Footnotes
[1]. Vol. II., chapter viii.
[2]. Alma iv: 1-5.
[3]. Alma i: 23, 24.
[4]. Helaman iii: 32, 33.
[5]. Helaman iii: 32, 33.
[6]. Helaman xi: 21-24
[7]. Ether xiv: 33.
[8]. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Hackett edition Vol. III., p. 2062.
[9]. In the first chapter of Ether there is given a list of names of Jaredite kings, twenty-six in all. In the first thirteen names—half of the number—representing the most ancient Jaredite times, there are only four that could possibly be derivatives; these are Oriah, Coriantumr, Riplakish, Morianton, while in the latter half of the list of names there are at least six derivatives. Beginning with the most ancient they are—Hearthom, Amnigaddah, Coriantumr, Shiblon, Ethem, Coriantor.
[10]. It is not until we reach the middle and later period of Nephite times that we meet with such names as Amlici, Antiomno, Amalickiah, Nephiah, Moronihah, Kishkuman, Pecumeni, Lachoneus, Giddianhi, Gidgiddoni, Zemnarihah, Ammaron, Ammonihah, and many others that are plainly derivative names.
[11]. While there can be no more than conjecture upon this point the likelihood of the thing, I am inclined to believe, is all on the side of his marriage and the perpetuation of his race. Coriantumr had doubtless every reason to believe that he was the sole survivor of his people, and he could have no greater anxiety than that his race should be perpetuated. In support of this theory it may be urged that in the Nephite history, about 41 B. C., we learn of a very strong and mighty leader in war, bearing the name "Coriantumr," who was a descendant of Zarahemla (Helaman i: 15: 32), the leader of the descendants of Mulek's colony when discovered by Mosiah I, about 200 B. C. It was Mulek's colony, it will be remembered, who found Coriantumr, the Jaredite, and with whom he lived some nine months. May it not be reasonably supposed that this noted man among the Nephites, bearing the name of the old Jaredite chieftain was a descendant of his, since we find that chieftain's name strangely appearing among the Nephites? And may it not be urged that here we have one of those obscure instances in the history of a great people unlikely to be provided for by conspirators constructing a book to be imposed up the world as a revelation from God?
[12]. It is quite possible also that the word Shiblon among the Nephites came from the Jaredites. Unfortunately the orthography of this name is given in two ways in the translation of the Jaredite abridgment, "Shiblom" and "Shiblon;" but if the Jaredite name is Shiblon, it may be that the name among the Nephites was taken from the Jaredites as suggested.
[13]. Ether vii: 4-9.
[14]. Ether vii: 6, 16, 17; also xiv: 6-11.
[15]. Helaman v: 14.
[16]. Alma li: 30.
[17]. Helaman i: 22.
[18]. Helaman i: 23.
[19]. Alma l: 14.
[20]. Alma lxii: 32.
[21]. Alma lxii: 30.
[22]. Alma lxii: 30.
[23]. Alma lvi: 14.
[24]. Alma lvi: 14.
[25]. Rollin's Ancient History, Vol. I., pp. 266, 227.
[26]. Ibid.
[27]. Genesis xi: 9.
[28]. Osborn, Ancient Egypt and the light of Modern Discoveries, p. 205.
[29]. Plato (Jowett), Vol. II., p. 517.
[30]. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Hackett Ed., Vol. III., p. 2060.
[31]. Ibid.
[32]. Ether xv: 8.
[33]. Ether ii: 3.
[34]. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, article "Names," Vol. III., p. 2061.
[35]. Ether ix: 19.
[36]. I. Nephi xvii: 5.
[37]. Alma xxxvii: 38-40. I. Nephi xvi: 10-30. I. Nephi xviii: 12-21. II. Nephi v: 12.
[38]. Alma xxxvii: 23.
[39]. Alma xi.
CHAPTER XXXVIII
INTERNAL EVIDENCES—THE BOOK OF MORMON FORMS OF GOVERNMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE TIMES AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY EXISTED.
In the Book of Mormon three forms of government are said to have existed among the various peoples inhabiting the western world. These are, first, a Monarchial form; second, a sort of Republic or rule of Judges; third, an Ecclesiastical government, or rule of priests, ending finally in the rule of military chieftains. The Book of Mormon giving as it does, though only in an incidental way, a description of these several forms of government, presents a crucial test of its claims to being a translation of an ancient record. For if in describing any one of these forms of government it should be out of harmony with well known facts concerning ancient forms of government, or if it ascribes to them qualities or powers out of harmony with the times or circumstances under which they existed, then doubt is thrown upon the claims of the book to being a translation of an ancient record. To illustrate the proposition now laid down: It is well known that to the ancients the only form of monarchy was what we call a "simple" or "absolute" monarchy; that is, a form of government in which all powers of government are centered in one person. Such a thing as a division of the powers of government into co-ordinate branches, relegating several functions to distinct persons or groups of persons, was unknown to the ancients. The ideas prevailing in modern times which have brought into existence our "mixed" or "constitutional monarchies" had not as yet been discovered by the ancients; hence if such modern ideas concerning monarchy should be found in the Book of Mormon governments, involving the existence of cabinets, parliaments or distinct judiciary departments it would at least be very prejudical to the claims of the book to being an ancient record.
Again in respect of democratic forms of government: the only form known to the ancient was "simple" democracy. The form of government by which the people acted directly upon governmental affairs. The principle of representation in democracies was not as yet discovered in times contemporary with the Book of Mormon republic, therefore if in the Nephite republic, or the "reign of the Judges," as that form of government is sometimes called in the Book of Mormon, there should be found the representative principle, which is really a modern refinement in government, that fact too would be prejudicial to its claims being an ancient record. Per contra, if these modern ideas respecting monarchial and democratic forms of government are absent from the kingdoms and republics described in the book, then it would be at least presumptive evidence of the genuineness of its claims; for if the Book of Mormon had been the product of a modern author, or authors, there would very likely be found in it some of the modern ideas of government, both in its monarchies and in its republics, and especially would this be probable if its authors were illiterate men and not acquainted with these facts concerning government among ancient peoples. Under those circumstances the ancient and modern forms would inevitably be confounded because modern illiterate authors would not possess sufficient discretion to keep them separated.