This doctrine, which seems self-evident now, also evidences the divine inspiration of the Prophet Joseph. At the time this revelation was given, food chemistry was not understood; and, in fact, it was not until about 1860, that the basis upon which rests our knowledge of food chemistry, was firmly established. We now know that every plant contains four great cla.s.ses of compounds: mineral substances, fats, sugars and starches, and protein, or the flesh-forming elements. We further know that no plant can live and grow without containing these groups of nutrients. It is also well understood that these substances are necessary for the food of the animal body, and that animal tissues are, themselves, composed of these groups, though in different proportions. In short, it has long been an established fact of science that any plant that does not contain a poisonous principle, may by proper cooking be used as a food for man.

When Joseph Smith wrote, this was a daring suggestion to make, for there was absolutely no fact aside from popular experience, upon which to base the conclusion. The qualifying phrase, "all wholesome herbs,"

undoubtedly refers to the existence of cla.s.ses of plants like coffee, tea, tobacco, etc., which contain some special principle injurious to the health.

[Sidenote: The doctrine concerning the use of meats is scientific.]

"Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; and it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or of famine."[A]

[Footnote A: Doctrine and Covenants, 89:12, 13.]

The breadth of this doctrine lies in the fact that it is not absolutely forbidden to eat meat, as in all probability a fanatic, guided by his own wisdom, might have done; yet it must be observed, the implication is clear that it is possible for man to live without meat. Vegetarianism had been taught and practiced long before the days of Joseph Smith; but there had been no direct, positive proof that plants contain all the substances necessary for the sustenance of life. As stated above, it is now known that every cla.s.s of nutritive substance found in meat is also found in plants. This is in full harmony with the implied meaning of Joseph Smith in the statement regarding the abstaining from meat.

[Sidenote: The distinction between the values of grains is also scientific.]

"All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life. * * * All grain is good for the food of man, as also the fruit of the vine, that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground. Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain."[A]

[Footnote A: Doctrine and Covenants, 89:14, 16 and 17.]

The first part of this teaching, that all grain can be used by man and beast, corresponds to the earlier statement that all wholesome plants may be used by man. The latter part respecting the best grain for certain cla.s.ses of animals, is of a different nature and merits special consideration. As already mentioned, all plants and plant parts contain four great groups of nutritive substances. The relative proportions of these grains are different in different plants or plant parts. For instance, wheat contains about 71.9 per cent of starch and sugar; corn, 70.2 per cent; oats, 59.7 per cent; rye, 72.5 per cent; and barley, 69.8 per cent. Wheat contains about 11.9 per cent of protein or the flesh-forming elements; corn, 11.4 per cent; oats, 11.8 per cent; rye, 10.6 per cent; and barley 12.4 per cent.[A] It has further been demonstrated that a man or beast doing heavy work, requires a larger proportion of starch and sugar in his dietary than does one which has less work to do. Likewise, different cla.s.ses of animals require different proportions of the various nutrients, not only through life but at the various periods of their lives. This principle has been recognized so fully that during the last thirty-five or forty years the attention of experimenters has been directed toward the elucidation of laws which would make known the best combinations of foods for the various cla.s.ses of farm animals, as well as for man. It must also be remarked that recent discoveries in science are showing more deep-seated differences in the composition of grains, than those here mentioned, as also corresponding differences in various cla.s.ses of animals. Science will soon throw more light on this subject, and in all probability will confirm the views of Joseph Smith, with respect to the grain best adapted to certain animals.

[Footnote A: The Feeding of Animals, Jordan, p. 424.]

A thoughtful reading of the above quotation clearly shows that Joseph Smith recognized the fundamental truth of food chemistry; namely, that while all plants contain the elements necessary for animal growth, yet the proportions of these elements are so different as to make some plants better adapted than others to a certain cla.s.s of animals. That the "Mormon" prophet should have enunciated this principle from twenty to thirty years in advance of the scientific world, must excite wonder in the breast of any person, be he follower or opponent of Joseph Smith.

The discussion of the important statements made in section 89 of the book of _Doctrine and Covenants,_ might be elaborated into a volume.

The merest outline has been given here. The physiological teachings of the prophet concerning work, cleanliness and sleep, might also be considered with profit.

[Sidenote: Joseph Smith antic.i.p.ated the world of science in the word of wisdom.]

To summarize the contents of this chapter: Joseph Smith clearly recognized and taught the physiological value of alcohol, tobacco, antic.i.p.ated the tea and coffee, at a time when scientific world of science discoveries were just beginning to reveal the active principles of these commodities. The probability is that he knew nothing of what the world of science was doing in this direction, at the time the doctrine was taught. Joseph Smith clearly recognized and taught the fundamental truths of food chemistry, and the food relation of vegetable products to man, nearly a generation before scientists had arrived at the same doctrine. Whence came his knowledge?

THE DESTINY OF EARTH AND MAN.

Chapter XIV.

THE LAW OF EVOLUTION.

[Sidenote: Whence? Where?]

To every intelligence the question concerning the purpose of all things must at some time present itself. Every philosophical system has for its ultimate problem the origin and the destiny of the universe. Whence? Where?--the queries which arise before every human soul, and which have stimulated the truth-seekers of every age in their wearisome task of searching out nature's laws. Intelligent man cannot rest satisfied with the recognition of the forces at work in the universe, and the nature of their actions; he must know, also, the resultant of the interaction of the forces, or how the whole universe is affected by them; in short, man seeks the law of laws, by the operation of which, things have become what they are, and by which their destiny is controlled. This law when once discovered, is the foundation of religion as well as of science, and will explain all phenomena.

[Sidenote: The only rational philosophy is based on science.]

It was well toward the beginning of the last century before philosophical doctrines rose above mere speculation, and were based upon the actual observation of phenomena. As the scientific method of gathering facts and reasoning from them became established, it was observed that in all probability the great laws of nature were themselves controlled by some greater law. While many attempts have been made to formulate this law, yet it must be confessed, frankly, that only the faintest outline of it is possesesd by the world of science.

The sanest of modern philosophers, and the one who most completely attempted to follow the method of science in philosophical writings, was Herbert Spencer. Early in his life, he set himself the task of constructing a system of philosophy which should be built upon man's reliable knowledge of nature. A long life permitted him to realize this ambition. Though his works are filled with conclusions which cannot be accepted by most men, yet the facts used in his reasoning are authentic. By the world at large, the philosophy of Herbert Spencer is considered the only philosophy that harmonizes with the knowledge of today.

[Sidenote: All things are continually changing.--This is the foundation of evolution.]

After having discussed, with considerable fullness, the elements of natural phenomena, such as s.p.a.ce, time, matter, motion and force, Mr.

Spencer concludes that all evidence agrees in showing that "every object, no less than the aggregate of objects, undergoes from instant to instant some alteration of state."[A] That is to say that while the universe is one of system and order, no object remains exactly as it is, but changes every instant of time.

[Footnote A: First Principles, p. 287.]

In two directions only can this ceaseless change affect an object; it either becomes more complex or more simple; it moves forward or backward; it grows or decays. In the words of Spencer, "All things are growing or decaying, acc.u.mulating matter or wearing away, integrating or disintegrating."[A] This, then, is the greatest known fundamental law of the universe, and of all things in it--that nothing stands still, but either progresses (evolution), or retrogrades (dissolution). Now, it has been found that under normal conditions all things undergo a process of evolution; that is, become more complex, or advance.[B] This, in its essence, is the law of evolution, about which so much has been said during the last fifty years. Undoubtedly, this law is correct, and in harmony with the known facts of the universe. It certainly throws a flood of light upon the phenomena of nature; though of itself, it tells little of the force behind it, in obedience to which it operates.

[Footnote A: Loc. cit., p. 292.]

[Footnote B: Loc. cit., p. 337.]

Spencer himself most clearly realized the insufficiency of the law of evolution alone, for he asks, "May we seek for some all-pervading principle which underlies this all pervading process!"[A] and proceeds to search out this "all-pervading principle" which at last he determines to be the persistence of force--the operation of the universal, indestructible, incomprehensible force, which appears as gravitation, light, heat, electricity, magnetism, chemical affinity and in other forms.[B]

[Footnote A: First Principles, p. 408.]

[Footnote B: Loc. cit., p. 494.]

[Sidenote: Evolution does not admit a final death.]

A natural question now is, Is there any limit to the changes undergone by matter, and which we designate as evolution? "Will they go on forever? or will there be an end to them?"[A] As far as our knowledge goes, there is an end to all things, a death which is the greatest known change, and as far as human experience goes, all things tend toward a death-like state of rest. That this rest is permanent is not possible under law of evolution; for it teaches that an ulterior process initiates a new life; that there are alternate eras of evolution and dissolution. "And thus there is suggested the conception of a past during which there have been successive evolutions a.n.a.logous to that which is now going on; and a future during which successive other such evolutions may go on ever the same in principle but never the same in concrete result."[B] This is practically the same as admitting eternal growth.

[Footnote A: Loc. cit., p. 496.]

[Footnote B: Loc. cit., p. 550.]

The final conclusion is that "we can no longer contemplate the visible creation as having a definite beginning or end, or as being isolated.

It becomes unified with all existence before and after; and the force which the universe presents falls into the same category with s.p.a.ce and time, as admitting of no limitation in thought."[A]

[Footnote A: Loc. cit., p. 564.]

[Sidenote: Spirit and matter are alike.]

It is interesting to note the conclusion concerning spirit and matter, to which Mr. Spencer is led by the law of evolution. "The materialist and spiritualist controversy is a mere war of words, in which the disputants are equally absurd--each thinking that he understands that which it is impossible for any man to understand. Though the relation of subject and object renders necessary to us these ant.i.thetical conceptions of spirit and matter; the one is no less than the other to be regarded as but a sign of the Unknown Reality which underlies both."[A]

[Footnote A: First Principles, pp. 570 and 572.]

While the law of evolution, as formulated by Spencer and accepted by the majority of modern thinkers, is the nearest approach to the truth possessed by the world of science, yet there is no disposition on the part of the writer to defend the numerous absurdities into which Spencer and his followers have fallen when reasoning upon special cases.

[Sidenote: Evolution and natural selection do not necessarily go together.]

Many years before Mr. Spencer's day, it had been suggested, vaguely, that advancement seemed to be the great law of nature. Students of botany and zoology were especially struck by this fact, for they observed how animals and plants could be made to change and improve under favorable conditions, by the intervention of man's protection.

In 1859, Mr. Charles Darwin published a theory to account for such variation, in which he a.s.sumed that there is a tendency on the part of all organisms to adapt themselves to their surroundings, and to change their characteristics, if necessary, in this attempt. He further showed that in the struggle for existence among animals and plants, the individual best fitted for its environment usually survives. These facts, Mr. Darwin thought, led to a process of natural selection, by which, through long ages, deep changes were caused in the structure of animals. In fact, Darwin held that the present-day plants and animals have descended from extinct and very different ancestors.[A] The experiences of daily life bear out the a.s.sertion that organic forms may be changed greatly--witness the breeding of stock and crops, practiced by all intelligent farmers--and all in all the theory seemed so simple that numerous biologists immediately adopted it, and began to generalize upon it. Having once accepted the principle that the present-day species have descended from very unlike ancestors, it was easy to a.s.sume that all organic nature had descended from one common stock. It was claimed that man, in a distant past, was a monkey; still earlier, perhaps, a reptile; still earlier a fish, and so on. From that earliest form, man had become what he is by a system of natural selection. In spite of the absence of proofs, such ideas became current among the scientists of the day. In this view was included, of course, the law of evolution or growth, and thus, too, the law became a.s.sociated with the notion that man has descended from the lower animals. In fact, however, the law of evolution is just as true, whether or not Darwin's theory of natural selection be adopted.

[Footnote A: Origin of Species, p. 6.]

In justice to Darwin, it should be said that he in nowise claimed that natural selection was alone sufficient to cause the numerous changes in organic form and life; but, on the contrary, held that it is only one means of modification.[A]