It is true these words in the Book of Mormon, are written as simple words, but they are susceptible of being regarded as compound words, as follows: "Anti-Omno," "Anti-Pas," "Anti-Parah," and so following. If the Peruvian terraces derived their name from this native word "Anti," then when applied to Nephite lands Anti-Onum would doubtless mean the terraced lands of Onum, and Anti-Parah, the name of a city, would doubtless be the terraced city of Parah, and so following.
But after all this is said it is still a matter of regret that more of the Nephite names, both of men and countries, have not survived in the native American languages. Still the field of knowledge of American antiquities has not yet been thoroughly explored, and when its buried cities and monuments shall be more thoroughly known all the evidences that can be demanded along these lines will doubtless be produced.
III.
Nephi's Temple.
First Nephi gives the following account of building a temple in the New World:
And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon, save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land; wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon's temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceeding fine.[[33]]
This statement is unfairly dealt with by objectors. They generally represent it as saying that Nephi, in this description, holds out the idea that he duplicated Solomon's temple, excepting as to the richness of the materials employed in its construction. Then an elaborate description of the greatness and architectural grandeur of Solomon's temple is given. Attention is also called to the fact that the Hebrew nation bent all their energies through seven years of activity in constructing the temple of Solomon; that they were aided by surrounding peoples, notably by King Hiram and the Tyrians.
After all this is explained then comes what is supposed to be an insurmountable difficulty, namely: Lehi's colony that came from Jerusalem to America was a very small one, consisting of two families only, Lehi's and Ishmael's, and in addition the man Zoram, perhaps not exceeding a score of adult persons on their arrival in the promised land. Then after some time this colony is divided; the more righteous branch following Nephi, and the wicked following his elder brothers Laman and Lemuel. So that it is safe to conclude that during the lifetime of the first Nephi the colony remained a very small one; and since this temple was built about thirty years after the colony departed from Jerusalem, the Nephite division of it could not have included more than one hundred adults. How, then, it is triumphantly asked, could this small colony duplicate Solomon's temple, renowned for its architectural beauty and greatness, and which required seven years for the nation of the Hebrews to construct, assisted by surrounding people and the great treasuries which David, in his reign, had accumulated for that sacred purpose?
The answer to the objection is to be found in a denial of the construction put upon Nephi's description of his temple. That description does not warrant the conclusion that Nephi's temple was a duplicate of Solomon's, except as to the "manner of the construction," from which it is to be inferred that the general plan of the structure followed that of Solomon's, but it does not follow that it was anything like Solomon's in the extent or largeness of it; but in the arrangement of its courts; its several divisions and subdivisions were built "after the manner" and for the purposes for which Solomon's temple was constructed. So that the labored argument as to the inability of so small a colony as Lehi's duplicating Solomon's temple is merely so much wasted energy, since no one is bound to hold that in its dimensions and greatness the Nephite Temple equaled Solomon's temple. It was only like unto Solomon's temple in its arrangement and uses, but doubtless by this colony was regarded as a very great achievement, as undoubtedly it was, and they would likely speak of it in the superlative degree of admiration in describing it.