The “Mormon” Doctrine of Deity

IMPROVEMENT ERA. Vol. VI. FEBRUARY, 1903. No. 4. THE "MORMON" DOCTRINE OF DEITY. A REJOINDER TO REV. C. VAN DER DONCKT'S "REPLY" TO ELDER ROBERTS' DISCOURSE ON THE ABOVE SUBJECT. BY B. H. ROBERTS. Ill—MR. VAN DER DONCKT'S CONTRASTS BETWEEN MAN AND GOD. Of the Intellectual Powers qf Man. Mr. Van Der Donckt insists that man can never become a God, because he "is finite or linr'ted in everything; ever changeable and changing, ever susceptible of improvement." Granting that man is ever susceptible of improvement, ought not the gentleman to proceed with some caution before dogmatically asserting that there are to be limiations to man's enlargement, to his progress, and to his attainments ? Given the susceptibility to improve, never end- ing duration through which the processes of improvement shall continue, and God to direct such processes, who can dogmatize upon the limitations of the intelligences now known as men ? It is not enough to say in reply to this that the "finite can never be- come infinite;" nor to argue that if God were an exalted man he would possess contradictory attributes, such as being both finite and infinite, compound and simple. We have already seen that

242 IMPROVEMENT ERA. when one undertakes to treat of the infinite, he is dealing with the unknown, dealing with terms that stand for the names of things of which the mind can form no adequate or satisfactory conception. But so far as the Father and the Son are concerned—personages held out to us in the scriptures as Gods—we have seen (Era, present volume, pp. 171-2 and 176-7-8) that absolute infinity may not be predicated of them. In person, form, and the general nature of their physical being, they have limitations; and whatever of infinity or simplicity is ascribed to them must be ascribed to mind and attributes, not to personality. Seeing, then, that the revelation of God in the scriptures, and especially in the revelation of God in the person and character of Jesus Christ, forces upon us a conception of God that represents Him as concrete rather than abstract, finite in some respects, and infinite in others; and as com- pound rather than simple—it follows that urging the apparent absurdity of such characteristics in Deity as these is of no avail against the facts in the revelations God has given of himself. And now, as the limitations found in man, as to his physical person, nature, etc.— and which are supposed by Mr. V. to forever bar man from attaining divinity—are found also in God the Father and in God the Son, it is quite clear that these physical limitations may not be urged as insuperable obstacles to man attaining divinity. As for the spirit of man—the mind—who can say what its metes and bounds are, much less what they shall be ? Who comprehends its powers ? Who dare say that it is not now potentially infinite ? and shall be hereafter actually infinite ? I have already called attention to the fact (page 180) that it is said of Messiah that in his humiliation, his judgment was taken away, which doubtless means that in his earth-life his intellectual and spiritual powers were somewhat veiled; and with man doubtless it is the same; in his earth-life that intellectual excellence which he enjoyed as a spirit in the mansions of the Father, is veiled; but veiled as it is, there is of its manifestations sufficient to inspire one with awe, and make him hesitate ere pronouncing dogmatically upon its nature or its limitations. To illustrate my thought: I am this moment sitting at my desk, and am inclosed by the four walls of my room—limited as to my personal presence to this spot. But by the mere act of my will, I find I have the power to project my-

THE "MORMON" DOCTRINE OF DEITY. 243 self in thought to any part of the world. Instantly, I can be in the crowded streets of the world's metropolis. I walk through its well remembered thoroughfares, I hear the rush and roar of its busy multitudes, the rumble of vehicles, the huckster's cries, the cab-man's calls, sharp exclamations and quick retorts in the jost- ling throngs, the beggar's piping cry, the sailor's song, fragments of conversation, broken strains of music, the blare of trumpets, the neighing of horses, ear-piercing whistles, ringing of bells, shouts, responses, rushing trains, and all that mingled din and soul-stirring roar that rises in clamor above the great town's traffic. At will, I leave all this and stand alone on mountain tops in Syria, India, or overlooking old Nile's valley, wrapped in the awful grandeur of solemn silence. Here I may bid fallen empires rise and pass in grand procession before my mental vision, and live again their little lives: fight once more their battles; begin again each petty struggle for place, for power, for control of the world's affairs; revive their customs; live again their loves and hates, and preach once more their religions and their philosophies—all this the mind may do, and that as easily and as quickly as in thought it may leave this room, cross the street to a neighbor's home, and there take note of the familiar objects within his habitation. Nor does this begin to indicate all the power of the mind in these re- spects. Though the sun is ninety-two millions of miles away, on the instant, in thought, one may stand upon it within its resplen- dent atmosphere. In the same manner, and with equal ease, one may project himself to the Pole Star, though it is so distant that it requires forty years for a-ray of light to pass through the inter- vening space between that star and our earth, and still light travels at the rate of one hundred and eighty-six thousand miles per second! Nor is the end yet In like manner, and with equal ease, one may instantly project himself in thought from within the four walls of his room to those more distant constellations of stars known to exist out in the depths of space, whence it would require a ray of light a million years to reach our earth; yet, standing there in a world so distant from ours, one would find himself still centered in the universe, and out beyond him, in a straight line from the earth whence he has traveled, would extend other realms in splendor no less magnificent. From the vasty deep of these realms, he could

244 IMPRO VEMENT ERA. call up other worlds, and people them with creatures of his thought, as one may call up empires to pass in mighty procession before him in the Nile or in the Ganges valley. Distance, then, to the mind of man, is as nothing. The infinity of extension, and of duration also, is matched by the infiniteness of man's mind, though that mind have a local habitation and a name within a tabernacle of flesh and bone, and that tabernacle be con- fined within the four walls of a room. This is but a glimpse at the infinite powers of the mind of man in one direction, and under cir- cumstances that somewhat veil the splendor of his intellectual and spiritual glory; what those powers may be in all particulars when man shall be made free from the restricting and depressing en- vironment of the present earth-life, no one may say; but enough may be seen from what is here pointed out to establish the firm belief that, as the intellectual powers in man rise to match the in- finitudes of extension and duration, as indicated, so, too, in all other respects shall the mind of man, when free, rise to the har- mony of all the infinities that make up the universe. Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one with each other even as he and the Father are one (St. John 17: 11); that they all might be one; and as the Father was in Christ, and as Christ was in the Father, so also would Messiah have the disciples to be one in him and in the Father, that they might all be one with the Father and the Son, and with each other, even as the Father and the Son are one (St. John 17: 21, 22). But for the disciples to be "one" with the Father and the Son, in the complete sense in which the Messiah here prayed for that "oneness," necessarily means to be "like" the Father and the Son; and that "likeness" can rise to the full height of its perfection only when it reaches equality with those with whom the disciples are to be "one" or "like." If man may not rise to che height of divinity, how shall this prayer of the Christ be realized ? Or must we believe that the divine wisdom in the Son of God exercised itself in praying for that which is unattainable, that which is not only absurd but impossible? It is unthinkable that the divine nature shall be brought down to be "one" with men; so that if the "oneness" which also involves "like- ness," be realized, in fulfilment of Messiah's prayer, it must be by

THE "MORMON" DOCTRINE OF DEITY. 245 men rising to divinity, Mr. Van Der Donckt's "impossibilities" to the contrary notwithstanding. "Behold the Man Has Become as One oj Us." To illustrate his contention that roan can never rise to the quality of divinity, Mr. Van Der Donckt indulges in comparisons between man and God; and, to emphasize that contrast, challenges well-known men of science to the exercise of creative powers, con- trasts the frequent collisions upon our railroads with the order, regularity, and safety of the movements among the planetary sys- tems where never a collision occurs; and then indulges in such folly as this: They [astronomers] can indeed predict transits and eclipses; but suppose astronomers from New Zealand, on their way to America to ob- serve this fall's moon eclipse, meet with an accident in mid-ocean, would they at once send this wireless telegram to the United States' star- gazers assembled say at Lick Observatory: "Belated by leak. Please retard eclipse two hours that we may not miss it." As well might all the telescope men in the world combined, attempt to fetch down the rings of Saturn for the construction of a royal race track, as pretend to control movements of the heavenly bodies. The gentleman also points out how precarious are the powers of man: The helpless babe of yesterday may indeed rival Mozart, Hayden, and Paderewski, but tomorrow he may rise with lame hands and pierced ear-drums; and millions of worshipers of the shattered idol are powerless to restore it to the musical world. This part of the gentleman's argument sinks far below the general high level of his "Reply," and is unworthy of his intel- ligence. I have already pointed out (pp. 98, 99), that Latter-day Saints do not teach that man in his present state and condition is a God. On the contrary, they admit man's narrowness, weakness, imperfections and limitations; and also recognize the great gulf stretching between man in his present state and that dignity of divinity to which somewhere and sometime in the eternities it is within his province and power to attain. Mr. Van Der Donckt's

246 IMPROVEMENT ERA. comparisons, therefore, between God and man, in the tatter's present condition, are not in point, for the reason that the Latter-day Saints do not claim that man is now a Deity, only as he may be thought potentially one. Taking the highest type of man to start with, consider him as raised from the dead and hence immortal; give him Gods for guides, teachers, and companions, with the uni- verse for the field of his operations, then let Mr. V., or anyone else, say what man's attainments will be one thousand millions of years hence; and that period, let it be remembered, long as it may seem to man's petty methods of computing duration, is but as a moment in the existence of an immortal being. Let Mr. Van Der Donckt institute his comparisons from that point of man's career, instead of from the present point of man's weakness and mortality, and then say if ultimately divinity seems so unattainable as now. If he shall say he is unable to institute his comparisons at the point proposed, because what man will then be is unknown, I shall agree with him; but let him acknowledge, a3 p?rforce he must, that man will be immeasurably advanced beyond what he is now; also let him admit the injustice he does our doctrine by insisting upon making his comparisons between God and man as the latter now stands, under the effects of the fall, and in his humiliation and weakness. After indulging in the aforesaid comparisons, Mr. V. further remarks: I fear Mr. B. H. Roberts will be inclined to think God jealous be- cause he gives man no show for comparison with him. This would certainly be a less blunder of the Utah man, ("I will not give my glory to another") (Isaiah 42: 8) than his contention, which is a mere echo of Satan's promise in Paradise: 'You shall be as Guds.'" (Genesis 3: 5). To which I answer, not so; the contention of the "Utah man" is not the echo of Satan's promise, "you shall be as Gods." On the contrary, the "Utah man's" contention is bottomed on the august and sure word of God, uttered in Eden, when he said of the man Adam—''Behold the man is become as one oj us, to know good and evil" (Genesis 3: 22)—a passage which the Reverend gentleman seems to have overlooked.

THE "MORMON" DOCTRINE OF DEITY. 247 IV—OF THE UNITY OF GOD. There remains to be considered the Unity of God. The Latter-day Saints believe in the unity of the creative and governing force or power of the universe as absolutely as any orthordox Christian sect in the world. One cannot help being profoundly impressed with the great truth that creation, through- out its whole extent, bears evidence of being one system, presents at every point unity of design, and perfect harmony in its govern- ment. Nor am I unmindful of the force there is in the deduction usually drawn from these premises, viz., that the Creator and Gov- ernor of the universe, must necessarily be one. But I am also pro- foundly impressed with another phenomenon that comes within the experience of man. at least to a limited extent, viz., the possibility of intelligences arriving at perfect agreement, so as to act in absolute unity. We see manifestations of this principle in human governments, and other human associations of various kinds. And this, too, is observable, viz., that the greater and more perfect the intelligence the more perfect can the unity of purpose and of effort become: so that one needs only the existence of perfect intelligences to operate together in order to secure perfect one- ness, whence shall come the one system evident in the universe, exhibiting at every point unity of design, and perfect harmony in its government. In other words, "oneness" can be the result of perfect agreement among Many Intelligences as surely as it can be the result of the existence of One Only Intelligence. Also, the decrees and purposes of the perfectly united Many can be as ab- solute as the decrees and purposes of the One Only Intelligence. One is also confronted with the undeniable fact that inclines him to the latter view as the reasonable explanation of the "Oneness" that is evidently in control of the universe—the fact that there are in existence many Intelligences, and, endowed as they are with free will, it cannot be denied that they influence, to some extent, the course oj events and the conditions that obtain. Moreover, it will be found, on careful inquiry, that the explanation of the "Oneness" control- ing in the universe, on the theory that it results from the perfect agreement or unity of Many Intelligences, is more in harmony with the revelations of God on the subject than the theory that there

248 IMPROVEMENT ERA. is but One Only Intelligence that enters into its government. This theory Mr. Van Der Donckt, of course, denies, and this is the issue between us that remains to be tested. The Reverend gentleman affirms that the first chapter of the Bible "reveals the supreme fact that there is but One Only and Living God." This I deny; and affirm the fact that the first chap- ter of the Bible reveals the existence of a plurality of Gods. It is a matter of common knowledge that the word translated "God" in the first chapter of our English versions of the Bible, in the Hebrew is Elohim—plural of Eloah—and should be rendered "Gods"—so as to read "In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth," etc. * * * The Gods said, "Let there be light." * * * The Gods said, "Let us make man," etc., etc. So notorious is the fact that the Hebrew plural, blohim, is used by Moses, that a variety of devices have been employed to make the first chapter of Genesis conform to the "One Only and Living God" idea. Some Jews in explanation of it, and in defense of their belief in One Only God, hold that there are several Hebrew words which have a plural form but singular number—of which Elohim is one—and they quote as proof of this the words maim, meaning water, shamaim, meaning heaven: and panim, meaning the face or surface of a person or thing. "But," says a Christian Jewish scholar,* "if we examine these words, we shall find that though apparently they may have a singular meaning, yet, in reality, thty have a plural or collective one; thus, for instance, 'maim' water means a collection of waters, forming one collective whole; and thus again 'shamaim,,' heaven, is also, in reality as well as in form, of the plural number, meaning what we call in a similar way in English, 'the heavens;' comprehending all the various regions which are included under that title." Other Jewish scholars content themselves in accounting for this inconvenient plural in the opening chapter of Genesis, by *This is Rev. H. Highton, M. A. and Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford, I quote from his lecture on "God a Unity and Plurality," pub- lished in a Christian Jewish periodical called The Voice of Israel, Febru- ary number, 1844.

THE "MORMON" DOCTRINE OF DEITY. 249 saying that, in the Hebrew, Elohim better represents the idea of "Strong," "Mighty," than the singular form would, and for this reason it was used—a view accepted by not a few Christian scholars. Thus, Dr. Elliott, Professor of Hebrew in Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania, says: "The name Elohim (singular Eloah) is the generic name of God, and, being plural in form, is probably a plural f excellence and majesty."* Dr. Havernick derives the word Elohim, from a Hebrew root now lost, coluit, and thinks that the plural is used merely to indicate the abundance and super-richness contained in the Divine being.f Rabbi Jehuda Hallevi (twelfth century) found in the usage of the plural Elohim a protest against idolaters, who call each personified power Eloah, and all collectively Elohim. "He interpreted it as the most gen- eral name of the Deity, distinguishing him as manifested in the exhibition of his power without reference to his personality or moral qualities, or any special relations which he bears to man."$ A number of Christian scholars attempt to account for the use of the plural Elohim by saying that it foreshadows the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, that is, it recognizes the existence of the three persons in one God. "It is expressive of omnipotent power; and by its use here (first chap. Genesis) in the plural lorm is obscurely taught at the opening of the Bible, a doctrine clearly revealed in other parts of it, viz., that though God is one, there is a plurality of persons in the Goihead—Father, Son, and Spirit, who were engaged in the creative work."§ This view was maintained at length by Rev. H. Highton, in the Christian Jewish periodical, The Voice of Israel (1844), before quoted; "But Calvin, Mercer, Dresius and Ballarmine," says Dr. Hackett,|| of the Theological Instiluion of Newton, Massachusetts—editor of Smith's Bible

• "Vindication of Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch," p. 65. f See "Kitto's Biblical Literature," Art. "God," Vol. I, p. 777. X Smith's Bible Diet. (Hackett ed.) Art. Jehovah, p. 1242. § "Critical and Explanatory Commentary" (Jamieson, Fausset and Brown) Gen. i: 1, 2. || Smith's Bible Dictionary (Hackett ed.) Art. Jehovah Vol. II, p.

250 IMPROVEMENT ERA. Dictionary—have given the weight of their authority against an explanation so fanciful and arbitrary." Others explain the use of the plural "we," or "us," by saying that in the first chapter of Genesis Moses represents God as speak- ing of himself, in that manner, in imitation of the custom of kings, who speak of themselves as "we," instead Of in the singular, "I." In other words, it is the royal "we" or "us." This theory, however, is answered, as pointed out by Rev. H. Highton, by the fact that the use of what is called the "royal plural" is a modern, not an ancient custom; and reference to the usage of the kings of the Bible discloses the fact that they always speak of themselves as "I" or "me," not as "we" or "us."* Modern Bible criticism, usually denominated "The Higher Criticism," is to a great extent—so far as criticism of the five books of Moses is concerned—based upon the exclusive use of the plural Elohim in one section, and the use of Jehovah, singular, in another. "The Pentateuch, therefore, it is asserted, is composed of two different documents, the one Elohistic, and the other Jeho- vistic, consequently it cannot be the work of a single author."f With the various devices for accounting for the use of the plural form Elohim, in the first chapter of the Bible, I have nothing to do here. They are simply pointed out as showing the wide recognition that is given to the fact of the use of the plural form Elohim that should be rendered in English "Gods;" and also the perplexity its use occasions among those whose principles call upon them to harmonize its use with the belief in "One Only and Living God." Mr. Van Der Donckt admits the use of the plural Elohim, but undertakes to explain away the force of its use as follows: Whenever Elohim occurs in the Bible, in sense 1, (meaning the True God) it is employed with singular verbs and singular adjectives. Relative to this, a friendf directs my attention to Genesis i:

• Voice of Israel (1844) p. 95. t "Vindication of Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch" (Elliott) p. 64. J This ia Prof. A. Ramseyer, of the Latter-day Saints' University.

THE "MORMON" DOCTRINE OF DEITY. 251 26: "Let us make man in our image," etc, which in Hebrew is Maach—"we will make," first person plural future of the verb Asah: betsalmaun—be, "in;" tselem, "image;" Nu, "our," possessive adjective, first person plural. So that in Genesis i: 26, we have a case where Elohim is used in connection with a plural verb, and also a plural possessive adjective, and Mr. Van Der Donckt will not say that Elohim does not, in Genesis i: 26, refer to true Gods. Again in Genesis iii: 22—"Man is become as one of us" Mr. Ram- seyer suggests that here, again, the pronoun used is in the first person piural. I find this view of both these passages sustained by Rev. H. Highton in the lecture before quoted. First he says: The Hebrew word meaning God, is itself a plural word, implying thereby, as we contend, a plurality of persons in the Godhead. * * We find the plural word Elohim, or God, most usually, though not always, coupled with a singular verb or adjective. * * * * But lest from the constant use of the word Elohim with the singular number, we should be led to suppose that God is in no sense a plurality, it has pleased him, by the inspiration of his Holy Spirit, to cause that it should be sometimes used with a plural verb or adjective. I will men- tion some of the clearest passages in which it is so used, that you may be enabled to refer to them in the Hebrew. You will find it used in a plural verb in Genesis xx: 13. "And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house," etc; and again, in Genesis xxxv: 7, "And he built there an altar, and called the place El Bethel: because there God appeared unto him." And with a plural adjective in Joshua xxiv: 19; and again in Deut. v: 26 (in the original Hebrew, v: 23). But we have not merely the plural use of the word Elohim to men- tion in this part of the argument; we have some very distinct passages, still more directly implying the plurality of persons. There is a very remarkable place of the kind in Eccle. xii: 1, where it says: "Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth." In the original Hebrew, the word is in the plural, and if translated literally, would be, "Remember now thy Creators," etc. * * * In connection with this ex- pression of Solomon about man's Creators, it is a very remarkable cir- cumstance, that in the account of the creation of man, given by Moses in the book of Genesis, the plural is also directly used, for it is there recorded, Genesis i: 26, "And God said, Let us make" etc., or "we will make," etc., so that Moses as well as Solomon very emphatically declares that the great Creator of man consists of more than one person; for whom could God have been addressing when He said, Let us make, etc. ?

252 IMPROVEMENT ERA. I know that, in order to escape the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the passage, it has been asserted that God was here addressing and tak- ing counsel with the angels; but this explanation cannot in any degree bear the test of an accurate examination of the passage; for is there the slightest ground for supposing that the angels took any part in the creation of man, when God said, Let us make? or shall we say that man was made in the image and likeness of the angels, when God said, Let us make, etc., in our image? Surely not, for Moses expressly adds, (v. 27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. But there are some other passages which we ought to examine, where God in the same way speaks of himself in the plural number; thus in Genesis iii: 22, "And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever," etc. There are no words which I know which could more distinctly assert the plurality of persons in God than these, where he says, "one of us." M. Leeser, of Philadelphia, the editor of the Occident, which is the American Jewish magazine, in his sermon on the Messiah, explains this passage as spoken to the angels—"one of us," meaning himself and the angels;—but never can I believe that the Great Everlasting Creator would thus put himself on a level with the created angels, and say, "one of us," * * he would either have said to the angels, "Behold, man has bocome as one of you," or else have said, "Behold, the man has become like me, to know good and evil." . This view of Genesis i: 26 is also maintained by Prof. W. H. Chamberlin, of Brigham Young College, Logan, Utah, in the Era for November, 1902. He says: "That Elohim was used in the plural sense is shown in the twenty-sixth verse, where the Elohim in referring to themselves use the plural suffix Nu, "our," twice, and they also use the plural form of the verb Naaseh, "let us make." The Professor also adds the illustration of Genesis xi: 7: where Nerdhah, "let us descend," and Nabhlah, "let us confuse," two verbs in the plural, proceed from the mouth of God."*

• I commend Professor Chamberlin's whole article to the reader as most worthy of his attention at this point: and personally, I wish to thank the Professor for it as a most timely contribution to the contro- versy.

THE "MORMON " DOCTRINE OF DEITY. 253 In the light of these facts, the statement of Mr. V. that whenever Elohim occurs in the Bible, as meaning the true God, it is employed with singular verbs and singular adjectives only, seems to have been made without that careful comideration which the importance of the declaration required. The facts adduced in the foregoing stand also against Mr. V.'s contention that whenever the plural "gods" occurs in Holy Writ, it applies only " to false gods and idols;" or "to representatives of God, such as angels, judges, kings." They were not false gods, nor representatives of God merely, who said: 'Let us make man in our image" (Genesis i: 26); nor false gods, or mere representatives of God merely, who said: 'The man has become as one of us" (Genesis ii: 7); and so also with other passages in the quotation from Rev. Highton's lec- ture. Here it may be as well to note the remarks of Mr. Van Der Donckt with reference to the "Mormon" Church leaders' knowledge of Hebrew. The Rev. gentleman is of the opinion that, Had the "Mormon" Church leaders known Hebrew, the original lan- guage of the book of Moses and nearly the whole of the Old Testament, they would not have been guilty of the outrageous blunders of the Pearl of Great Price and of the Catechism. Mr. V. here quotes from the Catechism the account of the creation taken from the Pearl of Great Price, in which the plural "Gods" is used instead of the singular form "God." It is prob- able that the "Mormon" Church leaders were better acquainted with Hebrew than Mr. V. gives them credit for. A number of years ago (1870) a certain chaplain of the United States Senate pre- sumed not a little on the ignorance of a "Mormon" Church leader— Elder Orson Pratt —respecting Hebrew, and ventured, in the not- able debate held by them in the 'Mormon" Tabernacle, at Salt Lake City, to parade the few Hebrew stem-words, and their derivatives, which he had conned with care before leaving Washington, with a view of making them effective in support of the marginal reading of Leviticus 18: 18, in our common English vers on. To the chap- lain's surprise, the "Mormon" apos le was able to follow him in the discussion of the original Hebrew text, and demons rate that he had a knowledge of Hebrew which made his opponent's special prepara-

264 IMPROVEMENT ERA, tion of a few Hebrew words and passages look very much like a cheap bid for a reputation for learning, which the chaplain's knowl- edge of Hebrew, at least, did not warrant. Nor is that all the story. Elder Pratt, having observed the stress which the chaplain had laid upon the marginal rendering of Leviticus 18: 18, in a dis- course deliverad in Washington, D. C, before President Grant, members of his cabinet, and members of Congress—to call Dr. Newman out, to give him confidence to introduce his defense of the marginal rendering of the passage in the debate at Salt Lake City—Elder Pratt quoted the marginal reading of an unimportant passage, and thus invited the discussion of the text in the original Hebrew. The Elder's bait took, the discussion largely turned, after that, upon the text in question, much to the chagrin of the Senate's chaplain; and Leviticus 18: 18 has been somewhat his- torical hereabouts, and in Washington, ever since. But how came Orson Pratt acquainted with Hebrew? The fact is, that in the winter of 1835-6 a school of languages was established by the Church, at Kirtland, which many of the leading Elders of the Church attended. Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt being among the number, Professor Joshua Seixas, of Hudson, Ohio, being employed as teacher. The Elders were enthusiastic in their work, and after Prof. Seixas' term as teacher had expired, the class was continued, with Jos ph Smith as instructor, Orson Pratt continuing in attendance on the school. The ''Mormon" Church leaders, I repeat, were better acquainted with Hebrew than Mr. Van Der Donckt gives them credit for; besides, the blun- ders which Mr. Van Der Donckt has made in his assertions concerning the use of the plural Elohim, in the Old Testament, makes it rather clear that he is scarcely competent to be a judge of anybody's Hebrew. Moreover, the passage he quotes from our Catechism, where, in the account of creation, the plural "Gods" is used, is not a quotation from the Bible at all; but a translation from a record called the "Book of Abraham," which came into the hands of the Prophet Joseph Smith from the catacombs of Egypt. So that Mr. V.'s attempted criticism of what he evidently takes to be extracts of translations from parts of the Bible, is not in point at all, since they are translated extracts from a book that forms no part of the Bible. And is it not evident throughout that Mr.