When the general unity of style found in the Book of Mormon is taken into account, this distinction in proper names becomes all the more remarkable. But it is a case where the circumstances emphatically demand a distinction; just as the circumstances emphatically demand a marked distinction at the transition from the unabridged writings of the Nephite authors--written in the first person, and in so simple and direct a style--to the abridged record of Mormon--written in the third person and in so complex, not to say confusing, a style. Had the Prophet Joseph's translation of the Book of Mormon failed to have shown the distinctions at these points where such distinctions are so imperatively demanded--in a word, had the style and language of the book failed to be consistent with the theory of its construction--how serious an objection the failure would have been considered! But since the consistency of the style and language of the book with the theory of the work's construction is established, how strong the evidence is which that fact constitutes! And more especially when it is remembered that neither Joseph Smith nor his associates had sufficient knowledge of literature, to cause them to appreciate the importance of such a consistency. The evidence that they were unconscious of the point here made is to be found in the fact that they never alluded to it in their life time, nor was the foregoing argument ever made by any one else within their life time. IV. _Of the Nephite Custom in Naming Cities and Provinces Being Ancient._