CHAPTER I.

1. Now it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, from this time forward, king Mosiah having gone the way of all the earth, having warred a good warfare, walking uprightly before God, leaving none to reign in his stead; nevertheless he established laws, and they were acknowledged by the people; therefore they were obliged to abide by the laws he had made.

2. And it came to pass that in the first year of the reign of Alma in the judgment seat, there was a man brought before him to be judged; a man who was large, and was noted for his much strength, etc.

And so throughout the abridgment this style continues as pointed out in chapter IX of this work. Had the style which is followed in the abridgment found its way into the translation of the unabridged part of the record, the reader can readily see how strong an objection it would have constituted against the claims of the Book of Mormon. As to style in other respects there is marked uniformity in the translation. I have already pointed out the fact that the style of the translation of the Book of Mormon is influenced, of course, by the translator; the statements and ideas of the Nephite writers being set forth in such English and in such literary style as Joseph Smith, with his limited knowledge of language, could command; he, in his turn, of course, being influenced in his expressions by the facts and ideas made known to him from the Nephite record through Urim and Thummim, and the inspiration of God under which he worked. It is useless to assert a diversity of style where it does not exist, and that it does not exist in the Book of Mormon except as to the matter of a distinction between Jaredite and Nephite proper names, hereafter to be noted, and the distinction between the abridged records and those unabridged--to the extent just pointed out--it would be easy, though unnecessary, to demonstrate; since any one may satisfy himself by even a casual inspection of the Book of Mormon itself.

The demand for diversity of style in the various parts of the translation of the Book of Mormon is urged too strongly. It is sometimes represented, even by believers in the Book of Mormon, that the volume contains the compiled writings of a long line of inspired scribes extending through a thousand years, written not only at different times but under varying conditions, and that unity of style under such circumstances is not to be expected, and did it occur it would be fatal to the claims made for the Book of Mormon! Now, as a matter of fact, there is great unity of style in the translation of the Book of Mormon which any one can verify who will read it; and properly so, I insist; for the reason that general unity of style is not incompatible with the theory of the work's construction and translation. First of all this long line of inspired writers that should give to us diversity of style in their writings is reduced really to a very small matter when the facts in the case are considered. We have already seen, in chapter IX, that all told there are but eleven writers in the Book of Mormon. The work of nine of these runs through only 400 years of Nephite history--from the time Lehi's colony left Jerusalem to the time when the Nephites, under Mosiah I., joined the people of Mulek, some 200 years B. C. Then we have the works of no Nephite writer until we come to Mormon, who makes his abridgment of the Nephite records in the closing years of the 4th century A. D. So that 600 years of the 1,000 through which the long line of Nephite writers is supposed to run is lifted bodily from the "time range." I say we have no Nephite writings between the works of the first group of nine Nephite writers (600-200 B. C.) to the writings of Mormon (400 A. D.) I should say, we have no such writings except where here and there Mormon, in his abridgment, makes a direct quotation from some intervening writer between those two periods. Such quotations, however, are neither numerous nor long, and in many instances one is left in doubt as to whether supposed quotations are verbatim or merely the substance of the original documents given by Mormon. What has led to confusion in these matters is that the books of "Mosiah," "Alma," "Helaman," "III Nephi," etc., are not really the books of these men whose names respectively they bear, but are Mormon's abridgment of those books to which abridgment he has given the name of the book he abridged. Then, again, of these eleven writers we have already shown (chapter IX) that the first group of nine writers supplied but 157 pages of the book. Of these Nephi writes 127 1/2 pages; and his brother, Jacob, 21 1/2; making in all 149 of the 157; leaving but 8 pages for the other seven writers; and as Enos, who follows Jacob, writes 2 1/2 pages of the remaining 8, there is left but 5 1/2 pages for the remaining six writers. It should be kept in mind, too, that the whole nine authors were writing in the first 400 years of Nephite times; that Jacob and Nephi lived much of their lives together, therefore, in the same period of time, under similar conditions, with the same little colony of people. Hence there was not much to give diversity of style to their writings, and the few paragraphs left for the remaining seven writers could not be sufficient to develop very much diversity of style in composition. So that the diversity of style clamored for, so far as this group of nine writers is concerned, is not very insistent.

Turning now to the writers of the Book of Mormon who come six hundred years later, Mormon and Moroni, they are contemporaries, father and son. They lived in the same age. One abridged the history of the Nephites, the other a brief history of the Jaredites. So that their work is similar in character, is wrought in the same age, and hence great diversity of style is not to be expected.

Another factor in the question of style is that in the "time range" of 1,000 years through which it is assumed the Book of Mormon is being composed, there is not much change in the manners or customs of the people--not very widely varying conditions. It must be remembered that the colonies which came to America in the sixth century B. C. were made up of men and women who were civilized. They brought with them a knowledge of the civilization in the midst of which they had lived. They also had some Hebrew literature with them, although written in Egyptian characters; also the Hebrews ideas of government and law, and these ideas were promulgated among the people as they increased in numbers and grew into a nation. The before mentioned "time range" of 1,000 years was a period in the world's history when there was no such revolutions taking place in manners, customs, and progress in civilization as is known to our own age. In the western world, as in the eastern, in the period under consideration, human affairs in the matter of developing civilization, were well nigh stationary. The same methods and implements of warfare were employed at the close of the period as were used at its beginning. So in agriculture, commerce, and in the sciences and arts. Not nearly so many changes took place in that thousand years as have taken place within the last hundred years. Hence, so far as changing conditions affecting style of composition during the time limit of 1,000 years is concerned, there is nothing which demands great diversity of style.

Another item at this point should be considered with reference to a misapprehension of the character of the Book of Mormon. It has been frequently urged by writers against the Book of Mormon that it pretends to be the national or racial literature of the peoples of the western hemisphere, and that in the light of such pretentions it is utterly contemptible. Such a conception of the Book of Mormon, however, is entirely unwarranted, since no such claims are made for it by those at all acquainted with its character. No one acquainted with the book could for a moment hold it up as the national literature of either the Jaredite empire or of the Nephite monarchy or republic, any more than he could regard the single work of Josephus on the "Antiquities of the Jews" as the national literature of the Hebrew race or nation; or Doctor William Smith's "Condensed History of England" (less than four hundred pages) as the national literature of the British empire.

The Book of Mormon was constructed in this manner: Let us suppose that a writer has before him the national literature of the old Roman empire; the works of Livy, Sallust, Virgil, Caesar, Terrance, Cicero, and the rest. The account of the chief events mentioned in these several volumes he condenses in his own style into a single volume. Coming to the annals of Tacitus, however, he is so well pleased with some portions of them that notwithstanding the events Tacitus narrates parallel some parts of his own abridgment of the history, he places them, without editing or changing them in the least, with his own writings. This work, upon his death, falls into the hands of his son, who is also a writer. In the course of the second writer's researches he accidentally, or providentially, as you will, discovers the works of the Greek historian, Xenophon. He considers this writer's history of Greece of such importance--especially his history of the "Retreat of the Ten Thousand"--that he condenses into a few pages the events related by Xenophon and binds them in with his father's work, with such comments of his own as he considers necessary. As the first writer's abridgment of some of the Roman books would not be the national literature of Rome, so also the abridgment of Xenophon's writings would not be the national literature of Greece; and as this supposed case exactly illustrates the manner in which the Book of Mormon was constructed by Mormon and Moroni, the absurdity of regarding the book so produced as the national or racial literature of the peoples who have inhabited the western world, will be apparent.

II.

_Characteristics of an Abridgment._

In addition to the changes from the first to the third person already noted between the first group of Nephite authors, whose writings are unabridged, and Mormon and Moroni's abridgment, there is one other item which further exhibits the consistency between the style and language of the book with the theory of its construction, viz: The style of Mormon and Moroni's part of the work is pronouncedly the style of an abridgment. Its general characteristics have already been considered in