A Defence [sic] of the Book of Mormon

A DEFENCE OF THE BOOK OF MORMON.

T.W. Brookbank.

It is claimed by many who oppose “Mormonism” that Joseph Smith, the avowed translator of certain ancient American records which are familiarly known to the world as the Book of Mormon, must have had in his possesion to serve as a guide in constructing the historical portions of his alleged imposture some reports of visitors to, and explorers among, the ancient ruins in Central America and elsewhere on that continent. Otherwise he could not have made various statements in his work conform so closely with certain facts which are recognized by learned men and women as having a place in the history of the early race or races who inhabited that land.

Among the reports, which it is alleged Joseph Smith very probably had in his possion, special mention is made of a certain brief work written by Captain Del Rio, an officer of the Spanish army. It appears that in the year 1767 this gentleman visited some of the American ruins. In 1822 his report concerning what he had seen at Palenque was brought out in Europe. It was in the early part of 1830 when the first edition of the Book of Mor­mon was published to the world. During the years which intervened between 1822 and 1829, when the work of preparing the manuscript of the latter book was commenced, it is possible, but by no means probable, that a copy of Del Rio’s report did find its way into the hands of the youthful Joseph. It is not worth-while, however, to waste time and space stating reasons for believing that he did not have a copy, since it contained not a scrap of information respecting various historical statements contained in the Book of Mormon.

Assailants should notice, too, what a great difference there is between a description of certain ruins, such as those early reports contains, and a history set forth to quite an extent in detail as the Book of Mormon is.

In order that no one shall misapprehend the significance of this point, the question may be asked if it is possible that a person who is unschooled as Joseph Smith certainly was, can tell from the description of some ruined edifices in Central America from which direction the people who built those edifices immigrated, or inform ns where those people made their first settlements. Again, who that is unskilled in deciphering hieroglyphics of any kind can ascertain from the descriptions of certain ancient American ruins, such as the report of Del Rio contains, whether there was but one or more than one system of writing practiced by the people of that land. Could an unlearned person tell whether such writing was wholly original in character or was based on a system or systems previously in use among people thousands of miles distant? Such information is not correctly arrived at by unlearned youths, from brief descriptions of ruins. Yet, the Book of Mormon, as translated by Joseph Smith—un­schooled in difficult sciences as the world goes—does give ns such information, either by direct statement or by logical inference from other statements. The vast difference which exists between a description of mins and a statement of history is very apparent. The two as a rule are distinct. It is just as reasonable to give an unschooled country youth a description of all the Greek ruins in existence and expect him from that beginning and from that one alone to write an unimpeachable history of the Greek nations of early times, as to assume that Joseph Smith could, from a brief description of some Central American ruins, write a reliable history of a people who lived in those southern regions many centuries ago. The proposition that he could do it and did do it is ultra absurd on its face and intelligent men and women should spurn it as something stupid and senseless.

Moreover, it devolves on those who contend that Joseph Smith did base the historical portions of the Book of Mormon on the report of Del Rio, or on reports of other early visitors to the Central American ruins and elsewhere, to show how a reading of those descriptions could possibly put the translator of the Nephite records into possession of the vast amount of ancient historical knowledge, other than American, which the author, if an im­postor, must have had. Neither unschooled youths nor college graduates ever have acquired a knowledge of Old World ancient history by reading brief descriptions of ruins in Central America or Mexico. Joseph Smith, if an impostor, did not only have to possess an extensive and accurate knowledge of the history of every one of the several Old World peoples (as well as of those of the Western World), but it would also be necessary for him to be familiar with the developments of social and literary life, the at­tainments of science, the discoveries of antiquarians—in a word, about all there is on this earth for human beings to know. Other­wise, he could not compose by his own wisdom an ancient Ameri­can history which could possibly stand the test of intelligent criticism without betraying its true character as fiction. He would have to possess a wide range of information, if his work is to stand thorough critical inspection successfully, lie would be required to know what to leave out of his book as well as what to write into its pages. Even the occurrence of single words or phrases, which should not appear on account of their being the coinage of a later date than the times of which the history deals, would be fatal to his pretentions of being a reliable historian. Some of the things which had to be left out of the Book of Mormon, in order that it might stand, as it does on a safe and sure foundation, are now to be considered. Every reader of these lines who is friendly to the “Mormon” cause shall see that it was the power of God alone which kept Joseph Smith, the translator of the Nephite records, from plunging headlong into countless pitfalls which lay before and all around him.

The contractions “can’t,” “couldn’t,” “don’t,” and others of a like character and of constant use among English speaking people, do not occur in the Book of Mormon. Yet, that book, as it has comedown to us, is an issue from the hands of an unlearned, country youth who might easily have trespassed the bounds of safety at this point by using some or all of such common con­tractions. Such forms are foreign to the ancient Jewish, sacred speech. The later Jews did make use of some abbreviations which are written in the margins of their sacred writings or books; but not in the text itself. One of those used is the equivalent of “etc.” as English authors employ it. This form does occur in the Book of Mormon text, but it is not of the same class as those given above. The fact that the Nephite records were laboriously engraved in hieroglyphics—a difficult system of writing under the most favorable conditions—suggests quite forcibly that this abbreviation, for which frequent use is per­missible, is rather to be expected than not.

No titles such as “Mr.,” “Mrs.,” “Miss,” “Prof.,” “Dr.,” “D.D.,” “L.L.D.,” “Ha.,” “B.A.,” “Hon.,” “Ph.D.,” “Lady,” “Gentleman,” “Sir,” “Madam,” “Esquire,” “Excellency,” “High­ness,” “Grace,” “Peer,” “Lord,” “Baron,” “Count,” “Earl,” “Reverend,” or their plurals, together with many others that might be cited, are found in that book. A few, however, used to designate office do occur as, for examples, “King,” “Captain” (general army office), “Governor,” etc.

There are no surnames in the Book of Mormon—a profoundly wise omission, since surnames first came into general use about A.D. 1040.

In no instance is there a letter “q,” “x” or “w” in an uncorrupted proper name in the translated Nephite records. Nor is there one of them in an uncorrupted, Hebraic proper name found in the Bible. Not one of these letters occurs in the Hebrew alphabet under any name, and the Nephites as Israelites, or Hebrews, could not, therefore, make use of them. That the Nephites did not have these letters is manifest from the fact that Joseph Smith, throughout the work of rendering into English orthography several hundred Nephite proper names, did not have need to use a single “q,” “x” or “ w.” These remarks have no reference to corrupted Hebraic and Nephite proper names, nor to those of a strictly translatable character such as “Wonderful Counsellor,” for example, which is merely the meaning of a divine name or title expressed in English. A few Nephite common names have been handed down to us without substituting eqivalents in our own speech, and they, too, are spelled without the use of “q,” “x” or “ w.” These common names, as far as the writer had been able to list them after a careful examination of the Book of Mor­mon text, are “neas,” “sheum,” “ senine,” “seon,” “shnm,” “seuuin,” “limnah,” “ezrom,” “onti,” “amnor,” “shiblon,” “shibhnn,” “antion,” “leali,” “irreantum,” “ rani eump tom,” “deseret,” and “ripliancum.” It is not without some signifi­cance that in this list of names not one of the letters in mind occurs. When this fact is considered in connection with the re­lated one already mentioned, namely, that the Nephite proper names, which make quite a numerous list altogether, are also, barring a few belonging to special classes, spelled without a “q,” “x” or “ w,” the concurrent testimony thus supplied is quite con­clusive that the Nephites did not use the named letters for the very good reason that they did not have them to use. We thus find a close relationship in this respect existing between the Nephite alphabet and that anciently used by the Palestinian Hebrews.

(To be continued).