Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-12-03

I
and dreams and poems--the angels lad.
der, tho rainbow covenant of hops and
peace for animals M vol rs men, the
garden Of sweet innocence and OF sad
primoyal fall"
About the proposition here laid
down, very little need be said. II
seems 10 contain contradictions Of
very glazing nature. The author evil.
IDENTIFY feels concerned about tho DIN.
cultics In the Scriptures and therefore
tries 10 turn the whole structure upsiie
down 80 AZ 10 hide these from view.
But In 30 doing, he still hnds that the
records are "not infalliblo" and yet
perfectly veracious''--prcsenting, II
seems,a difficulty still more unsolvable
than any which he removes. For, how
can record be at once fallible and
perfectly veracious? One more instance
OF the hclplessness OF modern theology.
incidentally, the author states that
the Book OF Mormon Is "beneath
criticism, "aud this groundless state
ment should, for the sake OF truth, be
emphaticalIy conlradictod.
The trouble Ia, the world refuses, % q
a general rule, TO road the Book OF
Mormon with Wow to honest critic.
lem. II hiss become almost no axiom
with the so-callcd scholars OF the
world that that racred record cannot
bear close investigation. II has been
viewed through the hazy mists ofpre.
JUDGES and denied n fair, impartial
hearing. II has boon doomed, among
the thousands OF Christian confeasors,
to the same fate to which the Bible IL
subject among the inndels. Nothing ia
more strange than this. For those
who accept the Book OF Mormon invite
Investigation and milu,ain that II this
record must bs rejected, tho Bible
must DO rejected, too. And II one Ia 40
cepted rs divine, both must be accept
Cd. The two must stand or fall to.
gether
To grove this statement In full
wouli no, be possible within the limits
Of this article. but one point or two
may 10 offered for consideration. MT.
NJ. T. Lamb, who Ia about the only
ono who has attempted to handle the
Book OF Mormon critlcally--snd he
does It only In order to pun II 10
picces-may CONVENE lily be referred
TO In this brief investigation.
His first objection Is that Gods hand
cannot be- traced In the book. To him
It is laundering, stupid, etc. This Ia
no doubt true with regard to all who
read this sacred record With unbeliev.
ing hosrt and preIudiced mind. But
what Ia the fact in regard to tho Bible?
Can ingersoli trace the hand Of God Ia
II?
Tho fact that an unbeliever cannot
see the hand OF God In n book, does
not prove that God 10 not the author.
The question Is WHISTLER the Book oil
Mormon gives enlightenment and con-
ISOLATION and hope to those who study
1t with hearts prepared for tho truths
1t contains. And to this fact thousands
can testify. Many are unable to trace
the hand n Creator even In nature,
tut that docs not prove that nature has
no divine Creator. To tho thong
MUD every flower, every leaf, every
little beautiful insect Ia poem OF d..
vine authorship. 30 with the Bible
and the Book Of Mormon. The hand
Of God Ia everywhere traoeablc.
Another objection is tho grammar
Of the sacred volume. "rbat al
might see tho writing which he hac
wrote upon the rent" IL given as an
instance Of bad grammar, and Il 1,
seriously argued that God could never
have inspired that. Well. The
fac, Is that the same objection nigh
be- applied 10 the Bible. In the Revel
alton Of John for instance wo read tina
the Revelator heard great voice as OF I
trumpet, "and | turned TO see thu
voice." (Rev. |, l2.) When we nc
c.pt--as all Chr.stians do-that Got
inspired the words "to SEQ tn,
voice. ut Is not difficult to accept the
Inspiration OF the frat quoted expires
sion. Inspiration does not mean tina
! the Almighty uses the inspired man y
machine, u typewriter, n
It were. II means that the divin
mind operates through the human
: mind, moving the inspired person L
act, speak, think or feel for tho tim
. being in Harmony with God. But II
this operation the faculties OF man ar,
: the Instruments used. Hence the per
: ceptiblo results OF inspiration mus
I necessarily partAko to some extent O
' the individuality OF the person In
I spired. This Is exempiifed every
1. whore in the Bible. The student vii
4 notice the difference between IN
> language OF David, tho king, an
4 Amos, the shepherd; Paul, the fiamin
orator aud keen logician, and Peter
/ the unlearned fisherman. Now, 1t
not known that God ever selected hi
inspired servants with reference I,
their linguistic abilities. On the con
trary, He had regard to other an,
more important qualifications.