or raffling device, can be approved in any entertainment under the auspices of our Church organizations.

The desire to get something of value for little or nothing is pernicious; and any proceeding that strengthens that desire is an effective aid to the gambling spirit, which has proved a veritable demon of destruction to thousands. Risking a dime in the hope of winning a dollar in any game of chance is a species of gambling.

Let it not be thought that raffling articles of value, offering prizes to the winners in guessing-contests, the use of machines of chance, or any other device of the kind is to be allowed or excused because the money so obtained is to be used for a good purpose. The Church is not to be supported in any degree by means obtained through gambling.

Let the attention of stake and ward officers, and those in charge of the auxiliary organizations of the Church be directed to what has been written on this subject and to this present reminder. An article over the signature of the President of the Church was published in the Juvenile Instructor, October 1, 1902 (volume 37, page 592) in which were given citations from earlier instruction and advice to the people on this subject. For convenience, part of that article is repeated here. In reply to a question as to whether raffling and games of chance are justifiable when the purposes to be accomplished are good, this was said: "We say emphatically, No. Raffle is only a modified name of gamble."

President Young once said to Sister Eliza R. Snow: "Tell the sisters not to raffle. If the mothers raffle, the children will gamble. Raffling is gambling." Then it is added: "Some say 'What shall we do? We have quilts on hand,-we cannot sell them, and we need means to supply our treasury, which we can obtain by raffling, for the benefit of the poor.' Rather let the quilts rot on the shelves than adopt the old adage, 'The end will sanctify the means." As Latter-day Saints, we cannot afford to sacrifice moral principle to financial gain."

As was further stated in the article cited, the General Board of the Deseret Sunday School Union has passed resolutions expressing its unqualified disapproval of raffling and of all games of chance, for the purpose of raising funds for the aid of the Sunday

School. And the general authorities of the Church have said, as they now say, to the people: Let no raffling, guessing-contests, or other means of raising money, by appealing to the spirit of winning by chance, be tolerated in any organization of the Church. JOSEPH F. SMITH,

JOHN R. WINDER,

ANTHON H. LUND,

First Presidency.

MODERATION IN BURIAL DISPLAYS.

A good friend who is often called upon to attend to the proprieties on behalf of the dead, calls attention in a letter to the indulgence of extravagance in the laying away of our departed friends and relatives. She believes that the Lord is not pleased with the profusion of flowers, the expensive dress, and even with the ornaments of gold in the form of rings and other jewelry used in decorating the dead.

Some people have even gone so far as to object to this finery being covered by the temple clothes, and have requested that these be put on later, as if not worthy of being seen. This extravagance in places is practiced to such an extent that some of our people actually distress themselves to bury their dead.

We certainly recommand moderation and wisdom in the use of flowers, the hire of carriages, and the purchase of caskets. In the old scriptures we have numerous examples of simplicity in burials. While we are not called upon literally to follow these, they should be a lesson to us to avoid ostentations, and to attend to these matters with only such displays and preparations as will show due respect for the departed, and proper consideration for the living.

In Jewish times the preparations for burial were not of an elaborate character. The dead body was washed (Acts 9:37), anointed with ointments (John 19: 39), wound in linen cloths (John 19: 40; Luke 23: 52-3), and the hands and feet bound with

grave clothes, and the face bound about with a napkin (John 11: 44; 20: 6, 7). The dead body was carried to the grave upon a bier or litter (Luke 7: 14; compare with II Kings 13: 21; II Sam. 3:31) which was a simple flat board, we are told, borne on two or three staves. Coffins were unknown among the Israelites. In the case of our Lord and Savior, on the day of the cruel crucifixion, "When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: he went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed" (Matt. 27:57-60). This, in the case of our Master and Great Example! Could anything be more simple and unostentatious?

Relating to dress, the Latter-day Saints burial clothes are all sufficient for our day. Anything more is unnecessary, which good, common sense would clearly suggest; while the burial of jewelry with the dead can serve no good purpose. It savors of vanity, and might prove a temptation to grave robbers,-a naturally horrible thought. In like manner with carriages and caskets, only the necessary and modest should be used.

In the Book of Mormon, there is no intimation that great ostentation was made even at burials of illustrious men. We are simply told that Lehi, the great prophet of the new world, after he had spoken to his household, according to the feelings of his heart and the Spirit of the Lord which was in him, waxed old, died and was buried. Ishmael, a prominent founder of the people of the American continent, died and was buried in the place which was called Nahom. And of the great Prophet Alma: "As to his death or burial we know not of." He was a religious man and the saying went abroad in the Church that he was taken up by the Spirit, or buried by the hand of the Lord, even as Moses. In no case have we an account of costly apparel, jewelry, a profusion of flowers purchased at the expense of the necessities of the living, a retinue of hired carriages, and other extravagant displays so common among the people today. We agree with our friend that these extravagances are not pleasing in the sight of the Lord, and

again recommend to the Latter-day Saints moderation and wisdom JOSEPH F. SMITH.

in these things.

WAS JESUS THE MESSIAH?

Some of the biblical scholars of the world are very anxious to prove that Jesus was only an extraordinary man and philosopher, and further, that Christ himself held no other view, and never declared himself to be the Messiah. In a recent issue of the New York Independent, Nathaniel Schmidt, of Cornell University, one of America's ablest biblical scholars, and Professor Crane, lately of the Chicago Theological Seminary, discuss this question. The first named is very radical in his disbelief of Jesus as the Messiah, and sets forth his reasons for so holding. The editor of the Independent replies to his paper in what seems to us a very decisive and conclusive argument, which is here given in full:

Professor Schmidt denies that Jesus was more than an extraordinary man. He does not believe that he performed niracles or was raised from the dead, or that he was the Messiah, or even claimed to be such. When Jesus used the term "Son of Man," applied to himself, he meant nothing more than man, because that, in the Galilean Aramaic, which he spoke, bar-nasha, son of man, was the regular word for man and would mean nothing else; and so when used by Jesus himself it could not mean Son of Man, that is the Messiah. Indeed Professor Schmidt says that this is "the only Aramaic term which Jesus can have used." We have no literary Galilean Aramaic preserved earlier than a hundred years after Christ, but we have the Aramaic of Daniel, supposed to be perhaps two centuries before Christ, and in the seventh chapter we have bar 'anash, son of man, once, and 'anash, man, several times. There is not the slightest evidence that in our Lord's time the simple man was not used, as well as son of man. But Jesus seems to have used "Son of Man" in a peculiar and Messianic sense, that is unless the critic cuts it out every time as not genuine.

Let us add a word to

But we cannot discuss these two articles at length. what Professor Crane has said. In order to sustain Professor Schmidt's contention it is necessary to reverse the whole sense and feeling of the Synoptic Gospels, as well as of John's gospel. In order to accomplish this Professor Schmidt puts their date very late, as late as 100 A. D. so as to allow time for the accretion of myth, and holds them to be full of interpolations. But he cannot do this for Paul. Paul was the contemporary of our Lord, although he never saw him, being in Tarsus. He came to Jerusalem to study under Gamaliel, and there h● met the disciples of Jesus. time for legendary accretions. He talked freely with Peter, James and John.

He got his facts directly from them before there was

He repeats in First Corinthians the words with which he was told that our Lord instituted the last supper, the same as we have in the gospels: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood;" and Paul, adds: "As often as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come." Paul learned from the disciples themselves that Jesus would come again, that he was the Messiah, that he rose from the dead. There is no question of this, and with this the Synoptic Gospels agree. One who is going to eviscerate the gospels and leave Jesus as nothing but a mere human teacher has got to deal first with Paul and then with the disciples, from whom Paul learned the story and the teachings of Jesus. He mnst explain how it happens that the contemporary Paul got all this from Christ's own contemporaries, who were with him for three years, and who were present at his death, and who believed they saw him alive after his passion. With Paul agree the four Gospels. To get rid of all this, and reduce Jesus to a teacher who claimed nothing and did nothing but repeat a cycle of beautiful and noble parables, is a psychological problem which passes our solution.

TO CREATE THE HEBREW MEANING.

Dr. Frederic Clift, of Provo, has sent the ERA the following statement and letter, which give light on a subject of interest to the elders in the mission field, as well as to students at home. He says:

"My opinion having been sought as to the philological meaning of the Hebrew word which is translated in the first and second chapters of Genesis as create, I thought it would be of more value to obtain the opinion of one of the greatest of our living Hebrew scholars. I accordingly wrote to Dr. Robert H. Kennett, the Regius Professor of Hebrew, in my old university, Cambridge, England. His answer makes it, I think, perfectly clear, that 'Mormon' philosophy is in accord with the exact philological meaning of the word 'create,' as used in Genesis. As the opinion is

authoritative, and the point is often raised by those opposed to Latter-day teachings, I give the reply to my question on the subject in full:"

"THE COLLEGE, ELY, October 9, 1908.

"DEAR SIR:-In answer to your letter, I may say that, whatever be the exact philological meaning of the word translated 'create,' in Gen. 1, which is not quite certain, it does not mean to make out of nothing. Gen. 1, 2 (in the form which it has in the Hebrew) makes it quite clear that the writer assumes the existence