Some Questions Considered

Some Questions Considered By J. M. Sjodahl AN esteemed correspondent in St. George, Utah, submits some questions for consideration in the Era. He has recently read Dr. Breasted's Ancient Times, and is at a loss to reconcile some of the statements made by that scholarly author with the word of God. Our correspondent refers particularly to such assertions as these, that 3000 years before our era the men of the stone age had already lived and developed for 50,000 years; that the conception of a "tree of life" originated in the custom of early man to present in the sanctuary a water jar with a few green palm branches; that the Hebrews obtained the story of the creation and the flood and other parts of the Bible from their pagan neighbors; that to the Hebrews, Yaveh was originally only a "war god," and that Elijah so regarded him in his conflict with the priests of Baal; and, finally, that Isaiah did not write more than about half of the book that bears his name. These and other peculiar views are held by the disciples of what is known as "higher criticism" of the Bible. The school of thought known by that name originated in Holland with Spinoza and was taken up in England by Hobbes, both rationalistic philosophers who denied the necessity or even the possibility of divine revelation. The "higher critics" soon came to believe that the use of two names for God, "Jehovah" and "Elohim," proved that the books of Moses were written by two different authors, one conflicting with the other. From this beginning, "higher critics" gradually arrived at the conclusion that the in- spired writings of the Old Testament are nothing but human docu- ments gradually evolved from the crude glyphs and still cruder picto- graphs of the earliest ancestors of man, who themselves were, in- tellectually and otherwise, only a few steps ahead of the monkeys in the woods. Of course, they need thousands upon thousands of years for the evolution of a scrawl on the smooth surface of a rock to the unexcelled literary productions of a Moses, a David, an Isaiah; hence, their generous allotment of 50,000 years to the stone- age men in which to progress. In the view of the "higher critics," the Pentateuch is a patch- work— a veritable crazy-quilt — of documents, put together by more or less competent editors. Some of it, they tell us, is "probably true;" other parts are "certainly doubtful," and some is "positively spur-

288 IMPROVEMENT ERA fcfc.. mi ious." The same is true, we are told, about the rest of the Old Testament. The Psalms are composed mostly by unknown poets who lived after the exile. Daniel was written by some unknown scribbler in the second century, B. C, and Isaiah, chapters 40-66, were not composed by Isaiah at all. All such assertions concerning the origin and contents of the Scriptures are confusing to the student who is not well grounded in his faith and knowledge, particularly when men of great learning and acknowledged scholarship sponsor them. We are likely to forget that a scholar is authority only as far as he states established facts; that when he goes beyond this and presents opinions and hypotheses, his authority ceases, since in this field he is as likely to err as any layman. In fact, many a layman has more reasoning power than some scholars, and can detect a fallacy in a deduction as quickly as the most learned man alive. This fact many forget, and we accept a false deduction as true because it is offered by a scholar, and are thus misled. For example, the scholar may tell us that he has found on Babylonian tablets an account of a flood, and we must accept that statement of fact on his reputation as a scholar; but if he proceeds to tell us that the account in Genesis is but another version of the Babylonian story, then he is giving us an opinion which is worthless and which we are not bound to accept, unless the truth of it is established by other facts. All the assertions by learned men con- cerning the existence of man on earth untold ages ago; his gradual development from the lowest forms of living beings; the coming forth of religion, arts, sciences, literature, etc., from next to nothing — all these assertions, as far as they contradict the revealed word of God, are nothing but theory, no matter how much scholarship they are associated with. They are mere opinions, or surmises. To reject them is not to show contempt for learning, but to refuse to accept a false deduction as a substitute for truth. And to do so is the privilege of every rational being. A man does not need to be a lawyer to sit on a jury and judge of the truth of testimony; nor does he need to be a scholar to judge of the value of the opinion of a learned man, when he argues from facts instead of presenting facts. Many a great scholar has proved his human imperfection by ridiculous conclusions, as did a very learned professor who on one occasion said to his students: "I have been dissecting human bodies for twenty years, but I have never found a piece of the soul; con- sequently, there is not any." Here we see how helpless a scholar may be when he ventures outside his sphere. As to the books of Moses, we need not doubt that Moses is the author of them, except, of course, the account of his death,

*. 1929 SOME QUESTIONS CONSIDERED 289 which may have been added by Joshua. That is the testimony of tradition, and it is sustained by internal evidence. That Moses had access to documents existing at his time and was familiar with traditions preserved by the Egyptians is also indisputable, and, no doubt, he made use of the sources of information he had. But, in addition, the Lord, as we know from the Pearl of Great Price, took him up on a high mountain and instructed him in visions and revela- tions concerning the early history of man, thereby enabling him to write a true account. The sacred writers quote the Book of Moses as his work and they are appealed to by our Lord himself and his apostles as genuine and authentic. All this testimony cannot be set aside by a theory that has no more solid foundation than is so far offered. As for the theory that Isaiah did not write the entire book of Isaiah, that question will be treated separately in an early issue of the Era. Our correspondent also asks whether 2 Peter 3:8, Doc. and Cov. 77:6, 12, and Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 3:4 and 5:13 are to be understood literally or figuratively. In 2 Peter 3:8 we read: "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." There is no reason why we should not understand this to mean what it plainly says. In Doc. and Cov. 130:4 we learn that the reckoning of time by angels, by man, and by God himself, is "according to the planet on which they reside." Astronomers corroborate this, for they tell us a year on the planet Mercury, for example, is equal to only eighty-eight of our days, while, on the other hand, a year in Jupiter is equal to 4,332 of our days, and a year on Saturn is equal to 10,767 earth days, or twenty-nine and one-half of our years. In the same way, in the Book of Abraham (3:4), we are told that one revolution of Kolob was a day unto the Lord, it being one thousand years "according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest." This is a statement of a fact concerning the measurement of time of our Heavenly Father, and it is to be understood as a fact, not a figure of speech. In the Mosaic story of the creation, however, the word trans- lated "day" has no such definite limits as a "day" on our earth, nor any of the other planets, nor even on Kolob, which is clear from the fact that there were "days" LONG before the heavenly bodies appeared in the "firmament" and were made to measure times and seasons by. (Gen. 1:14.) The creation "days" were simply *The Book of Enoch may have been in existence then, and it isn't improbable that Noah had left a record of his experiences.

290 IMPROVEMENT ERA P*.. M9 periods of time, epochs; we know not how long. In Gen. 2:4 the entire period during which the creation lasted is called "the day." This use of the word in the Scriptures is frequent. See Joel 3:18, jZechariah 2:10-12; 13:1, and 14:9, where the entire millen- nial period is called a "day." Speaking of the six "days" of the creation story, Dr. James Orr, professor of the United Free Church College, Glasgow, says: "You say there are the 'six days' and the question whether those days are meant to be measured by the twenty-four hours of the sun's revolution around the earth — I speak of these things popularly. It is difficult to see how they should be so measured when the sun that is to measure them is not introduced until the fourth day. Do not think that this larger reading of the day is a new speculation. You found Augustine in early times declaring that it is hard or altogether impossible to say of what fashion these days are, and Thomas Aguinas, in the Middle Ages, leaves the matter an open question." (The Fundamentals, Vol. 6, page 4.) The Doc. and Cov. 77:6 and 12 should be read with a proper understanding of the Mosaic narrative of the creation. Along Life's Way This world frowns back at those who frown And grumble as they pass Along life's way. It brings him sorrow, cuffs his ears; It metes out plentifully its tears; It bruises, kicks, fills him with fears, Who always whines and never cheers Along life's way. Man doesn't care to hear sad tales; — Has troubles of his own Along life's way; — But what he wants is cheerfulness, From even those who meet distress; All good gifts are for happiness; For those who comfort, cheer, and bless Along life's way. What matters, even if you have A heavy-burdened heart Along life's way? It doesn't pay to advertise Your selfish wounds, prolong your cries! — But smile! — It always wins the prize. Love blesses him who sings and tries, — Along life's way. Lyman, Wyoming LLOYD O. IVIE