--- title: Improvement Era description: Monthly periodical of the Mormon church, 1897 onward. This library holds the issues of November 1897 to December 1930. authors: - Widtsoe, John A. collections: - periodicals tags: - magazine - improvement-era periodical: Improvement Era volume: 3 number: 8 published: 1900-06 publisher: Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations publisher_place: Salt Lake City language: en type: magazine reference: 'John A. Widtsoe, "We Walk by Faith," *Improvement Era* 3, no. 8 (June 1900): 561–569.' source: url: https://archive.org/details/improvementera38unse transcription: Transcribed from the Internet Archive scan of each issue (the item for each issue is named in the issue's own source); unnumbered advertising leaves are omitted, printed page numbers are kept as page markers. identifier: improvementera38unse start_page: 561 end_page: 569 rights: status: public-domain basis: US publication 1930 or earlier (published 1900-06) source: https://archive.org/details/improvementera38unse publication_year: 1900 note: The Internet Archive item metadata carries a blanket "© Copyright by Intellectual Reserve, Inc." notice. The library owner judged it inapplicable because this issue was published in 1900, before 1931; a scan-level notice does not restore copyright. --- # We Walk by Faith IMPROVEMENT ERA. Vol. III. JUNE, 1900. No. 8. "WE WALK BY FAITH." BY PROFESSOR JOHN A. WIDTSOE. Faith, the first principle in revealed religion, is defined by the Prophet Joseph Smith* in the words of Paul, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." To this the Prophet adds, "From this we learn that faith is the assurance which men have of things which they have not seen."f On this principle, with this definition, many young persons who have ventured upon the sea of unbelief have wrecked the religion of their childhood; for, the human mind, in some stages of its development, is disinclined to accept as knowledge anything that can not be sensed directly. Nowadays, the young doubter who cannot accept as the foundation of his religion "things which he has not seen," usually turns for comfort and future growth to the results of the study of nature, or science. There he finds truths upon truths, glorious in their beauty and susceptibility to direct and unmistakable proof; and soon he comes back with the pride of the victor. In so-called natural science, he claims to have no need of faith; that if a person * Doc. and Cov., Lecture 1, verse 8. | Loco citato, verse 9. 562 IMPROVEMENT ERA. has only advanced far enough, every concern of science can be known through one, two, or several of the senses. This statement is an heirloom passed from the older to the younger doubters, and accepted by many of the latter as an eternal truth, which needs no further investigation. It is true that, in the beginnings of science, no faith seems to be required; for every statement is based on experiments and observations that may be repeated by every student. It is further true that nothing in science is "taken on trust;" that, however, does not imply that faith, according to Joseph Smith's definition, is unnecessary. To one who understands true theology, natural science is but a part of the greater science of God; and it does not seem reasonable that the fundamental law of the whole should not also be a governing element of the part. That is, if faith is essential in theology, it should be necessary, also, in natural science, especially in its higher forms. This reasoning may be sufficient to the believer; but to the unbeliever it is valueless. The doubter can be convinced only by an examination of science to learn whether it ever requires its followers to believe in things that are unknowable to the five senses. There is no need to be afraid of such an investigation; for, if the theology and the science are both true, both will come out of the investigation as greater friends. This article is written for the purpose of examining a fragmen of science for the faith it requires. It is not an attempt to prove the existence of God, or the divine mission of Joseph Smith, except as the readers may apply the results for themselves; but, simply an effort to show that natural science as well as theology requires a faith which is the assurance of the existence of things not seen. The subject chosen for investigation is one of the most brilliant results of recent science, and is the boast of the champions of modern progress. It is somewhat intricate to present to those not familiar with the particular branch of science to which it belongs, but an effort to follow the exposition will have its reward. It is generally known that several sugars exist; as, for instance, the sugar made from starch, called glucose, and used by the candy makers; the white or brown sugar crust on raisins; the "WE WALK BY FAITH." 563 sugar obtained from sugar beets, or sugar cane; the sugar in milk; and many others not so well known in daily life. These sugars are all very much alike in appearance, taste, and most of their properties. They are extremely important to the human race, as they are necessary in some form or other for the support of life. For many years, although many eminent men have devoted much study to the question, the nature of the sugars was not clearly understood, and the reason for their differences was especially obscure. Early in the 80's a German chemist, Emil Fischer, attacked the subject with new methods of investigation; and to the joy of science, cleared up the hitherto mysterious group of sugars in the most thorough and simple manner. Professor Fischer, mainly through this work, became one of most celebrated scientists of the day, and a few years ago was given the highest honor the German chemist knows: the head professorship of chemistry in the Imperial University at Berlin. How this man did this famous work can be understood in detail only by those who have a knowledge of organic chemistry; what his results are can be understood by every careful reader. A brief review of some elementary scientific facts, known to all, will perhaps make the discussion clearer. A piece of white crystallized glucose, such as is used by candy makers, may easily be divided into two or three pieces by a stroke with a hammer. Each of the pieces may be broken into smaller pieces, and this process of division continued until the sugar powder is as fine as dust. Still, each particle of sugar dust may be divided again and again, if we only have instruments fine enough to continue the process. A question which philosophy asked itself near its beginning was this : Is it possible to keep on dividing a dust particle of sugar (or of any other substance) forever; or is there a particle of sugar so small that it can not be divided again? Neither science nor abstract philosophy has yet been able to answer the question fully. However, science has learned that in the case of sugar, if such a process of division occurs, in course of time a particle of sugar will be obtained which is so small that, if it is divided or broken, the fragments will no longer be sugar, but something entirely different. This smallest piece of sugar, is called a molecule of sugar. The size of such a molecule can not be comprehended by the human 564 IMPR0VEMEN1 ERA. mind; its smallness seems infinite.The mortal eye, though aided by the most powerful microscopes of modern days, could not distinguish a sugar molecule, or even a pile of thousands of them; placed on the tongue, there would be no sensation of sweetness, for the sense of taste is far too gross to recognize one molecule; though it were hurled against our body with the velocity of lightning, we should not feel the impact. To all our senses, the molecule is wholly unknown; and, no doubt, shall remain so while the earth is as it is. Yet the existence of such a particle is as certain as is the existence of the sun in the high heavens. A natural question is, when this molecule of glucose-sugar is divided, into what does it change? Science has investigated this question, aud tells us that each glucose-molecule is made up of six small particles of carbon, twelve particles of hydrogen, and six, of oxygen. Carbon or charcoal is known to all; hydrogen and oxygen are two gases which are constituents of water. The particles of carbon in the glucose molecule are so small that if one were divided it would no longer be carbon; the same with the particles of hydrogen and oxygen, if divided they would change into something else —into what is not yet known to man. These smallest particles are called atoms of charcoal, hydrogen and oxygen. If, instead of an atom of charcoal, we use the letter C; for atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, H and ; the molecule of glucose may be written C6 H12 06. These are also indisputable facts of science. This much was known when Professor Fischer began his work. In addition, it was known that several sugars occurred in nature, the smallest particles of which contained the same number of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms; i. e.: had the same formula, Ce H12 06, and yet differed from each other in some of their properties. It was the cause of this difference which the eminent German discovered. After many years of patient labor, he announced that the sugars with similar molecules, differed from each other because the atoms within the molecules were arranged differently. This had been suspected before; and Fischer did not stop with this, but showed definitely what the arrangement and differences of arrangement are. His results were supported by such experimental evidence that they were accepted without hesi- H HH H H H "WE WALK BY FAITH." 565 tation by the scientific world. It is impossible, here, to go into this intensely interesting paragraph of science, and tell how new sugars were discovered, and old ones defined by this brilliant work. For the purpose of this article, it will be sufficient to quote a few of the results. It was found, for instance, that the molecules of three of the most common sugars had the following structures:* I. II. III. H 2 =C— 0— H =C— 0— 2 H =C— 0- -H 2 H—0—C— H- -0— C— H— 0—C— H— 0—C— H- -0— C— H— C—0--H 1 H-C—0— H—C—0— H—C— 0--H H— 0-C— C=0 H— 0—C— H—C=0 H =C— 0— 2 H— C=0 Dextrose.f Laevulose.f Galactose.f Referring to the above diagrams, it will be seen that the six carbon particles or atoms are held together in a straight line; and that the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are attached to the carbon atoms, but in different ways. In some cases the — H combination is on one side of the carbon line, in others, on the other side. A little study will show that, although each arrangement contains six particles of carbon, twelve of hydrogen and six of oxygen, because of the difference in arrangement, they are far from being identical. This explains very simply the cause of the difference of the sugars with the same formula. This relative arrangement of the atoms in the * The formulas are taken from Tollens, Handbuch der Kohlenhydrate, Band 2, p. 14. t Dextrose and laevulose combine to form the ordinary cane or beet sugar. Dextrose and galactose unite to form milk sugar, which is found, as far as is known, in the milk of all mammals. Dextrose, laevulose and galactose unite to form a sugar, raffinose, which is found in small quan- known well in the sugar factories, for it is tities in the sugar beet, and abundant in the symps, and produces lengthened, sharp, sugar crystals. 566 IMPROVEMENT ERA. molecule has been determined by Dr. Fischer for nearly all of the common sugars. Not only that, but, by his greater experience, he has been able to build up new sugars and define with almost absolute certainty their molecular structure. Without any further study of details, let us now examine the facts stated for the faith they require of us — or of the scientist. We are first of all asked to believe in the existence of particles, unknowable to our senses, the molecules; then, to believe in still smaller particles, the atoms, which compose the molecules, but whose relative weights and general properties have been determined. Here a faith is required in "things that can not be seen/' and in the properties of these "things." It is true that the modern thinker does not pretend to describe, in detail, the atoms, their shapes, hardness, color and other properties; he does not need all that for the certainty of their existence. He looks upon them simply as the ultimate causes of effects that he may note with his physical senses. Does theology require more? Does any sane man, in asking us to believe in God, for instance, attempt to describe him in detail ? We know God only in part, and hold that in our present state we are not capable of knowing him fully; even as the student shall never know the atoms fully, so long as he has only the senses he can use on this earth. The scientist goes farther than this, however, for he asks us not only to have faith in the invisible, un-tasteable, un-feelable atoms, but in the exact manner in which these atoms are arranged within the molecule. True, it is claimed, only, that the relative arrangement is known, but the faith required still leads us far beyond the simple faith in atoms. Has any man asked us to believe that he can tell us the structure of God's dwelling? No principle in the religion taught by the Latter-day Saints requires a larger faith than this. And still, greater faiths are required for other and deeper subjects in science. The only difference that can exist between the faith in theology, and the chemistry of sugars, is the relative value of the evidence upon which we base the faiths. That subject does not come within the province of this article, though the writer may be allowed to state, that from his personal study, the evidence for faith in God and his plan of salvation is far greater and more con- 11 WE WALK BY FAITH." 567 vincing than that for the constitution of the sugars. And the latter, the clearest thinkers and experimenters of the day hold to be facts absolutely established. "Absolute facts?" some will say, "we have only your word that these statements regarding the sugars are true." Such an objection, though perfectly proper, does not make the statement false; and anyone, who wishes to convince himself, directly, of the truth of the matter, must cultivate a sufficient knowledge of chemistry to follow and repeat the work which has led up to the conclusions stated in this article.The above question, however, leads to a consideration of the manner in which the scientist is brought into these great faiths. They do not come at once, as a "great wakening light," but slowly, through a process of normal, guided growth. Professor Fischer,f or instance,once upon a time, made his first chemical experiment, from which he drew a simple conclusion to which none could object; his second experiment furnished him a second conclusion; the two results combined produced a third conclusion, and so on through thousands of experiments and conclusions, until the brilliant results of the modern study of sugars were reached. In short, the scientist works very simply by careful observation of nature, "the earth and its fullness," and by as careful reasoning from the facts observed: the mind builds noble structures of the material the senses bring. The same method may be employed in gaining a faith in the principles of theology; and the Apostle Paul tells us distinctly that the righteousness of God is revealed "from faith to faith;" and that the eternal power of God and the Godhead, and "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." Even so with the scientist, he begins with the things that are made and proceeds "from faith to faith," gaining "here a little, and there a little," until a faith is reached, which, to him who has not followed its growth, may seem absurd in its loftiness. How many of those who have joined in the cant of doubt have given a tenth as much time to a scientific study of God or the Gospel, as is required to prove any one of the greater faiths in science? To prove the truth of the present chemistry of sugars, alone, is a work that requires many years of persistent effort, of hard physical and mental labor, extending through the days and into the 568 IMPROVEMENT ERA. nights. How many doubters have given such questioning care to the existence of God, which all will admit is the greatest of human problems? Until such study has been given, the doubter has no right to claim for his views more than the name of personal, questionable opinions. No one would be heard in the councils of science, who did not come prepared to defend his views from the foundation upward. In this place, it must be stated that perhaps less than a dozen chemists have repeated Fischer's work on the sugars, and perhaps less than a hundred have followed out in complete detail his writings on the subject. The other chemists are content to take the word of these men, that the work and conclusions are right. Perhaps the most the majority do is to select a few experiments from the work, at random, and test them. They can do other work with greater profit than to repeat in detail what many men have already proved to be true. Even so it is in theology. We accept the authenticated testimonies of other men, and seek for ourselves other and new proofs for which, perhaps, we are better adapted or in greater need. Joseph Smith, the clear-sighted, expressed this idea well: "To some it is given by the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world; to others it is given to believe on their words that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful."* Let the young doubter, the incipient doubter it may be, think of these statements, and make his doubting, if he needs must doubt, a rational, healthy one, worthy of a child of Utah, or, if the doubter would rather have it, of a child of reason. Do not take the word of one man, or of two, of one book, or of one observation; build your faith in a truly scientific manner, by persistent labor, and refuse to possess any other. We must all be followers, for that is nature's law, but let us follow those powers which we know are correct. Do not let your argument against theology be of a general, intangible, negative nature; such as, "You can't prove it," "Show me an angel," "You have not seen the golden plates of Joseph Smith." By such arguments a negative position only is assumed which is far from scientific. Let doubt be positive in its efforts; *Doc. and Cov., Sec. 46; 13 and 14. "WE WALK BY FAITH." 569 compare science with theology systematically, and with equal thoroughness, and the grand support of the great ones of past ages, will be found the refuge of the honest of this age. Now then, it must be said that what has been written in this article is for the beginner, for the doubter who questions the sufficiency of theological faith. Those who have already secured the foundations of their faith will testify that the Gospel differs from modern science in the greater desire for the Holy Spirit of God, and in the consequently greater possession of that Spirit. Through the power of this Spirit, faith in the Gospel comes to all who are honest in very deed, as a great light, without the slow growth necessary in science. This, however, does not render inconsequent the necessity of work as the foundation of all faith; through the infinite grace of God, that faith is often given in a manner not understood by us. If the faith of science is compared with that of theology in the greatest detail, the superiority of the science of God may be shown in many ways, especially in the fact that God has been seen and heard by mortals, while no man has claimed to have seen the atoms believed in by the chemists. That is, after all, the final difference between God-science and man-science ; the ultimate idea of the former, may be seen and heard and felt; while the ultimate ideas of the latter, must remain abstractions to the human mind forever.