MAN'S RELATIONSHIP TO DEITY.
WHAT IS MAN THAT THOU ART MINDFUL OF HIM?
AND THE SON OF MAN THAT THOU VISITEST HIM.[A]
I.
In order to a clear understanding of man's redemption through the atonement of Jesus Christ—the grand central truth of the gospel—it is necessary to know something of the relationship between God and man. The very fact that such a sacrifice was made for his redemption— being no less than the immolation of him, who in heaven bore the second name—argues at once some special relationship between man and Deity. In view of the greatness and importance of that sacrifice, we may well ask, with the Psalmist, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man that thou visitest him?" These questions lead to the investigation of man's origin; for upon his origin his relationship to God depends.
A discussion of this subject must be very imperfect, not to say partial, that does not give some attention to the various theories—at least to the most prominent ones—of man's origin. It is scarcely necessary to say that theories on the subject are quite numerous and widely different; and that in each school of philosophers are men eminent for their learning and intelligence. All existing theories, however, may be arranged under three headings: First, the monogenists, who hold that mankind have descended from a single human pair, created by Deity; and their descendants, modified by climatic influences, food, habits of life and thought constitute the various races of men—this is the theory of those who accept the Bible as authority on the subject; second, the polygenists, who insist not only on one act of creation, but upon a number of independent creations, "each giving birth to essential, unchangeable peculiarities of a separate race, thus constituting a diversity of species with primal adaptation to their geographical distribution;" third, the evolutionists, who believe all existing species are but developments of pre-existing and lower forms of life; which, in their turn, were but developments of still lower forms, and so on back, back until you reach the spontaneous generation of the lowest types of vegetable and animal life, "as the accumulation of mold upon food, the swarming of maggots in meat, * * * the generation of insect life in decaying vegetable substances, the birth of one form arising out of the decay of another; the slow and gradual unfolding from a lower to a higher sphere, acting through a long succession of ages, culminating in the grandeur of intellectual manhood."
Of these theories the first and last only need detain us; and since the theory of evolution is the one more generally accepted by scientific men, and is making rapid progress among the masses, I think it proper to state the basis of this theory more in detail.
The absurdities which theologians have associated with the first named hypothesis of the origin of man and the universe is largely responsible for the existence of the theory of evolution. Finding so much that was contrary to well known facts, not so much in the theory itself, as in the explanations of it by its advocates, induced men of intelligence to look for some other explanation of the genesis of things.
It was doubtless observed that many remarkable resemblances exist between man and the inferior animals. In embryonic development, in physical structure, in material composition and the functions of organs, man and the superior animals are strikingly alike. The skeleton of man when examined minutely and compared with the skeletons of the higher order of animals, seems only a modification of them, and in some instances the modifications appear extremely slight. This resemblance also exists among the inferior animals, and it was this, doubtless, which gave birth to the idea of a common origin for all existing species.
Side by side with the above mentioned facts are others that sustain, it is claimed, the idea of common origin; and suggest an explanation of how the varieties of animal and vegetable forms were brought into existence. The great law of nature is for like to beget like; the tendency of offspring is always to reproduce the parent forms, as every seed produces its kind; that is the general law of nature, and to it a special name is given—it is called atavism. But notwithstanding this general law, there is a modification of it, a tendency to variation, slight in some cases and more marked in others. This is a matter of common observation. The male does not follow the precise type of the male parent, nor does the female always inherit the precise characteristics of the mother. "There are all sorts of intermixtures and intermediate conditions between the two, where complexion, or beauty, or fifty other different peculiarities belonging to either side of the house, are reproduced in other members of the same family." This kind of variation in cases where offspring are produced by sexual propagation is attributed to the fact that the thing propagated proceeds from two organisms of different sexes and temperaments. Breeders of our domestic animals take advantage of this tendency to variation, to produce such varieties as are most desirable; and, indeed, for that matter, to obtain new varieties by crossing breeds. Sometimes this tendency to variation acts in the most remarkable and unaccountable manner, and because naturalists can assign no reason for it, they have called it "spontaneous variation." That it may be understood I quote instances of such variation from Professor Huxley:
Reaumur, a famous French naturalist, in an essay on variation, relates a remarkable case of spontaneous variation which came under his observation in the person of a Maltese, of the name of Gratio Kelleia, who was born with six fingers upon each hand, and the like number of toes upon each of his feet. His parents, of course, were ordinary five-fingered persons. This was a case then of "spontaneous generation;" and subsequent circumstances in connection with this case prove there is a tendency in nature to perpetuate these variations. Gratio Kelleia married, when he was twenty-two years of age, an ordinary five-fingered lady. The result of that marriage was four children. The first, Salvator, had six fingers and six toes, like the father; the second, George, had five fingers and toes; but one of them was deformed, showing a tendency to variation; the third, Andre, had five fingers and five toes perfect; the fourth, a girl, Marie, had five fingers and five toes, but her thumbs were deformed, showing a tendency towards the sixth. These children grew up and when they came to adult years married, and of course it happened that they all married five- fingered and five-toed persons. Now let us see what happened. Salvator had four children, they were two boys, a girl and another boy: the first two boys and the girl were six-fingered and six-toed, like their grandfather; the fourth child had only five fingers and five toes. George had four children. There were two girls with six fingers and six toes; there was one girl with six fingers and five toes on the right side, and five fingers and five toes on the other; the fourth, a boy, had five fingers and five toes. The third son of Gratio Kelleia, Andre, it will be remembered, was perfectly well formed, and he had many children whose hands and feet were regularly developed. Marie, the last, whose thumbs were deformed, married a man with five fingers and toes: they had four children; the first was born with six toes, but the other children were normal.
In this case of Gratio Kelleia and his children is seen the tendency to reproduce the parent stock, and also to perpetuate the variation which so unaccountably appeared. That tendency to perpetuate the variation was very strong, even though these persons with the six fingers and toes, or who only inherited the deformity in part, intermarried with persons ordinarily formed. What would have been the result had the two eldest boys of Salvator taken it into their heads to marry their first cousins, the two first girls of George? It will be remembered that these were all of the abnormal type of their grandfather. Is it not most likely that had these people married and their descendants continued to intermarry with each other, that a new variety of men having six fingers and six toes would have been the result? The second case I quote from Huxley gives us every reason to believe that such would have been the result:
In the year 1791 there was a farmer of the name of Seth Wright, in Massachusetts, who had a flock of sheep, consisting of a ram and some twelve or fifteen ewes. Of the flock of ewes, one at the breeding-time bore a lamb which was singularly formed; it had a very long body, very short legs, and those legs were bowed. In the part of Massachusetts where Seth Wright lived, the fields were separated by fences, and his sheep, which were active and robust, would roam abroad, and without much difficulty would jump over the fences into other people's farms. As a matter of course this gave rise to all sorts of quarrels, bickerings and contention among the farmers of the neighborhood; so it occurred to Seth Wright, if he could obtain a breed of sheep with bandy legs like the one which had so strangely appeared in his flock, it would be to his advantage, as they would not be able to jump over the fences so readily. He acted upon that idea. He killed his old ram, and as soon as the young one arrived at maturity he bred exclusively from him. The result was that all the offspring were like the male parent or female parent, there was no mixing in the offspring the peculiarities of the parents, they were either pure "Ancons" —the name given to the new variety—or pure, ordinary sheep. In consequence of this the farmer in a very few years was able to get a considerable flock of this short-legged variety of sheep and a large number of them were soon scattered throughout Massachusetts. Here is the case then where the tendency to perpetuate a variation culminated in the production of a new variety. And, indeed, this is what is perpetually going on with our domesticated animals,—by what we may call selective breeding; and it is going on, it is claimed by evolutionists, in a natural state, that is, where man's interference does not effect it; in other words, variations are perpetuated by means of what Mr. Darwin has called "natural selection."
Suppose, for instance, that by one of those unaccountable freaks of nature a "spontaneous variation" is produced, as in the case of Seth Wright's sheep; and further suppose that the particular characteristic which distinguished it from the parent stock was favorable to its persistence, by that I mean that the particulars in which it varies from the parent stock will enable the animal, if it be a beast of prey, to secure its food more surely either by an increase of fleetness or stealth, by which it would the more surely run down, or steal upon its victims, and in either case be more sure of its food and hence more secure of existence than the stock from which it came; and if the means of subsistence for these animals were limited, then the variety having the peculiarity of fleetness or stealth would be preserved and perpetuate the peculiarities imparted to it originally by "spontaneous variation," while the original stock would perish. Thus, as evolutionists would say, the fittest would survive in this struggle for existence; and thus the original variation would be preserved and perpetuated and a new variety brought into existence as effectually by this natural means of selection as if man had superintended it for his own benefit. That individuals in organic forms increase in a proportion greater than the provisional means of support is a theory pretty well demonstrated; there is, therefore, a constant struggle for existence in nature, in which the strongest, those best fitted to live and improve their species, prevail. Every variation, therefore, that is favorable to races of plants or animals is seized upon by this principle of natural selection and preserved.
Another way of preserving variations is by what our latter-day naturalists call "sexual selection." "Throughout nature," say they, "the male is the wooer; he it is who is armed for fight, and provided with musical organs and ornamental appendages, with which to charm the fair one. The savage and the wild beast alike secure their mate over the mangled form of a vanquished rival. In this manner the more highly favored of either sex are mated, and natural selections made by which better ever producing better, the species in its constant variation is constantly improved."
It is now time to pause and see what conclusions these facts have led our scientist to draw. I have called attention to the striking resemblance between man and the superior animals; in the development of the embryo, in the material of which they are composed, and in the use of organs they are alike; and especially very much alike in physical structure, the skeleton of man only slightly varying from that of the higher order of animals; and that resemblance in something like gradation exists throughout the organic world. Of course there are marked structural variations even in closely allied species, and we have seen that there is a tendency in species to vary and also to preserve the variation; and where the peculiarity of the variation is favorable to the individual it is almost certain to be preserved by the process of natural selection. New varieties thus produced may be expected to produce still other variations that will remove them further than ever from the stock from which their parents came, until the variation amounts to what our naturalists denominate specific difference. By this process what we now call varieties may eventually become species, as our species, according to the evolutionists, were once nothing more than varieties; and the groups which naturalists classify as genera, families, order, classes, etc., are but the remains of still older species, which have continued their existence side by side with the new species, which have been produced from them by this process of variation; and but for the fact that so many intermediate species have become extinct, they claim that the multifarious forms of organic life could be traced, through all the minute variations that have occurred, back to a common origin; even back to the mysterious substance in which life seems to generate—protoplasm.
Such are the basic principles on which is grounded the theory of evolution, as I understand the subject from the works of its advocates, though my effort to be brief may have rendered my statement of those principles very imperfect.
One thing more should be stated in connection with this theory, and that is that very long periods of time are demanded for the slow work of variation preserved by natural selection to accomplish the wonders attributed to it. To measure the time claimed by evolutionists by the lapse of years is simply out of the question; they ask for a long series of ages, each of which, though doubtless unequal, consists of millions of years. As the Rev. George B. Cheever remarks: "The first postulate of this philosophy is that of countless millions of years to work in, with no Creator, and with no authority that can bring it to book." To prove that such long periods of time have elapsed, during which organic forms have existed on the earth, the evolutionist triumphantly points to the revelations of geology, and there gives proof which there is, perhaps, no denying, of the lapse of time he pleads for; and also proof of organic forms of life in those various ages, fossilized remains of which are found in the strata of the earth's crust.
If you say to the advocate of evolution that it is incredible that variations preserved by natural selection could result in the production of such a wonderful organ as the eye; he replies "that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life; then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."[B] But with this statement and some further observations upon it, Mr. Darwin himself seems not altogether satisfied that he has removed the difficulty which he admits is enough to stagger anyone; "I have felt the difficulty," he says, "far too keenly to be surprised at others hesitating to extend the principle of natural selection to so startling a length."[C]
If you say that it is incredible that natural selection can account for the production of such a wonderful thing as the mind of man—his "reasonable soul," the reply is that instinct varies among the inferior animals no less than physical structure, and though there may be no perceivable proportion or gradation between structural variation and variation of instinct; still, if the fact is admitted that among animals instinct varies, then it is easy to conceive that some of those variations may be favorable, and if favorable then natural selection would perpetuate them and make them dominant. From this basis they make another step the difference between the mental faculties of man and animal is immense, but the high culture which belongs to man evolutionists maintain has been slowly developed, and the separation between the mental powers of lowest man and the highest ape is no greater than that which exists between the lowest ape and some of the lower forms of life, say the Zoophytes.
If you say that articulate language surely marks a wide gulf between man and the lower animals, the reply is that animals are not devoid of expedients for expressing emotions, and from those expedients may have been evolved through intermediate species, now extinct, articulate language.
If you ask why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? The answer is that the intermediate species have become extinct, that we must look upon each existing species as having descended from some unknown forms; that natural selection acts slowly by preserving profitable modifications. "Each new form will tend in a fully stocked country to take the place of, and finally exterminate, its own less-improved parent form, and other less favored forms with which it comes in competition; thus both parent and all transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of the formation and perfection of the new."[D]
If you object further, and call attention to the fact that in the great geological record, of which evolutionists boast so much, that not even in that can be found the intermediate transitional forms that should, according to their theory, link together by fine gradations the species[E]—this objection, otherwise fatal to the theory of evolution, is avoided rather than answered by putting forth the claim that the geological record is very imperfect, and comparatively only a few of its pages have, as yet, been read by man.
After thus escaping from the difficulty of there being no intermediate transitional forms between the species, we come to other facts not less important, and even, perhaps, more fatal to the hypothesis of evolution—I refer to the phenomena presented by "hybrids," and in order that I may not be charged with over-estimating the value of the objection founded on this class of phenomena, I shall quote the words of Professor Huxley, one of the chief apostles of evolution, and give his estimate of the weight of the objections:
"There is a most singular circumstance," says the professor, "in respect to natural species—at least about some of them—and it would be sufficient for the purposes of this argument, if it were true of only one of them; but there is, in fact, a great number of such cases—and that is, that similar as they may appear to be to mere races or breeds, they present a marked peculiarity in the reproductive process. If you breed from the male and female of the same race, you of course have offspring of the like kind; and if you make the offspring breed together, you obtain the same result; and if you breed from these again, you will still have the same kind of offspring; there is no check. But if you take members of two distinct species, however similar they may be to each other, and make them breed together, you will find a check, with some modifications and exceptions— * * * if you cross two such species with each other, then,— although you may get offspring in the case of the first cross, yet if you attempt to breed from the products of that crossing, which are what are called hybrids[F]—that is, if you couple a male and a female hybrid—then the result is that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will get no offspring at all; there will be no result whatsoever, * * * Thus you see that there is a great difference between 'mongrels,' which are crosses between distinct races [varieties], and 'hybrids,' which are crosses between distinct species. The mongrels are, so far as we know, fertile with one another. But between species, in many cases, you cannot succeed in obtaining the first cross; at any rate it is quite certain that the hybrids are often absolutely infertile one with another. Here is a feature, then, great or small as it may be, which distinguishes natural species of animals."[G]
Now, by the side of these facts, the sterility of species and hybrids, let us place another; that of the fertility of varieties. So long as you breed together descendants from a common stock they continue fruitful to each other, without any check. Now, if naturalists cannot produce by selective breeding varieties from a common parentage that are infertile to each other, then it is quite clear that species did not come from varieties by the process of variation preserved by natural selection, since here is a phenomenon existing in connection with species which cannot, to all appearances, be produced by breeding together varieties. Mr. Huxley remarks on this, that if it could be proven not only that this has not been done, but that it cannot be done, then Mr. Darwin's hypothesis would be utterly shattered.[H] Well, up to the present it has not been done, the gentleman last quoted admits the fact; he asks, "what is really the state of the case? It is simply that, so far as we have gone yet with our breeding, we have not produced from a common stock two breeds, which are not more or less fertile with one another."[I]
What do these facts prove, I mean the sterility of species and hybrids on the one hand, and the fertilities of varieties, descendants from a common stock, on the other? Why that the great law of nature is, as announced in holy writ that every seed shall produce after its kind, and every fish, fowl, creeping-thing, beast, and man shall bring forth after his kind[J]—that is what it proves. And though man may for a moment by crossing species cause a slight deviation from that great law, it can be but for an instant, the monstrosity cannot be perpetuated, it dies out by being made unfruitful.
How do these facts affect the theory of evolution? Let us remember upon what that theory rests. It rests upon the principle that lower forms producing favorable variations and these being preserved by the process of natural selection amount finally to the production of distinct species; but we have seen that varieties cannot produce what may be called the great characteristic of species—infertility to each other; then also we have seen there is a check to variation in the sterility of species and hybrids. Add these facts to that other fact that neither in living nature nor in the geological records can be found the intermediate transitional forms linking together by fine gradations the species, and the theory of evolution lies stranded upon the shore of idle speculation.
II.
There is one other objection to be urged against the theory of evolution before leaving it; it is contrary to the revelations of God. I have not in mind, at present, the revelations respecting the creation of the earth and of vegetable and animal life; but rather the revelations which speak of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. According to the revelations of God contained in the Bible, man was created just and right—"sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall." He transgressed, in some way, the holy commandment given him, and by that transgression became fallen man, subject to sin and death, and entailed the same evils upon his posterity. Both he and they were powerless to extricate themselves from the consequences of that violation of law; but a sacrifice was prepared, a Redeemer was provided, both for Adam and all his posterity. In the meridian of time that Redeemer appeared in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who eventually was offered up a sacrifice for sinful man—he suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.[A] That this was the mission of Jesus Christ is evident from the whole tenor of the scriptures.[B] But if the hypothesis of evolution be true, if man is only a product evolved from the lower forms of life, better still producing better, until the highest type of intellectual manhood crowns with glory this long continued process—then it is evident that there has been no "fall," such as the revelations of God speak of; and if there was no fall, there was no occasion for a Redeemer to make atonement for man, in order to reconcile him to God; then the mission of Jesus Christ was a myth, the coinage of idle brains, and Jesus himself was either mistaken, or one of the many impostors that have arisen to mock mankind with the hope of eternal life.
Such is the inevitable result of accepting the philosophy of evolution, after which all the world is now running—it is destructive of the grand central truth of all revelation; as well ancient as modern; as well the revelations given to Moses and the prophets, as those given to the apostles of the New Testament; as well those given in Asia, as those given in America; for the central truth of all revelation is the fall of man, and the redemption through the atonement of Jesus Christ. All things else contained in the revelations of God to man are subordinate and dependent for their strength and force upon this leading truth.
I am aware that there is a class of men who profess to be "Christian evolutionists," and who maintain that Christianity can be made to harmonize with the philosophy of evolution. But how are they made to harmonize? We are told that Jesus is still a Redeemer, but in this sense he gave out faultless moral precepts, and practiced them in his life; and inasmuch as people accept his doctrines and follow his example they will be redeemed from evil. But as to the fall of man and the atonement made for him by the Son of God—both ideas are of necessity rejected; which means, of course, denying the great fundamental truths of revelation; it is by destroying the basis on which the Christian religion rests, that the two theories are harmonized—if such a process can be called harmonization. It is on the same principle that the lion and the lamb harmonize, or lie down together—the lion eats the lamb.
It was stated in the first part of this writing that the follies of those who profess a belief in the theory of creation as revealed in the Bible, were largely responsible for the existence of the theory of evolution; that their exegesis of the revelations on the subject were so manifestly absurd, and contradicted so many well known and indisputable facts, that scientific men sought for other explanations of the origin of things. The theologians in the apostate churches of Christendom have maintained that God created the heavens and the earth—the universe—out of nothing, in six days. A statement than which it is impossible to conceive one more absurd, or one which contradicts more completely every fact demonstrated by the experience of man. Every sense, every possible conception of the mind bears witness that from nothing, nothing comes. The idea of creating the universe out of nothing, however, is rapidly passing away from the minds of the present generation; and it is conceded by many theologians that there is no warrant for such a doctrine in the scriptures; but that it became generally accepted through a misconception of the meaning of the word create. "The meaning of this word," says Rev. Baden Powell, of Oxford University, "has been commonly associated with the idea of 'making out of nothing.' But when we come to inquire more precisely into the subject, we can of course satisfy ourselves as to the meaning only from an examination of the original phrase." The learned professor then proceeds to say that three distinct Hebrew verbs are in different places employed with reference to the same divine act, and may be translated respectively, "create," "make," "form or fashion." "Now," continues the professor, "though each of these has its shade of distinction, yet the best critics understand them as so nearly synonymous that, at least in regard to the idea of making out of nothing, little or no foundation for that doctrine can be obtained from the first of these words." And, of course if no foundation for the doctrine can be obtained from the first of these words—viz., the verb translated create, then the chances are still less for there being any foundation for the doctrine in the verb translated, "made," "formed" or "fashioned."
This is in harmony, too, with the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He says "You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, 'Don't the Bible say he created the world? and they infer, from the word create that it must have been made out of nothing. Now the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize, the same as man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos— chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he [God] had."[C]
Professor Baden Powell further says, "The idea of 'creation' as meaning absolutely 'making out of nothing,' or calling into existence that which did not exist before, in the strictest sense of the term, is not a doctrine of scripture; but it has been held by many on the grounds of natural theology, as enhancing the ideas we form of the divine power, and more especially since the contrary must imply the belief in the eternity and self existence of matter."[D] Theologians have held, generally, that to admit the doctrine of the eternity and self existence of matter detracted from the perfection of Deity, though how that can appear is difficult to comprehend.
Not only have so-called theologians been compelled to renounce the unphilosophical idea that the universe was created out of nothing; but they also have to admit that there are indisputable evidences of the earth having a greater antiquity than their interpretations of the word of God allow. That is, the earth itself bears in its own bosom the evidence that it is more than six thousand years old. And though it may turn out, on further investigation, that some of the claims of geology are extremely absurd; owing to the fact, perhaps, that the founders of that science have not considered sufficiently the effect of conditions not now existing and forces not now in operation, but which doubtless existed and operated in the earlier ages of our earth's existence—yet when extremely liberal allowances for all these things are made, the indisputable evidence adduced from the science of geology is sufficient to establish the statement that the earth is more than six thousand years old; and it might be added also that from the same source it is evident that the earth was not created or organized from pre-existing element in six days of twenty-four hours duration.
These facts which geology unquestionably demonstrates have thrown sectarian theologians into dismay. The dogmas concerning the creation formulated with so much pomp and circumstance by the apostate churches of Christendom, respectable only for their antiquity, are going to pieces before the facts discovered by geologists and churchmen, or theologians, call them which you will, are filled with alarm lest all confidence be lost in revelation; and many of them are making frantic efforts to harmonize the facts of revelation with the facts of science. Unfortunately, however, some of these proceed on lines which result the same as the efforts of some to harmonize the theory of evolution with the gospel—as the latter efforts end in the destruction of the gospel, so the former end in denying the inspiration of scripture, in relegating it to the realms of poetry, which means kicking it contemptuously out of the domains of fact, of history. "We affirm," say they, "that it cannot be history—it may be poetry."[E]
There is nothing in the Bible, however, which drives believers in revelation to those straights— straights in which they throw overboard, practically, the word of God; discard it, or, in other words, degrade it to the level of romance—making it nothing better than the idle coinage of the half frenzied brains of day-dreamers. If the dogmas of apostate Christendom respecting the creation were given over as a romance instead of the revelations of God, and those revelations were re-examined, and especially if re-examined under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it would then be found that there is nothing in the scriptures requiring the believer in revelation to accept the idea of recent or instantaneous creation of the earth. There is no more warrant in the Bible for the doctrine that the earth was begun and completed—created— about six thousand years ago, and that instantly, at the word of God, than there is that it was made out of nothing. On the other hand there is very much to lead one to believe the contrary.
Six thousand years ago our earth reached that degree of perfection that it was fitted for the abode of man; and it is interesting to note, in this connection, that geologists have found no evidence of the existence of man on the earth only in the strata of the earth's crust belonging to the latest geological periods, and most probably only in those made within the period of history. But while the Bible may teach that it was only about six thousand years since man was placed upon the earth, how long the period of formation lasted previous to that time, how long it required to prepare this planet with all its wealth of fruits and vegetables and animal life, for the abode of man, is not known. "It is called in the scriptures," says Apostle Orson Pratt,
"Six days; but we do not know the meaning of the scriptural term 'day.' It evidently does not mean such days as we are now acquainted with—days governed by the rotation of the earth on its axis, and by the shining of the great central luminary of our solar system. A day of twenty-four hours is not the kind of day referred to in the scriptural account of the creation; the word 'day' in the scriptures seems often to refer to some indefinite period of time. The Lord, in speaking to Adam in the garden says, 'In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die;' yet he did not die within twenty-four hours after he had eaten the forbidden fruit; but he lived to be almost a thousand years old, from which we learn that the word 'day' in this paragraph, had no reference to days of the same duration as ours. Again it is written, in the second chapter of Genesis, 'In the day that he created the heavens and the earth;'[F] not six days, but 'in the day' that he did it, incorporating all the six days into one, and calling that period 'the day' that he created the heavens and the earth.[G]"
As a further evidence that "day" as used in connection with the acts of creation does not mean a period of duration of twenty-four hours, it may be mentioned that it was not until the period called the fourth day that the sun reflected his light upon our earth and ruled the day; and divided the light from the darkness, giving us the day and night regulated by the rotation of the earth upon its axis; so that the preceding three days were not of twenty-four hours duration, but certainly referred to some other division of time, which was also, doubtless, employed throughout in speaking of these acts of creation.[H] Moreover, it is said in this first chapter of Genesis,
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
"And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."[I]
"What I understand by the formation [creation] of these celestial luminaries, is that He [God] then caused them to shed forth their light [that is upon the earth.] I cannot suppose that it would take the Lord six days to form such a little speck of a world as ours, and then for Him on the fourth to form a globe fourteen hundred thousand times larger than the earth. This does not look consistent to me. If it took six days to form a small world like ours, we might certainly suppose that it would require more than one day to form the sun, which contains a quantity of matter sufficient to make some three hundred and fifty four thousand worlds like this, and whose actual size or magnitude is fourteen thousand times larger than our globe; consequently I understand by the formation of the sun and moon and stars, and setting them in the firmament of the heavens, that He merely suffered their light to shine on the fourth day, to regulate the evenings and mornings, that were produced prior to that time, probably by some other cause. The Lord wanted by these luminaries to divide the day from the night, and he set them for times and seasons in the firmament of the heavens." Journal of Discourses, Vol. xvi: pp. 316-7.]
How long it remained in that condition before the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, or the six great periods of creation began, it would be impossible to say, since we have no data in revelation to go upon; but the duration was doubtless sufficient to allow all the myriads of years claimed by geologists as necessary for the formation of our planet. Then how long those periods of time were which are called "days" in the Bible, is uncertain; but enough is known to justify us in the belief that they were great periods of time, in which the successive acts of creation occurred. In which continents were up-raised, and mountains were heaved up by volcanic eruption, exposed to warmth and light and covered with vegetation, and animal life, and then worn away by the combined action of the atmosphere and rains, much of their matter being carried back to old ocean's bed, and settling there as sediment, forming new strata of rocks, occasionally imbedding vegetables and animals which became fossilized; and these strata, being afterwards thrown up from the bottom of the ocean are exposed to view, and from what he there finds, the geologist conjectures at the condition of the earth and forms his judgment as to what animals and vegetation were then upon it—there was time for all this, let it be performed ever so slowly.
While the Bible account of the creation gives sufficient margin to allow all the time claimed by the geologists for that work, let their claims be ever so extravagant, still let geologists have some modesty about them and admit—as perforce they must—that they do not know that the same conditions existed, or the same forces operated in those long ages of the past that now exist and operate. Hence it is not unlikely that changes resulting in the advancement of the earth's formation, and in its preparation for the abode of man were much more rapid then than now. This is not begging the question, there is no need of that; but it is mentioned in passing, as pointing to a condition of things not unlikely to have existed.
III.
What is most perplexing about the Bible narrative of this work of creation is that two accounts are given of it; and apparently there is an irreconcilable difference between them. In the first chapter of Genesis is a statement of the creation in respect to this earth and the heavens connected with it, from the time it was without form and void until it was a fit dwelling place for man: or, to put it in other words, the account seems to reach from highly attenuated nebulae to the solid earth clothed with its wealth of vegetable and animal life, with man placed upon it as the crowning excellence of the Creator's work. But after this elaborate account of the creation contained in the first chapter of Genesis, we are startled to read in the second chapter—
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, _and there was not a man to till the ground_."
One naturally pauses here to ask, what had become of the grasses, herbs, and trees spoken of in the first chapter of Genesis? what of the fishes of the sea, the fowls of the air, the beasts of the field? what of man, male and female, of whose creation we have just read? and of the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth? Is it not strange that after reading of the creation of man in the first chapter that we should be told in the second that there was not a man to till the ground? Proceeding with this second account of creation the Bible says:
"But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food. * * * And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living thing that was the name thereof."
What is especially difficult in this second account of creation is that it reverses the order of that work as given in the first. The first account commences with the formation of the earth from chaotic matter and then records the various steps of progress in succinct and natural order—the same order, too, that science insists upon—up to perfection: the second begins with an account of the creation of man, the planting of a garden as the beginning of vegetable existence, and then the creation of the fowls of the air and the beasts of the fields.
The writings of Moses as revealed to Joseph Smith, in December, 1830, and now contained in the Pearl of Great Price, make this matter of the creation of man still more emphatic by saying:
"And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also."
But if these writings of Moses make emphatic the apparent contradiction in these two accounts of creation, they also furnish the key by which the whole matter may be understood, and, as I think, explained. After giving an account of the creation, much as it is contained in the first chapter of Genesis, it is then stated—
"And behold I say unto you, these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth; neither in the water, neither in the air; but I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created, but spiritually, were they created and made according to my word."[A]
As to the character of this spiritual creation nothing is known; nothing, so far as I know, has been revealed in relation to it. Here let me say, by way of caution, that those who accept the revelations of God as truth need not be alarmed or worried if they meet with things in the sacred writings that they cannot explain or understand, as in the case of this spiritual creation of the heavens and the earth which preceded the natural, or what we regard as the actual creation of the earth. In this and in all cases of like character we claim for those who accept the revelations of holy writ as facts, what Professor Huxley claims for those who build up theories on their conception of facts in nature, viz— "There is a wide difference between the thing you cannot explain and the thing which upsets your theory altogether." This idea is a pendulum which should swing just as high for the believer in revelation as for the scientist. Not that there is anything wrong with revelation, the difficulty arises from our inability to comprehend it; but when increased intelligence shall give us enlarged views and keener powers of penetration, we shall then find that the revelations of God are in strict accord with the facts in the case, and perfectly simple however incomprehensible they may have seemed to us in the day when we saw as through a glass darkly. But this is a digression.
Though we cannot understand the nature of this spiritual creation, yet to learn that the first account of the creation in the Bible is of a spiritual creation and the second of an actual or natural one, gives some comfort, from the fact that it does away with all charges of inconsistency or contradiction between the two accounts. For since they are descriptions of two different things instead of one thing, there is nothing in the law of consistency requiring the accounts of different events to be alike.
In these articles, however, what turns out to be an account of the spiritual creation of the earth has been spoken of and treated as the natural or actual creation.[B] It has been treated so purposely, because I believe the natural in the order of its creation and development corresponds with the creation and development of the spiritual. Furthermore, I believe the account in the first chapter of Genesis could be safely accepted as the announcement of the general plan of creation, not only of our planet but of all worlds; and in it will be found ample scope for the belief that the earth came into existence by the accretion of nubulous matter; that it took thousands of years, yea, millions, perhaps, for the condensation and solidification of that matter; granting as long periods as geologists may demand for the formation of the earth's curst; that then followed the changes which were wrought during the six great periods named in Genesis; beginning with the production of light, and ending with placing man upon the completed planet as its lord and sovereign under God.
The careful reader of this paper will say, however, that the statements in the last paragraph permit all the old difficulties to surge back upon us; all the old apparent inconsistencies between the first and second accounts of creation in Genesis remain unreconciled. For if the natural creation of our planet corresponded to the spiritual creation of it, the spiritual standing in the same relationship to the natural as the well devised plan of the architect does to the actual erection of a building—then the account given of the spiritual creation of our earth may as well be regarded as the account of the actual creation of it also. But this leaves all the difficulties. between the two accounts of creation in the Bible untouched, and we must look to other facts than those yet considered if we would see them removed.
The Prophet Joseph Smith is credited with having said that our planet was made up of the fragments of a planet which previously existed; some mighty convulsions disrupted that creation and made it desolate. Both its animal and vegetable life forms were destroyed. And when those convulsions ceased, and the rent earth was again consolidated, and it became desirable to replenish it, the work was begun by making a mist to rise that it might descend in gentle rain upon the barren earth, that it might again be fruitful. Then came one of the sons of God[C] to the earth—Adam. A garden was planted in Eden and the man placed in it, and there the Lord brought to him every beast of the field and every fowl of the air, and Adam gave names to them all. Afterwards was brought to Adam his wife, whom, since she was derived from man, he named wo-man; and she became his help-mate, his companion and the mother of his children. In this nothing is hinted at about man being made from the dust, and woman manufactured from a rib, a story which has been a cause of much perplexity to religious people, and a source of much impious merriment to reckless unbelievers. We are informed that the Lord God made every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb before it grew[D] on our planet. As vegetation was created or made to grow upon some older earth, and the seeds thereof or the plants themselves were brought to our earth and made to grow, so likewise man and his help-meet were brought from some other world to our own, to people it with their children. And though it is said that the "Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground"—it by no means follows that he was "formed" as one might form a brick, or from the dust of this earth. We are all "formed" of the dust of the ground, though instead of being moulded as a brick we are brought forth by the natural laws of procreation; so also was Adam and his wife in some older world. And as for the story of the rib, under it I believe the mystery of procreation is hidden.
Of the things I have spoken, this is the sum: There was a planet created on the plan of the spiritual creation described in the first chapter of Genesis; beginning with the condensation of nubulous matter to a "fire ball," then the cooling of the surface and thickening of the earth's crust, and the envelopment of it in water; then came light, and by internal eruptions portions of land were thrown above the surface of the water —"the dry land appeared;" then came the simpler forms of vegetation; then the sunlight visited the earth, and doubtless higher forms of vegetation, fruit-trees and flowers and grains were brought forth; then came the creatures that abound in the ocean, that fly in the air, and the beasts of the earth. Not by the process of evolution, but by the various species suitable to the condition of the earth's development being brought from some other and older sphere, with power to propagate their kind, until the changed conditions of the earth became unfavorable to them, when they became extinct and were replaced by other species of a higher type. Then came the mighty convulsions which, for some cause or other, and doubtless for some wise purpose, disrupted that planet; and when from its fragments a new world—our present planet—was brought into existence, it was made the abode of man, as described in the second account of the creation in Genesis, which begins by placing man upon the earth, and then the inferior animals.
Accepting this statement of Joseph Smith relative to our planet in its present state being created or formed from the fragments of a planet which previously existed, one may readily understand how the supposed differences between scientists and believers in revelation have arisen. Scientists have been talking of the earth's strata that were formed in a previously existing planet; they have considered the fossilized flora and fauna imbedded in those strata, and have speculated as to the probable lapse of time since those animal and vegetable forms of life existed; and have generally concluded that the age is so far remote that there is no possible chance of harmonizing it with the account of the creation as given in the Bible. Believers in the Bible, on the other hand, have generally taken it for granted that the account of the creation in the sacred record, would give to the earth no greater antiquity than six thousand years; and have held that within that period the universe was created out of nothing by the volition of Deity—an idea so palpably absurd that intelligence, despite all church authority to the contrary, everywhere rejects it.
The theory set forth in this writing that before Adam was paced upon this earth to people it with his offsprings the matter of which it is composed existed in another planet, which by some mighty convulsions was broken up, and from its ruins was formed our present earth, at once affords a means of harmonizing those facts established by the researches of men and the facts of revelation. If scientists shall claim that myriads of years or of centuries must have been necessary to form the earth's crust, it may be allowed by the believers in revelation, for there is nothing that would contradict that idea in the revelations of God on the subject. If scientists shall claim that the fossilized remains in the different strata of the earth's crust reveal the fact that in the earlier periods of the earth's existence only the simpler forms of vegetation and animal life are to be found, both forms of life becoming more complex and of higher type as the earth becomes older, until it is crowned with the presence of man—all that may be allowed. But that this gradation of animal and vegetable life owes its existence to the process of evolution is denied. As before explained, the claims of evolution are contrary to all experience so far as man's knowledge extends. The great law of nature is that every plant, herb, fish, fowl, beast and man produces his kind; and though there may be slight variations from that law, those variations soon run out either by reverting to the original stock, or else by becoming incapable of producing offspring, and thus become extinct.[E]
Furthermore, since we have learned that God made "every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb before it grew" (i. e. in our earth), the gradation of life forms which the naturalists discover in the various strata of the earth's crust may reasonably be accounted for aside from the theory of evolution—viz., by the animal and vegetable life forms of some older earth being brought to our own; different species being transplanted as changed conditions in the soil and atmosphere and temperature of our earth rendered it favorable to their production, the older species becoming extinct as the changed conditions of the earth became unfavorable to them. Then too, the theory advanced in this writing gives ample room for the reconciliation of another serious difficulty between the scientist and the believer in revelation. To the latter Adam is the first man; the former maintains that there are evidences which prove the earth to have been inhabited before Adam's time. Whether or not the planet which existed previous to our own, and out of the ruins of which our own was organized was inhabited by man as well as by vegetation and animals, I cannot say; all remarks on this subject would be conjecture merely. But if the researches of scientists prove beyond all question that there were pre-Adamic races, then doubtless they were inhabitants of that world which was destroyed, but the evidence of their existence as well as the evidence of the existence of animals and vegetation was preserved in the re-creation of that planet to form this earth. Though, in this connection, I must say that so far as I have examined the works of those who treat on the subject of pre-historic man, or pre-Adamic races, they have hung the heaviest weights on the slenderest of threads; and I am inclined to the opinion that Adam was the progenitor of all races of men whoso remain have yet been found.
So much then for the different theories as to the origin of things pertaining to our earth; as to the beginning of the universe, that is beyond the scope of this inquiry, and may be dismissed by saying that it had no beginning. We conclude this part by quoting one of our hymns:[F]
If you could hie to Kolob,[G]
In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward,
With the same speed to fly,
D'ye think that you could ever,
Through all eternity,
Find out the generation
Where Gods began to be?
Or see the grand beginning,
Where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation,
Where Gods and matter end?
Methinks the Spirit whispers—
No man has found "pure space,"
Nor seen the outside curtains
Where nothing has a place.
The works of God continue,
And worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression
Have one eternal round.
IV.
I think it must be evident to all who have looked upon the dead, that man is a dual being. Who that has stood by the bier of a friend, a parent, child or wife, and looked upon the lifeless form stretched upon it, but has felt that the being he loved has departed, that he is looking upon the casket merely that contained the jewel —the spirit. This truth forced upon man's consciousness in the presence of the dead is also sustained by the word of God, in which it is said —speaking of that mysterious change to which all flesh is subject, and which man calls death— "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return to God who gave it."[A]
It is my purpose to show in this writing, that this spirit of man existed before it was united with the body, that it is an emanation from Deity, and hence the relationship of Fatherhood on the part of God, and sonship on the part of man. It is written by the Apostle Paul that, "God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers, by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."[B] The palpable meaning of this passage is that God employed the spirit of Jesus Christ in creating worlds—not one world only, but doubtless many. And if it was the spirit of Jesus which acted as God's agent in the creation of the worlds, there can be no doubt as to the spirit of Jesus having an existence before it was tabernacled in the body born of the virgin Mary.
Nor is the above passage of scripture the only one which sustains the fact of the existence of the spirit of Jesus Christ previous to its union with the body. There are many expressions which fell from the lips of our Lord himself that prove the fact. When some of his disciples murmured at certain doctrines he had been teaching them, he exclaims—"Doth this offend you? what and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?"[C]—doubtless referring to the place he occupied in the mansions of his Father before the creation of the earth.
Again, just previous to his betrayal, in his prayer in Gethsemane, he said to his Father, "I have glorified thee on the earth, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, even with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."[D] No more direct allusion to his pre-existence could be given than this; and from it we learn that such existence extended back to a period previous to the creation of the earth we inhabit.
To all appearances Jesus was as other men in his physical organism. He was born of woman; nourished in the same manner and with the same food; subject to heat and cold, hunger and thirst and weariness. He was pre-eminently the man of sorrows, and more than other men subject to pain. In short he possessed all the organs, dimensions, passions and attributes of man; but in him the passions were refined and so nicely checked and balanced, and the attributes so developed and made subject to the will divine that he was a perfect man—a God! So nearly did he resemble other men that his countrymen, and especially his neighbors, failed to recognize God in him. And when he began his mission among them they said: "Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."[E]
We may now turn our attention to the more immediate object of this writing—the relationship between man and Deity.
An important inference may be reasonably based upon this similarity between the Son of God and other men, viz: that if the spirit which inhabited the body of Jesus had an existence before it dwelt in the flesh, is it not possible, and, rather is it not probable, that the spirits of other men, or of all men, also existed before they were born into the world? Since Jesus was so much like his brethren in the many respects noted, it requires no great effort to believe that they resemble him in this particular matter of the pre-existence of their spirits.
The question, however, rests upon stronger grounds than mere inference. The Lord said to Job:
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundation of the earth? declare if thou hast understanding. * * * Who laid the cornerstone thereof, when the morning stars sang together and all the Sons of God shouted for joy?"[F]
From this scripture one thing is certainly evident, viz: that before the creation of this earth— before the foundation was laid or the measuring line stretched upon it, there were "Sons of God" in existence; and they shouted for joy; perhaps it was at the prospect of the creation of the earth we inhabit that they shouted. And since it was the spirit of Jesus Christ under the direction of God the Father which created the worlds, it is but reasonable to suppose that he was present on that occasion, and may not they have been where the spirit of Job was also?
This doctrine of the pre-existence of spirits makes another scripture clear: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee," said the Lord to Jeremiah; "and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee to be a prophet unto the nations."[G] It was the spirit of Jeremiah which the Lord knew; which, in common with the spirit of Jesus, of Job, of Adam, and, in short, of all men,[H] dwelt in the presence of God; and as the spirit of Jeremiah possessed those peculiar characteristics which are favorable to the exercise of prophetic powers, the Lord foreordained him to be a prophet unto the nations.
In the revelations which the Lord gave to Abraham it is said:
"Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among these were many of the noble and great ones; and God saw that these were good; and he said, these I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me, Abraham, thou art one of them, thou wast chosen before thou wast born."[I]
This scripture not only proves the pre-existence of the spirits of men, but gives us to understand that some were more highly developed than others, were more noble, and hence set apart for special labors, some to be rulers; others, as in the case of Jeremiah, to be prophets, each one in the mighty multitude being assigned to the particular sphere, and given to the particular privileges that his state of development and degree of faithfulness entitled him to receive.
From the scriptures we learn that at one time there was war in heaven:
"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought, and the dragon fought and his angels. * * * And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."[J]
To this also agrees the testimony of Jude:
"And the angels who kept not their first estate but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."[K]
I have called attention to those passages to prove that there were some spirits who dwelt with God, so wicked and rebellious, that they had to be cast out of heaven, and became the devil and his angels; as well as some who had developed such nobility of character, that God had set them apart or ordained them to be his rulers. Between these two extremes of good and bad, obedient and rebellious were, I doubt not, all degrees of faithfulness and nobility of conduct; and I hazard the opinion that the amount and kind of development in that pre-existent state influences the character in this life, and brings within reach privileges and blessings commensurate with their faithfulness in the spirit world. Yet, I would not be understood as holding the opinion that those born to wealth and ease, whose lives appear to be an unbroken round of pleasure and happiness, must therefore have been spirits in their first estate that were very highly developed in refinement, and very valiant for God and his Christ. Regarding this present state of existence, where as a sphere man is sent to obtain an experience and further develop the intelligence within him, and obtain a knowledge of good and evil, from seeing them in contrast and contact with each other—I hold that that condition in life which is calculated to give the widest experience to man, is the one most to be desired, and he who obtains it is the most favored of God.
One step more in this digression in order that I may state further that I believe it consistent with right reason to say that some of the lowliest walks in life, the paths which lead into the deepest valleys of sorrow and up the most rugged steeps of adversity, are the ones which, if a man travel in, will best accomplish the object of his existence in this world. The stream that leaps over cliffs of rocks, thence goes tumbling down through some canyon's rugged defile, then divides into babbling brooks, now coquetting with the sunbeams or dancing in the sheen of the moon, then stealing into the shade as it meanders through the meadows, and then quickening its speed makes a final rush down a rocky declivity into the ocean—keeps its waters pure; while the stagnant pool is overgrown with sedges; is a place for toads to knot and gender in; breeds miasmata and infests the air with disease germs; its water is impure and it is altogether unlovely and undesirable. So it is with the life of man. The conditions which place men where they may always walk on the unbroken plain of prosperity and seek for nothing but their own pleasure, are not the best within the gift of God. For in such circumstances men soon drop into a position analogous to the stagnant pool; while those who have to contend with difficulties, brave dangers, endure disappointments, struggle with sorrows, eat the bread of adversity and drink the water of affliction; develop a moral and spiritual strength, together with a purity of life and character, unknown to the heirs of ease, and wealth, and pleasure. With the English bard, therefore, I believe
Sweet are the uses of adversity!
And with the Scotch poet I would say that those events, usually regarded as misfortunes,
Give the wit of age to youth;
They let us ken oursel';
They make us see the naked truth,
The real guid and ill.
Thou losses and crosses
Be lessons right severe,
There's wit there, ye'll get there,
Ye'll find nae other where.
What the mountain gorge, the beatling crags, and steep declivities are to the stream—enabling it to dash on in its course and by its very motion purify itself—so are what we usually denominate adverse circumstances to the life of man—they are the means of development and of purification only —the pathway of fiery trials is the one ordained of God for his favored sons.
In proof of this I direct you to the lives of the saints and the prophets; but above all to the life of the Son of God himself! The life of the Prophet Joseph Smith is an illustration second only to that of Messiah. He was wont to say:
"I have waded in tribulation lip-deep; but every wave of adversity which has struck me, has only wafted me that much nearer to Deity."
"Envy and the wrath of man have been my common lot all the days of my life; and for what cause it seems mysterious, unless I was ordained from before the foundation of the world for some good end, or bad, as you may choose to call it. * * * It all has become as second nature to me, and I feel like Paul, to glory in tribulation, for to this day has the God of my fathers delivered me out of them all."
The Lord, while the prophet was a prisoner in Liberty Jail, said to him:
"If thou art called to pass through tribulation; if thou art in perils among false brethren; if thou art in perils among robbers; if thou art in perils by land or by sea; if thou art accused with all manner of false accusations; if thine enemies fall upon thee; if they tear thee from the society of thy father and thy mother, and brethren and sisters; and if with a drawn sword thine enemies tear thee from the bosom of thy wife and of thine offspring * * * And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and sentence of death be passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, _and shall be for thy good_. The Son of Man hath descended below them all; art thou greater than he? Therefore hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee, for their [the wicked] bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you for ever and ever."[L]
If all this affliction was for the "good" of one of the most favored of God's sons, is it not a fair conclusion that the trials and adversities of the other sons of God are for their "good?"
Let us now consider the relationship existing between the spirits of men and God. Zechariah speaks of God as not only laying the foundation of the earth, but also as forming the spirit of man within him,[M] while the writer of the book of Hebrews alludes to Jesus as the first begotten[N] of God. The same writer also saith:
"We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence; shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live?"[O]
We now begin to see why Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Our Father which art in heaven." The words "Our Father" are not meaningless, but express the relationship between God and man. And not in any mystical way either, but in reality, the relationship being as much a fact as that existing between any father and son on earth.
This relationship accounts for the interest of God in man; it explains why he is "mindful of him;" why all created things are made but for his use, to supply his necessities, to furnish him with comforts, or afford him the means of experience and education. It makes us understand why such a gulf exists between man and the rest of the animal creation—man is the offspring of Deity and inherits his Father's attributes. It is true those attributes are undeveloped; and often distorted even from that degree of perfection it is possible for them to arrive at in this state of existence; but that they exist in man is beyond all question.
The relationship between God and man also enables us to understand how it is that God permitted such an atonement as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ to be made for his redemption. Among men may be seen how strong are the paternal feelings; but how much stronger and perfect they are in God than in man is manifest in this, that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life."[P]
Following as a consequence of the fatherhood of God is the brotherhood of man. And since Jesus Christ is the first begotten in the spirit world (and the "only begotten" of the Father in the flesh) it follows that he is our elder brother; a relationship which accounts for his willingness to make the great atonement which brings life and immortality within the reach of his brethren.
God and Christ, then, are by no means beings afar off that man may not know. Nor does God look upon mankind as worms or worthless things. On the contrary they are his offspring. He regards them with all the affection of a loving, father—
He sees their hopes he knows their fear,
And looks and loves his image there!
He delights not in their destruction, but would have all men to be saved; and for that purpose has established the gospel.
I point out this noble relationship of man to Deity, not to flatter the former, but because I believe it to be a fact. It is a theme I love to contemplate, not because it debases Deity, but because it elevates man, and must inspire him with noble aspirations, and to the performance of virtuous deeds. If but once understood and realized by mankind, I believe the conception would be a strong incentive to the reformation of the world; as it at once explains many things which have been regarded as mysterious, and explodes many of the absurdities which have crept into the men-invented systems of theology. Furthermore it brings man so near to Deity that like their Elder Brother—being in the form of God—being the children of God—they may think as Christ did, that it is no robbery to be equal with God,[Q] and may labor with worthy ambition to that end. Heirs of God they are, even joint heirs with Jesus Christ, if they obey the gospel of the Son of God; and they have the assurance of holy writ that when he shall appear they shall be like him.[R]
