronic or Melchizedek?" A satisfactory answer to this question could not be expected from any of them. The only reason we are in a position to make proper explanation is that John the Baptist brought back to this earth the Aaronic, or Levitical, Priesthood and conferred it upon the heads of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. The apostles Peter, James, and John brought the Melchizedek Priesthood in like manner. All doubt and misunderstanding have thus been removed, and we are therefore able to understand the scriptures dealing with this important subject. Could there be any subject more important than to understand the meaning and purpose of the priesthood of God and how it is obtained, since it holds the keys and rights to officiate in his name and administer unto his children the saving ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ? How could anyone suppose that without this priesthood authority there could be any authorized Church of Jesus Christ upon the earth?

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. (Hebrews 7:11-12, 14, 17, 24.)

This explanation should make it plain that the law, or schoolmaster (see Galatians 3:24), to lead the people unto Christ was administered by the Aaronic, or Levitical, Priesthood. However, perfection cannot be obtained through this priesthood alone, as Paul explained. Therefore, it was necessary for the Lord to send another priest after the order of Melchizedek. The priesthood thus being changed, there was "of necessity a change also of the law." The fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, therefore, was introduced by him to take the place of the law of Moses.


Limitations of the Aaronic Priesthood

John the Baptist understood this fully, for his ministry was under the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood, which held the keys of administering the ordinance of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. When he was sent to prepare "the way of the Lord" (see Matthew 3:3), he did not attempt to confer the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. He taught that one mightier than he would come, and "he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." (See Matthew 3:11.)

This is the explanation he gave to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery when he conferred the Aaronic Priesthood upon them and commissioned them to baptize each other by immersion for remission of their sins. He told them that their priesthood "had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost" (see Joseph Smith 2:70), but that this would be conferred on them later.


Nature of the Melchizedek Priesthood

In a revelation on priesthood given through the Prophet Joseph Smith on March 28, 1835, the Lord stated:

There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.

Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the order of the Son of God.

But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.

But there are two divisions or grand heads—one is the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the other is the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood. (D&C 107:1-6.)

The apostle Paul also understood what a great high priest Melchizedek was; he made this explanation:

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. (Hebrews 7:1-3.)

This last verse has been much misunderstood, some assuming that Paul meant that Melchizedek was without father or mother, or descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. However, in a revelation on the subject of priesthood given through the Prophet Joseph Smith, September 22, 1832, the Lord made it plain that it is the priesthood and not Melchizedek that is without beginning of days or end of years:

Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years. (D&C 84:17.)


Calling and Ordination Necessary to Authority

Now that we have established the necessity for priesthood authority, we will consider the scriptural evidences that men must be ordained to the priesthood to minister in the things of God—they cannot assume this authority or receive it from one who does not possess it. This is why it was necessary for John the Baptist to bring back the Aaronic, or Levitical, Priesthood, and for Peter, James, and John to bring again the Melchizedek Priesthood, both of which were conferred upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery:

For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (Hebrews 5:1, 4-6.)

Could anything be said with greater plainness—"For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God"? Then how can a man be a high priest if he is not so ordained?

"And no man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron." How was Aaron called? The Lord spoke unto Moses, saying:

And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office. . . .

And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with them; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office. (Exodus 28:1, 41.)

Therefore, we see that Aaron did not call or ordain himself.

"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest," but was chosen and appointed by his Father a high priest forever; and after being so called and appointed, he proceeded to call others:

Then Jesus said unto them [the Twelve] again. Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (John 20:21, 23.)

And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils. (Mark 3:14-15.)

The apostles of Jesus did not call or ordain themselves—Jesus called them, ordained them, and sent them forth to minister as his Father had sent him.


The Calling and Ordination of Paul

The calling of Saul (afterwards called Paul—Acts 13:9) to the ministry, including his subsequent ordination, presents a vivid example of the order of heaven in such matters, since the pattern was given by the voice of Jesus:

And as he [Saul] journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. (Acts 9:3-6.)

Notwithstanding the fact that Jesus spoke to Saul personally, that did not qualify him to engage in the ministry and administer the ordinances of the gospel. It was necessary for him to regain his sight by the laying on of Ananias' hands and to be baptized by him. Even though the Lord had indicated to Ananias that Saul was a chosen vessel unto him to bear his name before the gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel, it was nevertheless necessary that he should be ordained to this ministry sometime later, after he had declared before the disciples and others what he had seen and heard.

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon . . . and Saul.

As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. (Acts 13:1-3.)

We assume that there are many in the world today who would consider themselves fully called and ordained had they seen and heard what Paul saw and heard on the way to Damascus. But not so with Paul, and neither with Joseph Smith! They had to be ordained by one having authority, and so must all men who would authoritatively engage in the ministry. Joseph Smith learned this great truth, not by reading the Bible, but through the visitations of John the Baptist and of Peter, James, and John. Hence the fifth Article of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as penned by the Prophet Joseph Smith:

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.


Church of Jesus Christ "A Royal Priesthood"

Peter, in speaking of the church in his day, said:

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; and ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. (1 Peter 2:9.)

From this and the revelations of the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith in restoring the priesthood to the earth again in this dispensation, the Lord has made it plain that all male members of the Church who live worthily may receive the priesthood and thus become an active force in establishing the church and kingdom of God in the earth, a part of that "royal priesthood" to which Peter referred; that they may all be united in showing forth "the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." These men are not trained specially for the ministry, any more than were the apostles of old. But they develop the gifts and talents with which God has endowed them through the service they render and the gift of the Holy Ghost.


Paul understood this also when he said:

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

And base things of the world, and the things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are:

That no flesh should glory in his presence. (1 Corinthians 1:26-29.)

In addition to all of its local officers, the Church of this dispensation each year now sends into the mission field, in areas throughout the world, many thousands of missionaries, all of the type to which Paul referred. This great host of missionaries represents an unpaid ministry as was the priesthood in the days of Christ and his apostles.

Today approximately a million men hold the Melchizedek and the Aaronic priesthoods. Where else in all the world is there such a "royal priesthood" as Peter called the church of his day?

It was this practice to ordain to the priesthood and to call into service all who were worthy and willing to serve that led Jesus to say, when he—

appointed . . . seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. (Luke 10:1-2.)


Offices in the Priesthood

There is so much to be done that the Lord placed many leaders and officers in his church and divided the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods into many divisions, so that there would be a place suited to each man's capacity.

In the Aaronic Priesthood there are the following divisions: deacons, teachers, and priests. There are bishops when they are direct descendants of Aaron; otherwise they are chosen from among the high priests of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

In the Melchizedek Priesthood there are the following divisions and offices: elders, seventies, high priests, patriarchs (or evangelists), apostles, and prophets.

All of the above-named officers are mentioned in the New Testament in connection with the primitive church of Christ. However, only a few of them are now found in the existing branches of modern Christianity. It is our impression that if this complete organization were to be offered to the churches of today, they would not know what to do with it. They would not know the differences between the callings of an elder, a high priest, a deacon, a teacher, or a priest, nor the differences in their respective ministrations. Neither would they know how many of each are required to make a quorum nor how a quorum should be organized and governed. Neither would we know this if we were dependent upon the Bible only for this information. But we are not so dependent, for all this knowledge have we received through the revelations of the Lord in connection with the restoration of the priesthood in this dispensation through the Prophet Joseph Smith. (See D&C sections 13, 20, 84, 107, 121.)

The Church Should Be Fully Organized

Paul fully understood the importance of a complete organization when he said:

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. (Ephesians 4:11-14.)

It surely appears as if the Christian world has been "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and the cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." Who would say that it is not because they have done away with the officers whom God placed in his church to bring them to a unity of the faith? What more could be expected?


The Future of the Church of Jesus Christ

With its limited membership, already The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with most of its male membership over the age of twelve years holding some office in the priesthood, is attracting great attention. When the general conferences of the Church are held in Salt Lake City, the great Tabernacle and Assembly Hall on Temple Square and many other Church buildings worldwide are filled to capacity with priesthood holders at the Saturday evening general priesthood session. These men serve the Church without compensation, except a very few who give their entire time to the service of the Church and who receive only a living allowance. From the most highly trained educators, the most efficient and successful businessmen, the most qualified and experienced scientists, agriculturists, contractors, and mechanics, to the laboring man himself—each is at the call of his church, and his services and training may be called for in the service of the Church and of his fellowmen, and, in most cases, without even the thought that he should be compensated. It is considered an honor to be able to serve the interests of the Church. Highly successful businessmen, professional men, and farmers may be called to leave their businesses, their professional work, their farms, and their families and at their own expense travel to the far countries of the world to labor for a few years in the great missionary cause of the Church. There is nothing like it in this world today. They must be like the saints of Peter's time, which led him, when calling them "a royal priesthood," to add "a peculiar people," for in this respect also we are a very "peculiar people." (See 1 Peter 2:9.)

If you were to travel through communities where the majority of the people are Latter-day Saints and were to stop and visit with a farmer working in his field, you would possibly find that he is the bishop of his ward or the president of his stake, or holds a position of responsibility in the Church, and is an elder, a seventy, or a high priest. This would possibly be as true if you were to stop and visit with the banker, postmaster, owner or clerks in the stores, workers in the shops and factories, or the barber who may serve you.

Labor disturbances, therefore, do not find so fruitful a field among Latter-day Saints as among other people, for how can our men meet weekly in their priesthood meetings where every man is a brother, and at the same time participate in labor disturbances when his brother's interests are at stake? To a true Latter-day Saint, the priesthood of God is the greatest union in the world. Can you visualize a day when this kingdom of God shall be spread throughout the world as Daniel declared (see Daniel 2:44), and all men everywhere, united in the bonds of the holy priesthood, will devote their strength and talents to the welfare of their fellowmen and the establishment of the kingdom of God on the earth?

We would not have understood these great truths had it not been for the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood by John the Baptist and the Melchizedek Priesthood by Peter, James, and John. The truths revealed in the Bible are in accord with the truths that have been revealed through prophets in our own day, and latter-day scriptures help make it possible for us to understand them.

Further information concerning the responsibilities and activities of the priesthood will be given in succeeding chapters.



(Legrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1950], 93.)

A Marvelous Work and a Wonder to Come Forth

We have already pointed out that the prophets foresaw a universal departure from the truth, and that such a condition obtained in the world at the time Joseph Smith went into the woods to pray. This being true, a restoration of the gospel must necessarily follow if the world were not to be left in spiritual darkness. Peter declared: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." (2 Peter 1:19.)

It now seems proper that we should consider the words of the prophets. We refer first to the words of Isaiah already quoted in the last chapter, since the visit of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith marked the first step in the "marvelous work and a wonder" the Lord promised to bring forth.

Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. (Isaiah 29:13-14.)

What would really constitute a marvelous work and a wonder? Why should not honest lovers of truth welcome the pronouncement of such a work? Ought any generation to reject revealed truth when it is sent from heaven? Why does it seem so much easier to accept and believe in dead prophets than in living prophets?


The Restitution of All Things

In the accomplishment of this promised marvelous work and a wonder, the Lord had in mind a "restitution of all things" and moved upon Peter to so prophesy to those who had crucified him:

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath Spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. (Acts 3:19-21.)

Let us analyze this promise: (1) that their great sin might be forgiven; (2) that the Lord would send to them again that same Jesus which had been before preached unto them; (3) that there would be a "restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."

When looking for the second coming of the Christ as herein promised, we must realize that he will not come before there is a restitution of all things. It is obvious that there cannot be a restitution of that which has not been taken away. Therefore, this scripture is another plain prediction of apostasy—the taking of the gospel from the earth—with a promise of a complete restoration of all things spoken by all the holy prophets since the world began.

It was the time of such a complete restitution that Paul must have had in mind when he wrote to the Ephesians:

Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him. (Ephesians 1:9-10.)

It is the pronouncement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that this is the dispensation of the fulness of times, and that through the restitution of all things, the Lord has made provision to "gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth." This restitution of all things will, however, not be complete until the end of the thousand years of the personal reign of Christ upon the earth when death will be destroyed. (See 1 Corinthians 15:24-26.) There is no other such plan in the world today.


God's Kingdom in the Latter Days

When the Lord gave the prophet Daniel the interpretation of King Nebuchadnezzar's dream, Daniel saw the rise and fall of the kingdoms of the world, which makes an interesting study for its accuracy. The important thing, however, was his observation that in the latter days the God of heaven would set up a kingdom that ultimately would subdue all other kingdoms and would become as a great mountain and fill the whole earth.

Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king;

But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these.

Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

. . . and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Daniel 2:27-28, 34-35, 44.)

The establishment of his kingdom by the God of heaven was to be the greatest event in the latter days. Though small and insignificant as its beginning would be, its ultimate destiny is to fill the whole earth, with Christ our Lord at its head. The kingdom was to be given to the saints of the Most High that they might possess it forever.

With all our present latter-day developments and progress, scientific and otherwise, why should we not be concerned with the promised spiritual development? Daniel gave us the sure word of prophecy:

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. (Daniel 7:13-14, 18.)

In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith February 24, 1834, the Lord said:

But verily I say unto you, that I have decreed a decree which my people shall realize, inasmuch as they hearken from this very hour unto the counsel which I, the Lord their God, shall give unto them.

Behold they shall, for I have decreed it, begin to prevail against mine enemies from this very hour.

And by hearkening to observe all the words which I, the Lord their God, shall speak unto them, they shall never cease to prevail until the kingdoms of the world are subdued under my feet, and the earth is given unto the saints, to possess it forever and ever. (D&C 103:5-7.)

In our consideration of the apostasy, we referred to what the Lord showed to John while he was on the Isle of Patmos. He saw that power would be given to Satan "to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations." (Revelation 13:7.)

John experienced these further prophetic visions:

After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. (Revelation 4:1.)


Restoration of the Gospel Foretold

John not only saw that Satan's power would be universal for a season, but he also saw a recommitment to the earth of the everlasting gospel which was to be preached to all people:

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. (Revelation 14:6-7.)

If there had been any nation, kindred, tongue, or people upon the earth still in possession of the everlasting gospel, it would not have been necessary that an angel bring it back to the earth. This angel was also to call the inhabitants of the earth back to a worship of the God that "made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." We have already pointed out that the everlasting gospel was to be taken from the earth, and it is now our witness that it has been returned to the earth by an angel, through the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that it came from the God of heaven.

The prophet Malachi also saw this promised day of restoration through messengers sent from God, which he described in these words:

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 3:1.)

A full consideration of this verse and those following indicates that this promise had reference to the second coming of Jesus Christ and not to his first coming, since he is to come suddenly to his temple, which he did not do at his first coming.


The Calling of Joseph Smith

The promises herein referred to concerning the establishment of a latter-day kingdom through the sending of heavenly messengers, and the restoration of the "everlasting gospel" to be preached in all the world, could not be fulfilled without someone upon the earth to whom such restoration and commitments could be made.

This brings us to another great truth we learn from the visit of the Father and the Son to the boy Joseph Smith, i.e., that prophets are never self-sent—they must be called and sent of God: "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7.)

Thus, with Joseph Smith selected by the Lord, we are now prepared to consider what he revealed to his chosen prophet.

Criticism has been expressed because Joseph Smith was only in his fifteenth year when the Father and the Son appeared unto him. Let us consider the words of Jesus:

No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.

And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles. (Mark 2:21-22.)

We would not expect the Lord to select a man who had been steeped in the traditions and doctrines of men, for such an individual would be too difficult to teach. As Jesus said, the new wine would burst the bottles and the wine would be spilled. However, by selecting the lad Joseph Smith, the Lord could teach him as he would, and it would truly be new wine in a new bottle without conflict with the old. Thus we see that the Lord has his own way of doing things. Surely this is his divine right and his privilege:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9.)

There is another reason why it does not seem inconsistent that the Lord selected a mere boy, for we all lived in the spirit before we were born in the flesh. The Lord knew us and knew the nature of our spirits and the measure of our integrity. That is why he selected Jesus Christ "before the world was" to be the Redeemer of the world:

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (John 17:5.)

This is the reason why Jeremiah was called to be a prophet unto the nations: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5.)

Now, Jeremiah could not have been so called and ordained before he was born if he did not exist. We will speak more of this subject later, and we will learn that Joseph Smith was also selected before he was born, as was Jeremiah.

This makes it easy to understand why the everlasting gospel could not be discovered through reading the Bible alone—the old bottles full of old wine could not contain the new wine. So glorious was to be the day when the Lord would "proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder," that he had to select one free from all exposure to the unsound philosophies of men. That is why our original statement is consistent: that this is the only Christian church in the world that did not have to rely upon the Bible for its organization and government and that if all the Bibles in the world had been destroyed we would still be teaching the same principles and administering the same ordinances as introduced and taught by Jesus and the prophets. True, we take the Bible to prove that these principles and ordinances are in accord with divine truths of all ages, but if we had no Bible, we would still have all the needed direction and information through the revelations of the Lord to his servants the prophets in these latter days.


(Legrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1950], 40.)

Apostasy of the Primitive Church

The Gospel dispensation inaugurated by our Savior, while on his earthly mission, was not a gathering one. Israel had already been widely scattered. That scattering was soon to result in the complete desolation of the land of Palestine.

Wherever the people received the Gospel through the preaching of the apostles, they were organized into churches. They not only had their old traditions and customs to contend with, but there was no relief from the general pagan influences under which they had been educated. Add to these things, the persecutions the early Saints were exposed to, and it could not well be otherwise than that many of them should be weak in the faith.

The epistles of the apostles inform us that they had often contended with false teachers and doctrines in the primitive churches. "Even now," said the apostle John, "are there many anti-Christs." 1 John 2. 18. The apostle Paul, in his second epistle to Timothy, informs us, that "In the last days perilous times shall come;" 2 Tim. 3. 1.

In the following three verses he enumerates all manner of wickedness which shall be prevalent in the latter times. He evidently means in the Christian churches, or among those who profess godliness, for in the fifth verse of the same chapter, he speaks of their having "A form of godliness, but denying the power thereof."

The apostle Paul exhorted the Colossians to "be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven;" Col. 1. 23.

About fifty-seven years after the Savior had closed his earthly mission, if we are correctly informed in the second and third chapters of the Revelations of St. John, there were but seven churches in Asia whom the Lord considered worthy of notice. This, coupled with the assertion of Paul, that the Gospel had, in his day, been preached to every creature, proves that its light only faintly glimmered, in the otherwise universal darkness, which existed at the time John had his vision on the isle of Patmos.

John the Revelator saw Rome in all her glory, in his day, reigning over the kings of the earth, full of riches and all manner of abominations, and drunken with the blood of the Saints and of the martyrs of Jesus; Rev. 17. This great power, drenched in the blood of the martyrs, about 325 A.D., in the reign of Constantine, adopted what was then known as Christianity, as the religion of the empire.

It was not possible that such a wicked, corrupt element and the Gospel of Jesus could have any affinity. Rather, is it not evident that the antagonism of Christianity and paganism had measurably ceased? that they had assimilated? that they had both so nearly found the same level, that with a slight pressure of governmental policy they readily amalgamated?

Not only prophecy but general history, and especially the history of Christianity by its learned professors, furnish abundant evidence of its early departure from the pure principles of the Gospel.

The prophetic history of the preparatory work, for the coming of Christ to reign on the earth in the latter days, is predicated on the apostacy of the primitive Christian church, the general wickedness of the nations, and the gathering of the house of Israel.

Since the calling of Abraham, the authenticated personal manifestations of the Lord to man have been through him and his family. Christ came to his own chosen people. His earthly mission was commenced and consummated in the midst of Israel. The Gospel was first preached to the Jews. His apostles were chosen from his brethren of the seed of Abraham. The first church of Christ was established at Jerusalem. The apostles were commanded to remain there until endowed with power from on high. All the blessings of salvation are promised to mankind through the seed of Abraham.

When the Lord comes in glory and power, the prophets inform us that he will come to Zion and Jerusalem, the chief cities of gathered Israel. The apostle Paul informs us that "God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues;" 1 Cor. 12. 28.

From the above it is evident that, had the church of Christ been on the earth in the past centuries, it would have been organized like the primitive church, with apostles and prophets of the house of Israel at the head of it. More than that, it would have enjoyed all the spiritual gifts and blessings mentioned in the above chapter.

John the Revelator, in his visions of the latter times, says, "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting Gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people;" Rev. 14. 6.

No one who has any faith in the Scriptures would assert that the Gospel preached by Jesus and his apostles was not the "Everlasting Gospel." If everlasting, it must of necessity be the same wherever found. If the same Gospel, it would always produce the same results. Its ordinances would be the same. Its followers would enjoy the same gifts and blessings. They would call themselves Saints. They would have an organization that would not vary from the church organized by Jesus and his apostles. They would have been led by apostles and prophets of the house of Israel.

Instead of this, the Christian churches and nations have for many centuries ground the House of Israel with the iron heel of oppression. They have robbed, driven and slain the covenant people of God, the chosen people of that same Jesus of Nazareth whose precepts and example they profess to follow.

The Shiloh came and the sceptre departed from Judah. A series of terrible oppressions commenced under Roman governors, which resulted in the des truction of Jerusalem, and of the Jews as a nation; that may be considered the beginning of the fulfilment of the prediction of our Savior, "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled;" Luke 21. 24.

The reasonable construction of this passage is, that "The times of the Gentiles" means the period in which they will bear rule, oppress Israel, and hold possession of the heritage of the seed of Abraham.

When "The times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled," when the angel, seen in vision by John the Revelator, shall have brought again to earth the "Everlasting Gospel," will also be "The times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began;" Acts 3. 21.

The first century of the Christian era was a very important one in the world's history. The covenant people of God ceased to exist as a nation. The civilized world, represented by the Roman empire, with Paganism as the prevailing religion, began to fill up the measure of its iniquity by shedding the blood of the apostles, and of the disciples of Jesus. Pagan philosophy counteracted Gospel influences. There was a constant tendency in Christianity and paganism to assimilate. This is evident from the writings of the apostles.

That, after Christianity became the leading element of the Roman empire, it ceased to be regenerative in its nature, is evidenced by the fact, that the empire was often scourged with destructive civil wars which prepared it for dissolution. It was finally crushed by barbarian hordes. They desolated whole provinces, leaving only remnants of corrupt peoples, to be measurably regenerated by an infusion of new blood from the plains of eastern Europe, and western Asia. Both sacred and profane history have failed to record an instance of a people who, living under the regenerating influences of the Gospel of Jesus, and enjoying the favor of God, were broken and destroyed by such terrible scourges as visited the Roman empire the first five centuries of the Christian era. Modern nations have risen from its ashes, have adopted its religion, its customs, its ethics, without inspiration from heaven, without any further Gospel dispensation, without apostles and prophets of the house of Israel, and without the guidance of the Holy Priesthood, after the order of the Son of God, which the Lord has decreed should only come through the seed of Abraham.

Bible.

Isa. 24. 2 as with the people, so with the priest.

5 the earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof.

17 fear and the pit are upon thee, O inhabitants of the earth.

Dan. 7. 25 he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the Saints.

8. 10 it waxed great, even to the host of heaven.

11 by him the daily sacrifice was taken away.

12 it cast down the truth to the ground, and it practised and prospered.

23 the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full.

25 through his policy he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand. 26.

Matt. 24. 10 many shall be offended, and shall betray and hate one another.

Acts 20. 29 after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you. 30.

1 Tim. 1. 6 some have turned aside to vain jangling. 7.

19 concerning faith have made shipwreck.

4. 1 in the latter times some shall depart from the faith.

2, 3 speaking lies in hypocrisy, forbidding to marry.

2 Tim. 2. 18 who concerning the truth have erred.

3. 1 know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2-7 men shall be lovers of their own selves, without natural affection. Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

12 all that will live Godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

4. 16 at my first answer no man stood with me.

Titus 1. 10, 11 many unruly and vain talkers, deceivers, who subvert whole houses.

3. 9 avoid foolish questions, contentions, and strivings. 10.

2 Peter 2. 1 who, privily, shall bring in damnable heresies.

Rev. 16. 6 for they have shed the blood of the Saints and prophets.

17. 1, 2 the great whore that sitteth upon the waters. Chap. 18. 3, 9.

5 the mystery, Babylon, the mother of harlots.

6 the woman, drunken with the blood of the Saints, and the martyrs of Jesus.

15 the waters which thou sawest are peoples, multitudes and nations.

18 the woman is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

18. 2 Babylon is become the habitation of devils, the hold of every foul spirit.

24 in her was found the blood of the prophets.

19. 2 he hath judged the great whore which did corrupt the earth.

Book of Mormon.

1 Nephi 13. 5 the foundation of a church which is most abominable, which slayeth the Saints of God, Chap. 14. 3, 9, 10. Chap 22. 14. 2 Nephi 28. 18.

9 for the praise of the world they destroy the Saints.

24-34 the Jewish record went forth in purity to the Gentiles, but the Gentiles took away the most precious parts, for which reason many stumble.

14. 11 she had dominion over all the earth, and sat upon many waters.

12 the Saints of God were scattered over the earth, and their dominions were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore.

13 mother of abominations gathered together multitudes to fight against the Lamb of God.

15 the wrath of God poured out on that abominable church 16, 17.

15. 13 many generations after the Messiah shall be manifested in the body, the fulness of the Gospel shall come to the Gentiles.

22. 22, 23 the kingdom of the devil built up among the children of men.

2 Nephi 26. 19-22 refers to the time when the children of Lehi (the American Indians) shall be smitten and driven by the Gentiles, and gives an unmistakable description of the Christian world of the present day.

27. 1 in the latter days, all shall be drunken with iniquity.

28. 3 every one that hath built up churches, and not unto the Lord, shall say, I am the Lord's.

4 they and their priests shall contend one with another.

6 they shall say, in this day God is not a God of miracles.

29. 3 a Bible, we have got a Bible; there cannot be any more.

3 Nephi 16. 7 in the latter days shall the truth come unto the Gentiles. 1 Nephi 15. 13. Rev. 14. 6.

Doctrine and Cobenants.

Sec. 1. 15 they have strayed from mine ordinances and broken mine everlasting covenant.

16 every man walketh in his own way, after the image of his own God.

17, 18 Joseph Smith. Jun., and others commanded to proclaim these things, that the sayings of the prophets might be fulfilled.

30 to bring forth the only true and living church, out of obscurity and darkness.

5. 6 you shall be ordained to deliver my words to the children of men.

29. 21 that great and abominable church shall be cast down.

35. 11 shall not anything be shown forth except desolations on Babylon?

38. 11 for all flesh is corrupted before me.

86. 1-7 an explanation of the parable of the wheat and tares. Sec. 88. 94.

133. 14 go ye out from among the nations, even from Babylon.

Pearl of Great Price.

Page 3. in a day when men would take many of the words from the book which Moses should write, the Lord promised to raise up another like him, when they should be had again among men. 2 Nephi 3. 9.

21. so will I come in the last days, in the days of wickedness and vengeance.

See O. Spencer's Letters to Rev. Wm. Crowel, No. 6.

"Universal Apostacy," a pamphlet by O. Pratt.



(Franklin D. Richards and James A. Little, Compendium of the Doctrines of the Gospel [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1925], 170.)

Commandments of Men

Policies or doctrines that mirror the attitudinal majority of a given age become the commandments of men. (D&C 46:7; Matt. 15:9.) Unsurprisingly, the churches of men will inevitably preach the commandments of men, seasoned with some scripture, preferably of modern translation. (Things As They Really Are, p. 48.)


(Cory H. Maxwell, ed., The Neal A. Maxwell Quote Book [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997], 53.)

The Book of Mormon: True or False?

It is impossible to read the Book of Mormon with an "open mind." Confronted on every page with the steady assurance that what he is reading is both holy scripture and true history, the reader is soon forced to acknowledge a prevailing mood of assent or resentment.

It was the same uncompromising "yea or nay" in the teaching of Jesus that infuriated the scribes and Pharisees against him; the claims of the Christ allowed no one the comfortable neutrality of a middle ground. Critics of the Book of Mormon have from the beginning attempted to escape the responsibility of reading it by simple appeal to the story of its miraculous origin; that is enough to discredit it without further investigation.

Thanks to its title page, the Book of Mormon "has not been universally considered by its critics," as one of them recently wrote, "as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it." fn Even Eduard Meyer, who wrote an ambitious study of Mormon origins, confessed that he had never read the Book of Mormon through. fn

So it was something of an event when, not long since, an eminent German historian read enough of the strange volume to be thoroughly disturbed by it. He found in it "the expression of a mighty awakening historical consciousness" fn and declared that "the problem of America and Europe has in fact never again been so clearly perceived and pregnantly treated as here." fn

Clear perception? Skillful treatment? In that book? Of course the whole thing is a monstrous hoax; Professor Meinhold will not even deign to consider any alternative: in spite of the witnesses and all that, the story of its origin needs and deserves no examination; it is simply unerhört ("unheard of"), and we don't discuss things that are unerhört. fn

Worst of all, the Book of Mormon bears such alarming resemblance to scripture that, for Meinhold, it not only undermines but threatens in a spirit of "nihilistic skepticism" to discredit the Bible altogether. fn Since one can reject the Book of Mormon without in any way jeopardizing one's faith in the Bible, and since no one ever can accept or ever has accepted the Book of Mormon without complete and unreserved belief in the Bible, the theory that the Book of Mormon is a fiendish attempt to undermine faith in the Bible is an argument of sheer desperation. Recently Professor Albright has noted that the Bible is first and last a historical document, and that of all the religions of the world, only Judaeo-Christianity can be said to have a completely "historical orientation." fn

Modern scholarship has, up to recent years, steadily undermined that historical orientation and with it the authority of the Bible; but today the process is being reversed and the glory of our Judaeo-Christian tradition vindicated. "Characteristic of the compelling force of this orientation," according to Albright, are the "marked historical tendencies" of Islam and Mormonism, the most complete expression of which is Mormonism's "alleged historical authentication in the form of the Book of Mormon." fn

What shocks Professor Meinhold in the Book of Mormon is the very thing that shocked the past generations of German professors in the Bible: its claims to be a genuine history. When the whole Christian world had forgotten that "historical orientation," which was one unique distinction, the Book of Mormon alone preserved it completely intact.

It is said that John Stuart Mill, the man with the fabulous I.Q. (and little else), read the New Testament with relish until he got to the Gospel of John, when he tossed the book aside before reaching the sixth chapter with the crushing and final verdict, "This is poor stuff!" Any book is a fraud if we choose to regard it as such, but Professor Meinhold cannot be nearly so experienced or well-educated as John Stuart Mill that he can simply serve notice that this book is a laughing matter.

But why would anybody be upset by what a Harvard pedant of our own day calls "the gibberish of a crazy boy"? Because the Book of Mormon is anything but gibberish to one who takes the trouble to read it. Here is an assignment which we like to give to classes of Oriental (mostly Moslem) students studying the Book of Mormon (it is required) at the Brigham Young University:

Since Joseph Smith was younger than most of you and not nearly so experienced or well-educated as any of you at the time he copyrighted the Book of Mormon, it should not be too much to ask you to hand in by the end of the semester (which will give you more time than he had) a paper of, say, five to six hundred pages in length. Call it a sacred book if you will, and give it the form of a history. Tell of a community of wandering Jews in ancient times; have all sorts of characters in your story, and involve them in all sorts of public and private vicissitudes; give them names—hundreds of them—pretending that they are real Hebrew and Egyptian names of circa 600 B.C.; be lavish with cultural and technical details—manners and customs, arts and industries, political and religious institutions, rites, and traditions, include long and complicated military and economic histories; have your narrative cover a thousand years without any large gaps; keep a number of interrelated local histories going at once; feel free to introduce religious controversy and philosophical discussion, but always in a plausible setting; observe the appropriate literary conventions and explain the derivation and transmission of your varied historical materials. Above all, do not ever contradict yourself! For now we come to the really hard part of this little assignment. You and I know that you are making this all up—we have our little joke—but just the same you are going to be required to have your paper published when you finish it, not as fiction or romance, but as a true history! After you have handed it in you may make no changes in it (in this class we always use the first edition of the Book of Mormon); what is more, you are to invite any and all scholars to read and criticize your work freely, explaining to them that it is a sacred book on a par with the Bible. If they seem over-skeptical, you might tell them that you translated the book from original records by the aid of the Urim and Thummim—they will love that! Further to allay their misgivings, you might tell them that the original manuscript was on golden plates, and that you got the plates from an angel. Now go to work and good luck!

To date no student has carried out this assignment, which, of course, was not meant seriously. But why not? If anybody could write the Book of Mormon, as we have been so often assured, it is high time that somebody, some devoted and learned minister of the gospel, let us say, performed the invaluable public service of showing the world that it can be done.

Assuming that it was not Joseph Smith but somebody else who wrote it gets us nowhere. If he did not write it, Joseph Smith ran an even greater risk in claiming authorship than if he had. For the first important man among his followers to turn against him would infallibly give him away. Sidney Rigdon, full of ambition and jealous of the Prophet, never claimed authorship of the Book of Mormon (which has often been claimed for him) or any part in it, nor in all the years during which he fought Smith from outside the Church did he ever hint the possibility of any other explanation for the Book of Mormon than Joseph Smith's own story.

Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer all turned against the Prophet at one time or another, but neither they nor any other of the early associates of Smith, no matter how embittered, ever gave the slightest indication that they knew of anybody besides Smith himself who had any part whatever in the composition of the Book of Mormon. fn For years men searched desperately to discover some other possible candidate for authorship, making every effort to find a more plausible explanation of the sources of these scriptures.

From the first, all admitted that Joseph Smith was much too ignorant for the job. We grant that willingly, but who on earth in 1829 was not too ignorant for it? Who is up to it today? If the disproportion between the learning of Smith and the stature of the Book of Mormon is simply comical, that between the qualifications of an Anthon or a Lepsius and the production of such a book is hardly less so. We can't get rid of Joseph Smith, but then it would do us no good if we could. Just consider the scope and variety of the work as briefly as possible.

First Nephi gives us first a clear and vivid look at the world of Lehi, a citizen of Jerusalem but much at home in the general world of the New East of 600 B.C. Then it takes us to the desert, where Lehi and his family wander for eight years, doing all the things that wandering families in the desert should do. fn The manner of their crossing the ocean is described, as is the first settlement and hard pioneer life in the New World dealt with in the book of Jacob and a number of short and gloomy other books. The ethnological picture becomes very complicated as we learn that the real foundations of New World civilization were not laid by Lehi's people at all, but that there were far larger groups coming from the Middle East at about the same time (this was the greatest era of exploration and colonization in the history of the ancient world), as well as numerous survivors of archaic hunting cultures of Asiatic origin that had thousands of years before crossed the North Pacific and roamed all over the north country. fn

The book of Mosiah describes a coronation rite in all its details and presents extensive religious and political histories mixed in with a complicated background of exploration and colonization. fn The book of Alma is marked by long eschatological discourses and a remarkably full and circumstantial military history. fn The main theme of the book of Helaman is the undermining of society by moral decay and criminal conspiracy; the powerful essay on crime is carried into the next book, where the ultimate dissolution of the Nephite government is described. fn

Then comes the account of the great storm and earthquakes, in which the writer, ignoring a splendid opportunity for exaggeration, has as accurately depicted the typical behavior of the elements on such occasions as if he were copying out of a modern textbook on seismology. fn The damage was not by any means total, and soon after the catastrophe, Jesus Christ appeared to the most pious sectaries who had gathered at the temple.

The account of Christ's visits to the earth after his resurrection are exceedingly fragmentary in the New Testament, and zealous efforts are made in early Christian apocryphal writing to eke them out ; fn his mission to the Nephites is the most remarkable part of the Book of Mormon. Can anyone now imagine the terrifying prospect of confronting the Christian world of 1830 with the very words of Christ? Professor Meinhold still shudders with horror at the presumption of it, fn and well he might, as the work of an impudent impostor who knew a year ahead of time just what mortal peril he was risking. The project is indeed unerhört; as the work of an honest, well-meaning Christian it is equally unthinkable.

But the boldness of the thing is matched by the directness and nobility with which the preaching of the Savior and the organization of the church are described. After this comes a happy history and then the usual signs of decline and demoralization. The death-struggle of the Nephite civilization is described with due attention to all the complex factors that make up an exceedingly complicated but perfectly consistent picture of decline and fall. fn Only one who attempts to make a full outline of Book of Mormon history can begin to appreciate its immense complexity; and never once does the author get lost (as the student repeatedly does, picking his way out of one maze after another only with the greatest effort), and never once does he contradict himself. We should be glad to learn of any other like performance in the history of literature.

The book of Ether takes us back thousands of years before Lehi's time to the dawn of history and the first of the great world migrations. A vivid description of Völkerwanderungszeit concentrates on the migration of a particular party—a large one, moving through the years with their vast flocks and herds across central Asia (described at that time as a land of swollen inland seas), and then undertaking a terrifying crossing of the North Pacific. Totally unlike the rest of the Book of Mormon, this archaic tale conjures up the "heroic" ages, the "epic milieu" of the great migrations and the "saga time" that follows, describing in detail the customs and usages of a cultural complex that Chadwick was first to describe in our own day. fn

Here in this early epic, far beyond the reach of any checks and controls, our foolish farm-boy had unlimited opportunity to let his imagination run wild. What an invitation to the most gorgeously funny extravaganza! And instead we get a sober, factual, but completely strange and unfamiliar tale.

Even this brief and sketchy indication of thematic material should be enough to show that we are not dealing here with a typical product of American or any other modern literature. Lord Raglan has recently observed that the evolution of religions has been not from the simple to the complex, but the other way around: "The modern tendency in religion, as in language, is towards simplicity. The youngest world religion, Islam, is simpler both in ritual and dogma than its predecessors, and such modern cults as Quakerism, Baabism, Theosophy, and Christian Science are simpler still." fn

The work of Joseph Smith completely ignores this basic tendency; whatever he is, he is not a product of the times. The mere mass, charge, and variety of Mormonism has perplexed and offended many; but it is never too much to digest. The big, ponderous, detailed plot of the Book of Mormon, for example, is no more impressive than the ease, confidence, and precision with which the material is handled. The prose is terse, condensed, and fast-moving; the writer never wanders or speculates; beginning, middle, and ending are equally powerful, with no signs of fatigue or boredom; there is no rhetoric, no purple patches, nothing lurid or melodramatic—everything is kept sober and factual.

The Book of Mormon betrays none of the marks of "fine writing" of its day; it does not view the Gorgeous East with the eyes of any American of 1830, nor does it share in the prevailing ideas of what makes great or moving literature. The grandiose, awesome, terrible, and magnificent may be indicated in these pages, but they are never described; there is no attempt to be clever or display learning; the Book of Mormon vocabulary is less than 3,000 words! There are no favorite characters, no milking of particularly colorful or romantic episodes or situations, no reveling in terror and gore.

The book starts out with a colophon telling us whose hand wrote it, what his sources were, and what it is about; the author boasts of his pious parents and good education, explaining that his background was an equal mixture of Egyptian and Jewish, and then moves into this history establishing time, place, and background; the situation at Jerusalem and the reaction of Nephi's father to it, his misgivings, his prayers, a manifestation that came to him in the desert as he traveled on business and sent him back post-haste "to his own house at Jerusalem," where he has a great apocalyptic vision. fn

All this and more in the first seven verses of the Book of Mormon. The writer knows exactly what he is going to say and wastes no time in saying it. Throughout the book we get the impression that it really is what its authors claim it to be, a highly condensed account from much fuller records. We can imagine our young rustic getting off to this flying start, but can we imagine him keeping up the pace for ten pages? For 588 pages the story never drags, the author never hesitates or wanders, he is never at a loss. What is really amazing is that he never contradicts himself.

Long ago Friedrich Blass laid down rules for testing any document for forgery. fn Let us paraphrase these as rules to be followed by a successful forger and consider whether Joseph paid any attention to any of them.

1. Keep out of the range of unsympathetic critics. There is, Blass insists, no such thing as a clever forgery. No forger can escape detection if somebody really wants to expose him; all the great forgeries discovered to date have been crudely executed (for example, the Piltdown skull), depending for their success on the enthusiastic support of the public or the experts. The Book of Mormon has enjoyed no such support. From the day it appeared, important persons at the urgent demand of an impatient public did everything they could to show it a forgery. And Joseph Smith, far from keeping it out of the hands of unsympathetic critics, did everything he could to put it into those hands. Surely this is not the way of a deceiver.

2. Keep your document as short as possible. fn The longer a forgery is the more easily it may be exposed, the danger increasing geometrically with the length of the writing. By the time he had gone ten pages, the author of the Book of Mormon knew only too well what a dangerous game he was playing if it was a hoax; yet he carries on undismayed for six hundred pages.

3. Above all, don't write a historical document! They are by far the easiest of all to expose, being full of "things too trifling, too inconspicuous, and too troublesome" for the forger to check up on. fn

4. After you have perpetrated your forgery, go into retirement or disappear completely. For vanity, according to Blass, is the Achilles' heel of every forger. fn A forger is not only a cheat but also a show-off, attempting to put one over on society; he cannot resist the temptation to enjoy his triumph, and if he remains in circulation, inevitably he gives himself away. Joseph Smith ignored any opportunity of taking credit for the Book of Mormon—he took only the responsibility for it.

5. Always leave an escape door open. fn Be vague and general, philosophize and moralize. Religious immunity has been the refuge of most eminent forgers in the past, beautiful thoughts and pious allegories, deep interpretations of scriptures, mystic communication to the initiated few, these are safe grounds for the pia fraus ("pious fraud"). But the Book of Mormon never uses them. It does not even exploit the convenient philological loophole of being a translation: as an inspired translation it claims all the authority and responsibility of the original.

Granted that any explanation is preferable to Joseph Smith's, where is any explanation? The chances against such a book ever coming into existence are astronomical: Who would write it? Why? Trouble, danger, and unpopularity are promised its defenders in the book itself. Did someone else write it so that Joseph Smith could take all the credit? Did Smith, knowing it was somebody else's fraud, claim authorship so that he could take all the blame?

The work involved in producing the thing was staggering, the danger terrifying; long before publication time the newspapers and clergy were howling for blood. Who would want to go on with such a suicidal project? All that trouble and danger just to fool people? But the author of this book is not trying to fool anybody: he claims no religious immunity, makes no effort to mystify, employs no rhetorical or allegorical license.

There are other things to consider too, such as the youth and inexperience of Smith when (regardless of who the author might be) he took sole responsibility for the Book of Mormon. Faced with a point-blank challenge by the learned world, any impostor would have collapsed in an instant, but Joseph Smith never weakened though the opposition quickly mounted to a roar of national indignation. Then there were the witnesses, real men who, though leaving the Church for various real or imagined offenses, never altered or retracted their testimonies of what they had seen and heard.

The fact that only one version of the Book of Mormon was ever published and that Joseph Smith's attitude toward it never changed is also significant. After copyrighting it in the spring of 1829, he had a year to think it over before publication and yield sensibly to social pressure; after that he had the rest of his life to correct his youthful indiscretion; years later, an important public figure and a skillful writer, knowing that his book was a fraud, knowing the horrible risk he ran on every page of it, and knowing how hopelessly naive he had been when he wrote it, he should at least have soft-pedaled the Book of Mormon theme. Instead he insisted to the end of his life that it was the truest book on earth, and that a man could get nearer to God by observing its precepts than in any other way. fn

Parallelomania has recently been defined as the double process which "first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connections flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction." fn It isn't merely that one sees parallels everywhere, but especially that one instantly concludes that there can be only one possible explanation for such. From the beginning the Book of Mormon has enjoyed the full treatment from Parallelomaniacs. Its origin has been found in the Koran, in Swedenborg, in the teachings of Old School Presbyterians, French Mystics, Methodists, Unitarians, Millerites, Baptists, Campbellites, and Quakers; in Roman Catholicism, Arminianism, Gnosticism, Transcendentalism, Atheism, Deism, Owenism, Socialism, and Platonism; in the writing of Rabelais, Milton, Anselm, Joachim of Flores, Ethan Smith, and the Early Church; in Old Iranian doctrines, Brahmin mysticism, Free Masonry, and so on.

Now a person who has read only Milton, or Defoe, or Rabelais would have an easy time discovering parallels all through the Book of Mormon, or any other book he might read thereafter. It is not surprising that people who have studied only English literature are the most eager to condemn the Book of Mormon. fn

Book of Mormon: True or False? (Chapter 11) footnote: At a Portland Institute Symposium, Nibley subsequently gave a talk that developed several of these same themes further, along with discussing the negative reviews of Fawn Brodie's biography of Thomas Jefferson. The main body of the talk is included in the following transcript:

There are two rigorous tests to which we can subject the Book of Mormon: There is the internal test and the external test. This is true for every document. At the time of the Renaissance, which they usually say began with the fall of Constantinople (actually that is not true—the Turks treasured those documents from ancient times), all of a sudden they discovered them, not so much in the East as in the monasteries. They discovered thousands of manuscripts from ancient times. They didn't know what to do with them, or how to arrange them in order, or whether they were genuine or not. It became the stock assignment of scholarship to go through a great big pile of nondescript documents in quite a number of languages and decide what can they tell us about the human race—what here is authentic, what isn't, what have they been doing. It was just a mess, and some of the great scholars devised a very efficient method for processing these documents, and also for testing them for authenticity. Their test became foolproof, not only just intuitive; they could do marvelous things. They could take documents damaged almost beyond recognition and restore them. And later, years later, they would discover a complete document, and, sure enough, the restoration was correct. They were often going on mere intuition.

The first question that you have when you get an ancient document is—is it real? That is the first question they wanted to know. They could very well be not just copies of copies, but they could be fakes. That is very common too and, well, what part of it is real? Because there is no such thing as a perfect document. There is no such thing as a flawless document—never has been, never will be. The Book of Mormon recognized this—remember in the title page: "If there are mistakes therein they are the mistakes of men." And men do make mistakes. Well, if parts are real, what parts? What has been going on? How have they been treating the document? An interesting thing—you read the document itself without any reference to anything outside. If it is a historical document, you say, "Oh, sure, this claims to be at a certain time and place"—you can go back and check to see if this was going on. You do not have to do that. The classic work on the criticism of ancient documents is by Frederick Blass. It was written almost a hundred years ago. It is a massive work by a German. I think he is most memorable because of his equally classical work on classical rhetoric. He begins by saying (which is so typical of German scholarship), "I have never been able to get interested in classical rhetoric." Then the great man begins to exhaust the field and the reader too. I don't think anybody ever read it through except me, once. Well, as Blass says, you never have to go outside of a document, you never have to check from outside sources; just read the thing itself and it easily becomes clear whether it is authentic or not. Regardless of the period, regardless of how much else is known about it, regardless of what other documents go along with it, simply read it and see if it is convincing in itself.

Now today interesting things are happening on many fronts. They are dealing with things differently than they ever have before. If it looks like an elephant, call it an elephant; no matter how queer it may sound, you have to pay attention to it now. Things must be explained. You just can't fit everything into the well-known, established patterns. Before, if anything seemed odd, strange, or weird, you just discounted it; but you can't do that anymore. It is these things that are odd that are most significant. For example, speaking of documents, the best kind of document is the one that has fantastic mistakes in it—when you get a weird anomaly or contradiction or something impossible. That is the time to start looking; that is not the kind of thing that copyists put in. Copyists have a weakness for correcting texts they don't understand, so they write it so they can understand. So if you have a flawless text, look out; it has been faked, doctored; the copyists have taken care of it, they have brought it up to date. But if you have one that is full of the weirdest stuff, there you have a real gem, because that stuff came from somewhere. Someone picked it up from somewhere, and you just need to look at the document itself. It is not necessary to go beyond the internal evidence, because it is impossible to fake an ancient document on two conditions, first the internal—especially if it is of any length at all (and the Book of Mormon is long) you multiply the danger, you compound it with every word you add (mathematical progression). Every time you add a word you get yourself in deeper and deeper. So keep your documents short if you want to fake one. Never write a long document—that will hang you just as sure as anything. Nobody has ever faked one successfully.

The second condition, of course, is external. Does it purport to be historical? If you are going to write a document, write one of beautiful thoughts, and no one can object. If you say it is history, then you are in trouble because it has to be checked at various points. So this first thought is going to be about internal evidence of the Book of Mormon, just the internal evidence. I'm not going to use anything outside at all. The internal evidence for the superhuman origins of the Book of Mormon is so overwhelming today that the story of the angel, as far as I am concerned, has become the least baffling explanation. If you think of other explanations, good—but they rejected the story of the angel out of hand because it was absurd. Well, Blass says (this is a very important principle) you should always begin by assuming that a document is authentic. Why not give it the benefit of the doubt? It will quickly become apparent if it isn't. If you proceed on the grounds of authenticity, and if it isn't, the first thing you will know you will be caught up short. So, the first thing, you begin by assuming that your document is authentic, and you say, "Well, that isn't playing fair." All right then, you think of a better explanation. If it isn't a fourteenth-century document, were did it come from? If the famous Turk map of North America of pre-Columbian times isn't authentic, then who did produce it? The more fantastic it is, the easier it is to select a substitute and alternative. Well, I can't think of a more fantastic explanation of the Book of Mormon than the story of the angel. Think of another way to explain it. By George, it turns out that the story of the angel is the least fantastic story that you can think of—everything else is even more weird.

You are welcome to try to explain how the Book of Mormon came to exist. What would be your plausible explanation of the existence of the Book of Mormon? How would you explain its mere existence? "Well," you say "let me give some parallel examples." Okay, tell us of another book, anything like that at all. The only way you can do it is to reconstruct the crime yourself. How did Joseph Smith get or how did he produce this book? You ask yourself how you would go about it. Try to imagine how you would go about reproducing the book.

I tried this out at family home evening last week on some very, very literary students, some foreign students, some investigators—a very skeptical group. And since they were literature people, I asked them, "How would you do it?" Consider the problems facing you if you are undertaking to do what Joseph Smith did. Mere physical problems: he must produce a big book. All right, sit down and produce a big book. That means a lot of work, just putting it together. It means you have to find the time, you have to find the resources, you have to find the continued motivation to keep going. Just try to keep any student or anybody going on a project like that! What is the motivation, what is going to keep you going right up until the end? Again you see, immediately the internal evidence comes. Does it have an even flow, does he run out, does he peter out, does he start repeating himself, does he weaken? These are all internal evidences. The Book of Mormon starts out with a bang, a rush—it is a marvelous beginning and it never drags, things happen very rapidly. You will find that it is when people don't know exactly what they are going to write about that they can string things out endlessly. All your big books do that. But the pace of the Book of Mormon is quite breathtaking—the number of episodes that occur, the rapidity of things that occur. You would be surprised to compare any ten pages with the next ten pages and see what happens—you are in a different world entirely. Things really keep moving, and they keep moving, so it not only starts out with a rush like a rocket, but it ends up like a rocket. It ends up with a magnificent display of fireworks. It never loses from beginning to end, and in the middle it is the most exciting of all.

So this is the test we put to our book. Remember, you are a young man struggling to make a living, tied up in such projects. Of all the things to get tied up in when you are trying to make a living! Remember, Jesse Knight's father tells in his journal how he first met Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, and they were living in a shack translating the Book of Mormon. He said they were hungry and they didn't have a penny, and he brought them a sack of potatoes; and it was that sack of potatoes that enabled them to survive the winter. They were that hungry doing it—he should have better things to think of than a long, long book and a very complicated book that no one was going to believe in. So you have to have the motivation just to create a big book.

You ask the people, "Can you think of any other such performance for comparison?" Who else wrote a long book like the Book of Mormon? What young fellow ever produced anything like that? We think of the great, massive, impressive works in English literature. There is Macaulay and the History of England, Carlyle's Frederick the Great, Gibbons' Decline and Fall; but you see how different these all are. There are plenty of big historical works, but these men were paraphrasing. They had all the records in front of them. They rearranged the chronological order and told the story. They just retold the story, and sometimes very interestingly, but they had all their materials provided them. They could do what they wanted with the materials as far as that was concerned. Joseph Smith had no such handbook. The most terrifying assignment that you can ever give students is to say, "Write on anything you want," because that is where you give yourself away. Joseph Smith could write anything at all; no one knew about Central America in those times long ago. That is just the challenge; that is the hardest thing of all to do. Just try doing it. If you can follow a text, if you have historical records or something to follow, you are on safe ground; you can move securely, you can go step by step, you have handles. He had no such thing to go by.

Joseph Smith had to start from scratch and produce a brand new epic. Instead of making things easier for himself, he made something never seen before. Now we have epics being produced in our generation, and some of them become very popular, strangely popular. Begin with Walter Scott at the beginning of the nineteenth century producing his ponderous works, or, in our time, C. S. Lewis, Tolkien, who have invented cultures and worlds all of their own. They are free to do this, but notice here they are not held to historical accuracy at all, though they still have material supplied. Walter Scott is nothing else but a story, and he read and read and read for years. He was thoroughly saturated in the literature, and so was Tolkien, a professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford. He just retold old English stories. Shakespeare was the greatest creative genius of them all, but not a single plot, not a single sentiment in all of Shakespeare, is original. They are all lifted from somewhere else but fit in a real and marvelous new structure. It is like saying, "Oh, yes, he used all those words you will find in the dictionary, so there is nothing original about that." You can say, "Bach just used the eight notes of the scale and composed this; anybody could do that if he had a piano." No, you can't compose like Bach. Joseph Smith does not write like that. These men have this license; they can be creative as they wish, but they are all completely saturated from material from a time and place and are just rewriting it in their imagination. The same thing with C. S. Lewis; he mixed his religion in with the theme, a sort of science fiction, and he goes off into the blue. These people were not held to historic accuracy, and their material is already provided. And then they are given a special license by the reading public and they write, and even so they are all monotonous. Nobody reads Walter Scott today. Tolkien had a big run with young people a while ago, but what do Tolkien's characters do? They are always eating and traveling and having wars and having things in court. They just go through the regular thing of the Medieval court—hunting and feeding and traveling and fighting. That is it, the same routine. Joseph Smith isn't going to be able to get away with anything as easy as that. C. S. Lewis always has boy meets girl on Jupiter, or boy meets girl on Mars. It is the same story, you just put it in a different setting. That is what all your science fiction people do anyway.

Well, back to Brother Joseph—you can do the same with your piece you are writing. Remember, you are writing a big book—nothing has to be trimmed—just a big book. Right there you have a terrific challenge. What am I going to do? I'll go crazy. I can't go on writing day after day, year after year. What is this? Won't you give me some help, won't you tell me what to say? Oh sure, you can go to the Bible. They tell us again and again that anyone looking at the Bible can write a Book of Mormon. It is all there after all—just try that again. You can do the same thing with our piece; you can put in anything you want to. But as soon as you start borrowing, you will give yourself away. As the scripture tells us, "My words shall be of the uprightness of my heart" (Job 33:3).

Brigham Young used to have a black leather couch in his office. A window faced the couch; when people came to see him, they would sit on the couch with Brigham Young's back to the window, the desk between them. Brigham Young would just look at the person for three minutes, that was all. He was never fooled; he could figure them out every time. After all, they had come to see him; he didn't ask for them. If they had anything to say, they could talk and he would say nothing. He would just let them talk, and lots of rascals came, people plotting against his life, people wanting to get money from him, all sorts of things. The man never had to talk more than three minutes. Here is your nondirect interview which is so effective to the psychologist—Brigham had it worked out completely. My grandfather said he was never wrong. After three minutes he knew his man. Well, the same way, if you sit down and write a book 600 pages long, you are going to give yourself away all over the place—what a revelation of your character. Your background will come to the fore all over the place. Enemies tried to catch Joseph Smith in this trap. There are things common to all human affairs. For example, in the Book of Mormon, people eat; well, they eat in the Bible—aha! See, he stole it from the Bible. Somebody actually used that as an argument. The problem here is to make a big book.

Secondly, the book has to have some sort of quality. You didn't have to make your book good, but Joseph Smith had to make his book good. So it would be nice, if you are going to write a book, to write a decent one while you are at it. The book can't be complete nonsense. You can't waste your time and everyone else's. You've got to make a book that is something. Well, now you are in real trouble, because 99 percent of the books published today are not worth the paper they are printed on. Here you are, twenty-three years old, and you must live with this book over your head the rest of your life. No matter who writes it, you are going to be wholly and completely responsible for it—Joseph Smith, author and proprietor. He had to do that for the sake of the copyright. Before the book even came out, all the scandalous stories were circulating, and in the Painesville Telegraph they made a parody of what it must be. In order to protect it against complete manipulation, the author had to copyright it under the copyright law. Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon just as James was the author of the Epistle of James. Although he could write, the author was the Lord. It was given by revelation. That would never do—we assign the authorship of the Bible to the men who wrote it, by revelation or not. Joseph Smith takes complete responsibility—no matter who wrote it; that isn't the question. He is going to be responsible for it, and be responsible for it the rest of his life. How often he must think back, "Oh, what I did when I was a fool kid. If I could only amend that book!" It would be easy—get more inspiration and have a revised edition. The first edition was reprinted by Wilford C. Wood. It is very useful; it hasn't been divided up into chapters and verses—Orson Pratt and Brother Talmage did that later. It is an interesting book to use. There are some mistakes, but the text is actually a better one than the 1920 edition. The point is, it was never changed, and Joseph Smith was never haunted by it. Right to the end, he kept insisting, "This is the most correct book on the earth today." Imagine that—even more correct than a book on mathematics. Sure, I have books of mathematics that are hopelessly out of date today. They are not used today. They were when I was in school. They are not used anymore because they are hopelessly wrong. You are going to be stuck with the correctness of the book.

It should have some literary quality, don't you think? If you are going to have to live with it the rest of your days, it should be consistent; it should hang together. You are feeling bad when you write one part, you are feeling good when you write another. The thing must drag out for years. What are the different parts going to read like? What are they going to be like? In talking or writing for 600 pages, you can't choose but to lay bare your own soul. That is going to be exposing your mental quality and your mental bankruptcy. It will show if you have nothing but gibberish, if you are devious and scheming, if you are honest, and also the degree of education. You can see what Blass means when he says you don't need anything but internal evidence.

You can tell whether a man is faking a book or not if it is long enough, if he gives himself enough room—and it doesn't take much. The only successful forgeries have been very short ones, just brief inscriptions, two or three words or a half-dozen words. As soon as forgeries get long, and there have been some famous ones, it becomes easy to discover. Why do you think Blass states this as a categorical principle: "There never has been a clever forgery." People say the Book of Mormon was a clever forgery. There never has been a clever forgery. "Well, how do you know? A really clever one would have never been discovered," you say. "You won't have even known he was a forger." Such a statement can be justified on the grounds that every forgery discovered so far has not been clever but crude and very obvious. The only reason it ever got by at all is that people wanted to accept it, wanted to very badly. The Royalist boy Chatterly is an example. He was just a child when he faked a lot of Middle English poetry, and everyone was so thrilled about the discovery of old documents that they never bothered to read them with particular care. The first person who read them with any critical eye discovered they were done by a kid, and very crudely. See, when you discover a forgery, it is very obvious; the author gives himself away.

This brings up an interesting thing: When I taught at Claremont, I had a next-door neighbor who was the wife of the most famous of all American scholars. Her husband had just died the year she came to live in Claremont, and since we both rode bicycles, we got to be pretty good friends. She told me that her husband, a very conscientious, public-minded man, decided he would do the world a good deed and save a lot of people the trouble of mixing themselves up and being confused in their ignorance and hopelessness by taking a few hours off and going through the Book of Mormon (and that was all it would take, a few hours) and showing them it was a fraud. He would thereby perform a valuable service to the Mormons, too, because it was of no value to them to be led astray. If they were being fooled, they should be grateful to him to know that. So he began to do it. He thought it would take twenty minutes or so. Twenty hours, twenty days, and his work never came out. I asked her what happened to that public service—well he just dropped it, that was all.

It should be very easy under these circumstances, the Book of Mormon being produced under such conditions, to make a monkey out of Joseph Smith, because, as I say, there is no such thing as a clever forgery. You just can't get away with it. It was many years later when he had developed a fine style of his own, yet he still proclaimed, "This is the most correct book around."

All right, you have just the work of producing the book, and you can smell the quality all over. Then the disposal of it after you write it: What are you going to do with it? Do you really expect this to be popular? Are you crazy? In competition with the Bible? People don't read the Bible anyway, but when they do, you now tell them there is more Bible to read! They won't thank you for that, I'm sure. As a holy book, it is going to be kept perpetually before the public. They are going to be dogged with it, they are going to be bothered with it, you are going to wear them down with it. I was on a short-term mission here many years ago, and by that time everyone in Portland had been visited so much by the Mormons they were sick and tired of them, but they are still hearing of the Book of Mormon. This is an important thing. This book has to be kept perpetually before the public. Also, through the years literary tastes are going to change, and styles in reading are going to change. Sometimes they go for things, sometimes not. You notice the Book of Mormon is being peddled back East now. You see it in the Chicago airport, for example. This takes us into external evidence. This is a very great risk you are taking now: you are going far beyond a book of opinion, sage remarks, the wisdom of the ages, which are always very repetitious. There is nothing original in any of those books. The expressions are sometimes very catching, the forms in which they are conveyed to us. As I said, Shakespeare was not original, but how he says it was excellent. The Jewish rabbis will tell you that there is nothing in the philosophy in the Sermon on the Mount that you won't find in the Old Testament or in the rabbinical writings, and that is true, too. You are not going to issue this just as a book of your ideas and thoughts. It is not a book of essays, but a story of things that really happened. It has got to be reality. It has to have substance in this book. And you can expect unlimited criticism, unsparing criticism without a supporting voice, because no critic in his right mind is going to accept this book just on your say-so. And what lies at the end—what can you look forward to in this dangerous product? It is dangerous: terror not only knocks at the door, but every time you leave the house someone is waiting for you. Shots are fired in the night, and mobs come. The worst rioting and mobbing occurred before the Book of Mormon ever came out. Some of the most harrowing experiences that the Prophet Joseph ever had were caused simply by the Book of Mormon. The advance publicity brought down such a storm of denunciation that it put his life in the most imminent danger. Here is another motive. Are you going to write that kind of book? Yes, you are not in any doubt about that. You get a horrifying foretaste of what merely the process of getting it into print is going to get you into while you are dictating the book. This is no way to win friends; you are asking for trouble. Every day while writing the book, the sheer audacity of the theme is brought to you with great force.

Read the literature about Joseph Smith's undertaking. Who were his critics from the first? They say he was writing for some gullible bumpkins, a lot of yokels that would swallow anything. No, it was the ministers and teachers. It was the establishment back East that immediately had this book in their hands and were criticizing it. It was the ministers that wanted to defend their ignorant flocks against Joseph Smith. You might be able to fool the gullible people, but they weren't the ones who read it and they weren't the ones Joseph Smith was concerned about, as far as that goes. What did these men protest? They protested, "Blasphemy, alias the Golden Bible." The main protest was that in this enlightened age, in the advanced nineteenth century, in this age of science and understanding, that such a fraud should appear, such a scandal. This was the thing they couldn't stand. It was an offense to the intellect. It was an offense to the mind of men. It wasn't on spiritual or religious grounds that they protested. Those were the reasons they gave their flocks, the religious mobs, that it was a blasphemous work. But always the writings against the Book of Mormon were that it was an offense to intelligent people. So these were the people that criticized it.

Speaking of only internal contradictions here, historical and literary epics fairly shriek their folly to anyone who reads them. Here we have a long history. It is full of proper names and of people and places; it recounts their comings and goings and even their thoughts and prayers and their dealings with each other; their wars and their contentions and rumors of wars; their economic, social, dynastic, military, religious, and intellectual history. Now the main problem here, from an internal point of view, is how in all this human comedy can you as the author establish a ring of similitude from readers who have read a lot of stuff, who know how things are supposed to happen or how they do happen, who spent their lives immersing themselves in the doings of dynasties or families or nations? A thousand clues spring to the ear immediately of any educated practitioner: "This reads all right. This sounds pretty good. Oh, this is bad here." And you are not educated. Do you have any idea what you are up against?

Footnotes

1. This article appeared in the Millennial Star 124 (November 1962): 274-77. 2

2. Thomas F. O'Dea, The Mormons (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 26.

3. Eduard Meyer, Ursprung and Geschichte der Mormonen (Halle: Niemeyer, 1912); published also as The Origin and History of the Mormons, tr. H. Rahde and E. Seaich (Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1961), iii.

4. Peter Meinhold, "Die Anfänge des amerikanischen Geschichtsbewusstseins," Saeculum 5 (1954): 67.

5. Ibid., 86.

6. Ibid., 85-86.

7. Ibid., 86.

8. William F. Albright, "Archaeology and Religion," Cross Currents 9 (1959): 112.

9. Ibid., 111.

10. More recently, see Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1981).

11. Hugh W. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1957), 47-57, 79-91; reprinted in CWHN 6:59-70, 95-108.

12. Hugh W. Nibley, Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1952); reprinted in CWHN 5.

13. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 256-70; CWHN 6:295-310.

14. Ibid., 164-89; CWHN 6:194-221.

15. Ibid., 336-50; CWHN 6:378-99.

16. Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1970), 261-96; reprinted in CWHN 7:231-63.

17. Hugh W. Nibley, "Evangelium Quadraginta Dierum," Vigiliae Christianae 20 (1966): 1-24; reprinted in CWHN 4:10-44.

18. Meinhold, "Die Anfänge des amerikanischen Geschichtsbewusstseins," 76-78.

19. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 351-65; CWHN 6:416-30.

20. Hugh W. Nibley, "There Were Jaredites," Improvement Era 59 (January 1956): 30-32, 58-61; reprinted in CWHN 5:285-307, 380-94; H. Munro Chadwick, The Growth of Literature, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1932-40), vol. 1.

21. Lord Raglan, The Origins of Religion (London: Watts, 1949), 44.

22. Nibley, Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites, 1-26; in CWHN 5:3-24.

23. Friedrich W. Blass, "Hermeneutik and Kritik," Einleitende und Hilfsdisziplinen, vol. 1 of Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Nördlingen: Beck, 1886), 269, 271.

24. Ibid., 270.

25. Ibid., 271.

26. Ibid., 270.

27. Ibid., 269.

28. Joseph Fielding Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1976), 194.

29. Hugh W. Nibley, "Mixed Voices: The Comparative Method," Improvement Era (October-November 1959): 744-47, 759, 848, 854, 856; see above 193-206.




(Hugh Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1989], .)