OCR Text |
Show Page 185 the conclusions drawn in an imperson void, as spare, even as minimal, as he could make them. Once again, the breadth of his reading is surprising for the man of pressing affairs who had been an uneducated lad. And the smooth continuity he achieves in his arguments must have been gratifying to him - at last, this could be his definitive rationale for Joseph Smith's charismatic universe. Significantly, it remains the only work in which he introduces himself as "Orson Pratt, A.M." The essay commences as far beyond critical objection as possible, with the statement that, necessarily, time is endless and space is boundless - the contrary cannot be conceived of. It is not however necessary that space be encumbered with matter - we merely perceive it to be so, and, admitting that, matter of necessity must be eternal. It follows that something has always existed in space, for something cannot be produced out of nothing. He then attacks the idea that any matter is necessarily the product of another part of matter: "...the creation of one part of substance from nothing cannot be established by necessity, experience, reason, analogy, nor divine revelation...it shall be treated as a wild speculation, or vague conjecture..." Indirectly, this puts to rest the notion of a creation ex nihilo and, therefore, the necessity of a creator who is not himself a part of the created universe. Orson admits, however, that "Upon this subject, mankind are divided." He can't comprehend that, for it is fare more consistent with the law of inductive reasoning to conclude that all substance is forever without beginning. Orson understands the universe to be immeasurably old, because of the illumination from stars that must be inconceivably distant: "When we look upon the widely extended field of existence, we are apt to imagine that we see worlds as they now exist, but this is not so...by the aid of light we only see the past, and not the present..." |