メリディアン
日本語
帰還宣教師から
From Returned Missionaries
Alma O. Taylor's Journal Excerpts-5
戻る(Return)
.
July 28
Most of the day was spent in writing letters to my friends. One or two days before leaving home, I received the following letter from the president of the Buddhist Mission in America Mr. K. Nishijima, a native of Japan 410 O. St Sacramento Cal. Mr. Alma O. Taylor July 7 "1901 Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Sir:- Your very lengthy and very interesting favor of the 28 th ult. and a newspaper [23] clipping and a card of the articles of your faith enclosed in it, were duly received; and also the copies of "Imporvement Era" which you so kindly sent me. I thank you very much for the same. My friend, I am greately impressed to learn from your letter that there are so many similarities between the warm and pious "home" of the Buddhists and the Mormons. And I found really many misunderstandings and misrepresentations by the opponents of your faith concerning the life of your people as is also the same case with our own faith and people. Our faith, as you know, with all other religious systems of the Orient, was classed by the Western people in one group that they termed heathenism; and all the Asaitic races as heathen. But now, by the indefatigable zeal and industry of the most prominent scholars of Europe and America, the Sacred Books of the East are made accessable to the Western world and those who become familiar with them are very deepely interested in the Oriental teachings - especially Buddhism. The people who were sincere and earnest in their search after truth, found the truth they sought for, in the so called heathenism of the Orient and consequently their minds became much broader and [25] impartial towards heathens. I believe that the time will come erelong, when the people who are used now to despise your faith and its followers, will fully understand them, and appreciate highly the beauty and excellency of "Mormonism" There is one thing, however, that I could not understand after all your explaination of your faith and it is the principle of polygamy which your people deem a sacred covenant. I wish to comprehend clearly from pure ethical and phylosophical point of view, instead of theologicaly, why the principle of polygamy should be deemed sacred for us, mankind.
My friend don't think me a man who has a cross intention to criticise your faith, but think me as a student, and kindly give information when it will not inconvience you. I shall be very pleased if you send me the copy of "Improvement Era" regularly, so that I may have an oppertunity to investigate your faith, and I shall send you regularly the copy of our journal, if you only let me know your address. Hoping you good health, I remain, Yours fr eternally, K. Nishijima To the above letter I wrote the following reply from Vancouver B.C. July 28 "
Rev. K. Nishijima Sacramento, Cal. My Dear Sir:- Your favor of the 7th came duly to hand, but owing to the great amount of work I had to do preparetory to leaving on my trip to Japan, I have been unable to answer it before. I am e now in the hotel at Vancouver awaiting the departure of the steamer. I shall be pleased to have you send me your journal and I will send you the address of the mission when it becomes permenantly established. In the last number which you sent me I found an article on Mahayana and Hinayana Texts which was very interesting.
I have always been impressed with the principles of temperence, peace, and goodwill that are the themes of many articles written by the desciples of Buddha. When I realize that I am going to preach the Gospel plan of Salvation to a people having in their creed many of the virtues of true Christianity, it becomes indeed a pleasant thaught and gives encouragement, which, in itself, is inspireing. Regarding the doctrine of polygamy from an ethical and phylosophical standpoint, I will say; that like all the other laws of God, polygamy is both moral and natural. Let me ask you why man and woman were created?
Why was it necessiary for there to be more than one sex? Why did not the human family consist of males, alone or of females alone? The answer is unmistakeably this; because it would have been impossible for the human race to have been perpetuated. Man in himself, could not have produced his kind; woman in herself could not have produced her kind; and the laws of nature which regulate all animal life would have been preverted and annulled. Therefore, man and woman were created for the purpose of producing their kind and in peopling the earth with an honest and a righteous seed. Unto them was given a law, governing their relationship to each other. What is that law? It is a law which has contained in it, resolutions, making the marriage covenant sacred and devine. The general assent of mankind, ever since the earliest history of his race, unto this law is an evidence that a marriage ceremony is in harmony with the feelings of humity and absolutely necessiary in obeying the social law, (which in this instance is a law of God). But the question of marriage being a moral and ethical law is so generally accepted in all the world, that it may need no furthur comment. If marriage in itself is ethical, moral, natural, divine, and proper from every standpoint; where can you find an ethical law which would make a plural marriage immoral so long as the ceremony is performed in exactly the same manner as when the first ties were made, and where a perfect love and devotion exists between the parties concerned? It cannot be called adultery, because the parties are married just the same as any other man and woman might be. It cannot be called brutal or for the sake of gratifying passion, for there exists a perfect mutual love just as perfect as exists between any husband and wife. It is true, that society has a great deal to do with the establishment of moral law, and society has said that polygamists are guilty of the crime of bigamy.