Millennial Star
Bibliography

The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star was the official publication of the Church in the BRITISH ISLES from 1840 to 1970. Parley P. Pratt, an APOSTLE of the Church and the first editor of the periodical, outlined its purpose in its first issue, May, 1840, "The Millennial Star will stand aloof from the common political and commercial news of the day. Its columns will be devoted to the spread of the fulness of the gospel- the restoration of the ancient principles of Christianity-the gathering of Israel- the rolling forth of the kingdom of God among the nations- the signs of the times- ... in short, whatever is shown forth indicative of the coming of the ’Son of Man,’ and the ushering in of his universal reign on the earth." The presidents of the British Mission were always listed as the editors, among whom were five future PRESIDENTS OF THE CHURCH: Wilford WOODRUFF, Joseph F. SMITH, Heber J. GRANT, George Albert SMITH, and David O. MCKAY. The Millennial Star was officially retired in 1970, when it was subsumed into the Ensign, the English-language magazine for adults throughout the Church starting in 1971.

Reprinted in Eloquent Witness: Nibley on Himself, Others, and the Temple, Collected Works of Hugh Nibley vol. 17.
EDITORS NOTE: With Christmas still fresh in our memories, Professor Hugh Nibley, in this article especially prepared for the readers of the Millennial Star, gives us an interesting insight into what the world looks for in the celebration of Christmas. Nibley briefly looked into the question of whether it is possible that the bewildering profusion of Christmas observances might contain, among other things, a latent longing for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In an unbelieving world it is easier to prove a man to be a fraud than a prophet. The proof of a prophet lies in the witness of the Holy Ghost. The witness of the Spirit is more important than external evidences. The enlightened nature of the Book of Mormon startled the Christian world of the nineteenth century by answering numerous concerns. During the century that followed, religions modified their perspectives because of the Book of Mormon.

Quotes exclusively from Dewey Farnsworth’s The Americas before Columbus and the scriptures (Genesis 49:22-26, John 10:16) to show that American Indians are descended form the House of Israel and were acquainted with biblical stories (e.g., House of Noah, Abraham, Jacob) prior to contact with Europeans.

The Book of Mormon is first a warning voice to our day and time. We must serve God or perish, and beware of secret combinations. Second, it is a testimony that Jesus is the Christ. The third outstanding message shows the Lord’s concern toward the house of Israel.

Isaiah saw the great work of the Book of Mormon and prophesied concerning Martin Harris’s visit with Professor Anthon (Isaiah 29:11-12). The article contains Martin Harris’s account of this visit. Edward Stevenson wrote that Martin Harris saw his visit as a fullillment to Isaiah’s prophecy. Metallic sheets discovered in Iran buried in the palace of Darius verify the statements made by Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon about metal records.

Deines Book of Mormon archaeology as “that branch of general archaeology which studies the discoveries . . . [for] every fact which throws light upon the Book of Mormon” It can be expected both to elucidate the scripture and to conirm it. Using the study of the Bible through archaeology as a model, he lays out a logic and methods for doing so, notably by establishing “major” and “minor” correspondences. Major correspondences consist of geographical and chronological frameworks in the real (New) world that compare adequately with what the Book of Mormon says. Minor correspondences consider speciic cultural elements such as the use of iron, the wheel, the horse, etc. Ultimately it should be possible to test “the historical claims” of the Book of Mormon by archaeology. The status thus far is reviewed and the interim conclusion is reached that “in large part the Book of Mormon is vindicated by archaeological science; but many points still remain . . . to challenge us”