Studies of the
Book of Mormon
From Unpublished Papers
written by B.H. Roberts
Edited by
Brigham D. Madsen
Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1992
Brigham Henry Roberts
Widely regarded by Mormons and nonMormons alike as one of the foremost
historians, apologists, and theologians in the
history of the Latter Day Saints Church.
•Born in England in 1857. His parents converted to
Mormonism shortly after his birth.
•Moved to Utah in 1866. Attended the University of Deseret.
•While serving as a missionary, he acquired a reputation as a
successful and formidable debater.
•Roberts became a member of the First Council of the Seventy
in 1888, at age 31.
•In 1898 he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives,
but Congress refused to seat him because he was a polygamist.
•He was appointed LDS Assistant Church Historian in 1902.
•Roberts was given the prestigious assignment of editing the
History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, by
Joseph Smith, the Prophet, Himself, which was eventually
completed in seven volumes.
•During World War I, he became the first Mormon to serve as
a chaplain in the U.S. Army.
•In 1924 he became the senior member of the First Council of
the Seventy.
•From 1922 to 1927 Roberts served as the President of the
Eastern States Mission.
•Roberts died in Salt Lake City in 1933.
•Roberts is perhaps the most prolific writer in Mormon history,
and was a widely respected orator and Church leader. Among
his works was the most important apologetic work of his day,
the three-volume New Witnesses for God.
•As the LDS approached its centennial year in 1930, Roberts
was commissioned to write the six-volume A Comprehensive
History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As
the Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes, it stands as both the
high-water mark of Mormon historical scholarship to that point
and was Roberts’ magnum opus.
•Even today, Roberts is held in high esteem for his theological,
apologetic, and historical scholarship.
In 1979 the family of Brigham E. Roberts, a grandson, donated a
collection of unpublished papers to the Marriott Library of the
University of Utah, with the intent that the papers would be
published with competent editing. In 1981 Adele W. Parkinson,
widow of another grandson, donated other unpublished papers to
the Marriott Library with the same intent. Both gifts were
accompanied by written permission for the university to publish
the papers. The collection includes three papers that B. H.
Roberts wrote. The first is called “Book of Mormon Difficulties.
A Study.” It was a 141-page typed report that was presented to
the General Authorities of the LDS Church in January 1922. The
second is called “A Book of Mormon Study.” It was a report that
totaled 435 typed pages. The third is called “A Parallel.” It was
originally given to LDS Apostle Richard R. Lyman on October 24
1927, and is a partial summary of the “A Book of Mormon Study”
in outline form.
These three papers, along with some introductory
materials, were published in 1992 under the title
Studies of the Book of Mormon
The book has several sections:
•A brief notice about the three documents, how they were
obtained and came to be published.
•A “Biographical Essay” about Roberts by Sterling McMurrin,
E.E. Erickson Distinguished Professor at the University of Utah.
•An “Introduction” written by the editor of the book, Brigham D.
Madsen, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Utah.
•A section that documents a variety of “Correspondence Related
to the Book of Mormon Essays” that are included.
•The three documents themselves.
•A Bibliographic essay.
Roberts’ Concerns about the Book of Mormon
•
•
•
•
The letter from Mr. Couch
Roberts’ initial study of the problem
January 1922 meetings
Roberts becomes President of the Eastern States
Mission
• Roberts’ further study
• Meeting with Wesley P. Lloyd
Questions from Mr. Couch:
On August 22, 1921, a young Mormon named Elder William
Riter wrote the following to Apostle James Talmage:
“During the past few years I have associated and had some
religious discussions with some non-Mormons. Mr. Couch of
Washington, D.C., has been studying the Book of Mormon and
submits the enclosed questions concerning his studies. Would
you kindly answer them and send them to me.”
In addition to working on the questions himself, Apostle
Talmage passed them on to several leading Mormons,
including George W. Middleton, Richard R. Lyman, Ralph V.
Chamberlin, and B.H. Roberts. Middleton was a nationallyrecognized physician who was a member of the Board of
Regents of the University of Utah, and who spent a great deal
of time studying geology and Utah history. Apostle Lyman
was a prolific Mormon writer, and by the time of Elder
Riter’s letter had just retired after founding and then heading
the department of engineering at the University of Utah for
twenty-six years. Chamberlin was the first dean of the
school of medicine at the University of Utah, and then had
been teaching at the Harvard Medical School for twelve
years by the time of Elder Riter’s letter.
By December 20th, Elder Riter had waited four months for an
answer and wrote a short note to Roberts asking when he
might receive some answers to forward to Mr. Couch.
Roberts wrote back to Elder Riter on December 28th.: “…I
have been engaged upon an investigation of the problems
involved during the past several weeks, but have not yet
reached conclusions that serve as a basis upon which to
formulate my answer.”
The next day, Roberts wrote a letter addressed to President
Heber J. Grant and Counsellors, the Quorum of the Twelve
Apostles, and the First Council of the Seventy:
“I very gladly undertook the task of considering the [questions
forwarded by Elder Riter], and hoped to find answers that
would be satisfactory. With some branches of the field of
inquiry I was more or less familiar, having devoted some
attention to them while writing my Book of Mormon treatise
under the title New Witnesses for God; and while knowing that
some parts of my treatment of Book of Mormon problems in
that work had not been altogether as convincing as I would like
to have seen them, I still believed that reasonable explanations
could be made that would keep us in advantageous possession
of that field. As I proceeded with my recent investigations,
however, and more especially in the, to me, new field of
language problems, I found the difficulties more serious than I
had thought for; and the more I investigated the more difficult I
found the formulation of an answer…
…to Mr. Couch’s inquires to be. I therefore concluded not to
undertake an answer to his questions on my own account, but
decided to make a study of all the problems he submitted –
somewhat enlarging upon them as I proceeded – and then
submit the result of my investigations to all of you who are
addressed at the head of this communication, that from the
greater learning of the individual members of the Quorum of the
Twelve, or from the collective wisdom of all the brethren
addressed, or from the inspiration of the Lord as it may be
received through the appointed channels of the priesthood of his
Church, we might find such a solution of the problems presented
in the accompanying correspondence.”
As a direct result of Roberts’ letter and the
similar difficulties being encountered by the
other Mormon leaders who were investigating
the issues raised by Mr. Couch, a two-day
meeting that totaled eighteen hours of
discussion was convened on January 4th and
5th of 1922.
Apostle Talmage wrote in his journal that Roberts presented “a
lengthy but valuable report…what non-believers in the Book of
Mormon call discrepancies between that record and the results
of archeological and other scientific investigations. As
examples of the ‘difficulties’ may be mentioned the views put
forth by some living writers to the effect that no vestige of
either Hebrew or Egyptian appears in the language of the
American Indians, or Amerinds. Another is the positive
declaration by certain writers that the horse did not exist upon
the Western Continent during historic times prior to the coming
of Columbus. I know the Book of Mormon to be a true record;
and many of the ‘difficulties,’ or objections as opposing critics
would urge, are after all but negative in their nature. The Book
of Mormon states that Lehi and his colony found horses upon
this continent when they arrived; and therefore horses were
here at that time.”
Roberts was very unsatisfied with the
outcome of the two day meeting.
On January 9th, he wrote the following
letter to President Grant:
“At the close of your remarks following the long day’s
conference had on the Book of Mormon problems, I arose to
make some remarks in relation to what I had listened to
throughout the day. But realizing that the hour was late and that
everybody was tired, I desisted and concluded to let matters go.
Thinking of it since, however, and of the probability of a record
being made of the hearing I concluded that I would not like that
record to be made without having included in it my expressions
of what was said and the suggestions that were made – hence this
note which I limit to the very briefest space that will express my
view in relation to the results of our consultation. Permit me to
say, then but in the utmost good will and profound respect for
everybody else’s opinion, that I was very greatly disappointed
over the net results of the discussion. There was so much said
that was utterly irrelevant, and so little said, if anything at all,
that was helpful in the matters at issue that I came away from
the conference quite disappointed…You may perhaps think
differently because of what was said by President Ivins.
Referring to that I shall make bold to say, though I trust
without giving offense, for that is farthest from my purpose,
that what he said, so far as it had any bearing upon the
problems before us was most disappointing of all, because I
had come to believe from what I had heard of him, that he has
so specialized in the Book of Mormon and literature bearing
upon it, that one could confidently expect something like
substantial help from his contribution of comment. It was this
perhaps that made his contribution so disappointing. You will
perhaps remember that what Bro. Ivins chiefly relied upon to
satisfy his mind so completely, with reference to our linguistic
difficulties was Dr. Le Plongeon’s ‘Maya Alphabet,’ published
in his Sacred Mysteries Among the Mayas and Quiches, and
reproduced, photographically, by me in the third volume of
New Witness (p. 507). If I were now writing my New Witness
with the larger knowledge of Dr. Le Plongeon’s standing as an
investigator of and writer upon American Antiquities I would
not quote his work even in the very incidental way in which I
then used it; much less to use it as Bro. Ivins does to satisfy
himself completely in relation to Book of Mormon linguistic
difficulties...This letter is becoming much longer than I
intended. I just wanted the brethren to know that I was quite
disappointed in the results of our conference…I cannot be
other than painfully conscious of the fact that our means of
defense, should we be vigorously attacked along the lines of
Mr. Couch’s questions, are very inadequate.”
There was another large meeting held on January
22nd, and there were a number of smaller meetings
involving Roberts and several other leading
Mormons.
Roberts also wrote a letter, dated March 15th,
addressed to President Grant and the Quorum of
Twelve Apostles, that reads, in part…
“You will perhaps remember that during your hearings on
‘Problems of the Book of Mormon’ reported to your
Council January, 1922, I stated in my remarks that there
were other problems which I thought should be considered
in addition to those submitted in my report. Brother
Richard R. Lyman asked if they would help solve the
problems already presented, or if they would increase our
difficulties. My answer was that they would very greatly
increase our difficulties, on which he replied, ‘Then I do
not know why we should consider them.’ My answer was,
however, that it was my intention to go on with the
consideration to the last analysis.”
On May 29th, the First Presidency told Roberts that he
“might select any mission within the United States as a
field of labor” as a mission president.
Brigham D. Madsen in his “Introduction” writes that
Roberts was “an errant buzz saw whose persistent and
disturbing clatter and sharp cutting edges increasingly
disturbed the tranquility of the elders who controlled the
church in Zion.”
Before Roberts left Utah he wrote to a friend who
lived in New York, and mentioned that he had felt
“confined in Utah”, and that “my chief object in
leaving Salt Lake was that I might avoid if
possible, causing pain to my friends and relatives
by openly announcing my spiritual and intellectual
independence and freedom from what had become
bondage I could no longer endure.”
Roberts served as President of the Eastern
States Mission from 1922 to 1927.
When Roberts returned to Utah in 1927, he
picked up where he had left off.
On October 24 1927 Roberts wrote the
following letter to Apostle Richard R.
Lyman:
“You perhaps will recall I announced that what I had presented
did not constitute all our B. of M. problems, that there were
others.” You then asked, ‘Well, will these help solve our
present problems or will it increase our difficulties?’ to which I
replied, ‘It would greatly increase our problems.’ At which you
said (and I thought rather lightly) ‘Well, I don’t see why we
should bother with them then.’ To this I answered that I should
go on with my studies nevertheless…..I had continued my
investigations and had drawn up a somewhat lengthy report for
the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. Then came
my call to the Eastern States and the matter was dropped, but
my report was drawn up nevertheless together with a letter that
I had intended should accompany it, but in the hurry of getting
away and the impossibility at that time of having my report
considered, I dropped the matter, and have not yet decided
whether I shall present that report to the First Presidency or not.
But since I mentioned this matter to you that day, and also
because you took considerable interest on the former occasion of
more than five years ago and wrote letters to Professor
Chamberlin and Dr. Middleton and others about the subject, I
thought I would submit in sort of tabloid form a few pages of
matter pointing out a possible theory of the Origin of the Book of
Mormon that is quite unique and never seems to have occurred
to anyone to employ, largely on account of the obscurity of he
material on which it might be based, but which in the hands of a
skillful opponent could be made, in my judgment, very
embarrassing. I submit it in the form of a Parallel between some
main outline facts pertaining to the Book of Mormon and matter
that was published in Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews which
preceded the Book of Mormon, the first edition by eight years,
and the second edition by five years, 1823-5 respectively.
It was published in Vermont and in the adjoining county in which
the Smith Family lived in the Prophet Joseph’s boyhood days, so
that it could be urged that the family doubtless had this book in
their possession, as the book in two editions flooded the New
England States and New York. In addition to this publication of
such matter Josiah Priest published at Rochester, N.Y., twenty
miles from Palmyra his first work on American Antiquities, under
the title of The Wonders of Nature and Providence. This in 1824,
six years before the publication of the Book of Mormon and
within twenty miles of Palmyra. And in this book Mr. Priest
quotes very copiously from the View of the Hebrews…..Let me
say also, that the Parallel that I send to you is not one fourth part
of what can be presented in this form, and the unpresented part is
quite as striking as this that I submit.”
A Meeting with Wesley P. Lloyd
• Lloyd was a former dean of the Graduate School at
Brigham Young University, was a missionary who served
under Roberts in the Eastern States Mission.
• The two became good friends, and less than two months
before Roberts died they had a private meeting which
lasted for almost four hours.
• In his journal that evening, August 7 1933, Lloyd
summarized the story that Roberts had related to him about
the questions from Mr. Couch and Roberts’ subsequent
research:
“Roberts went to work and investigated it from every angle
but could not answer it satisfactorily to himself. At his
request Pres. Grant called a meeting of the Twelve Apostles
and Bro. Roberts presented the matter, told them frankly that
he was stumped and ask for their aid in the explanation. In
answer, they merely one by one stood up and bore testimony
to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. George Albert
Smith in tears testified that his faith in the Book had not been
shaken by the question. Pres. Ivins, the man most likely to
be able to answer a question on that subject was unable to
produce the solution. No answer was available. Bro.
Roberts could not criticize them for not being able to answer
it or to assist him, but said that in a Church which claimed
continuous revelation, a crisis had arisen where revelation
was necessary.
After the meeting he wrote Pres. Grant expressing his
disappointment at the failure and especially at the failure of
Pres. Ivins to contribute to the problem. It was mentioned at
the meeting by Bro. Roberts that there were other Book of
Mormon problems that needed special attention. Richard R.
Lyman spoke up and asked if they were things that would help
our prestige and when Bro. Roberts answered no, he said why
discuss them. This attitude was too much for the historically
minded Roberts. There was a committee appointed to study
this problem, consisting of Bros. Talmage, Ballard, Roberts,
and one other Apostle. They met and looked vacantly at one
another, but none seemed to know what to do about it. Finally,
Bro. Roberts mentioned that he had at least attempted an
answer and he had it in his drawer.
That it was an answer that would satisfy people that didn’t
think, but a very inadequate answer to a thinking man. They
asked him to read it and after hearing it, they adopted it by vote
and said that was about the best they could do. After this Bro.
Roberts made a special book of Mormon study. Treated the
problem systematically and historically and in a 400 type
written page thesis set forth a revolutionary article on the origin
of the Book of Mormon and sent it to Pres. Grant... He swings
to a psychological explanation of the Book of Mormon and
shows that the plates were not objective but subjective with
Joseph Smith, that his exceptional imagination qualified him
psychologically for the experience which he had in presenting
to the world the Book of Mormon and that the plates with the
Urim and Thummim were not objective. He explained certain
difficulties in the Book such as [several listed].”
Book of
Mormon
Difficulties
•Book of Mormon Difficulties is the report that
B.H. Roberts presented at the meeting in January
1922. It consists of three parts that summarize and
address the substance of Mr. Couch’s five
questions.
•On point after point Roberts concedes that the
evidence is against the Book of Mormon.
•The following two quotes best summarize
Roberts’ report:
“[Mr. Couch’s question] understates rather then overstates
the Book of Mormon difficulties.”
“These questions are put by me at the close of this
division of the ‘study’ not for self-embarrassment, surely,
nor for the embarrassment of others, but to bring to the
consciousness of myself and my brethren that we face
grave difficulties in all these matters.”
Book of
Mormon
Studies
•Book of Mormon Studies is the 435-page report that
Roberts researched and wrote during his time as
President of the Eastern States Mission.
•This report was never submitted to LDS Church
authorities, but remained among Roberts’ papers.
Quoting extensively from Roberts’
own introduction is essential to
understanding his study:
“A number of years ago in my treatise on the Book of Mormon
under the general title New Witnesses for God, I discussed the
subject, ‘Did the Book of Mormon antedate works in English on
American antiquities, accessible to Joseph Smith and his
associates.’ The object in considering the question at that time
was to ascertain whether or not the alleged historical incidents of
the Book of Mormon, and its subject matter generally, were
derived from speculations regarding the origin, migrations,
customs, religion, language, or other lore of the American race,
published previous to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon;
or if the Book of Mormon truly indicated the source of those
American Indian traditions and antiquities. Of course the
discussion recognized the fact that such publications must not
only exist before the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, but
must also be accessible to Joseph Smith or his associates, in order
to be of any force in the supposition that such publications…
…might have furnished the material from which the Book of
Mormon was constructed, or its general outlines suggested.
In that discussion it was pointed out how great the task would be
for Joseph Smith to become sufficiently acquainted with the body
of American antiquities as to make the alleged historical
incidents, religion, and culture of the Book of Mormon peoples
conform to all that – as far as it does conform to it…...But most
of all, it was insisted upon that books sufficient for a ground plan
of the Book of Mormon, and accessible to Joseph Smith, did not
exist…...It was also stated that the only available English source
of information likely to be accessible to him or his associates
would be: First, the publications of the “American Antiquarian
Society, Translations and Collections” published in the
Archaeoligia Americana, Worcester, Massachusetts, 1820. This
information was held to be so fragmentary that it could not…
…have suggested material for the Book of Mormon, even if it
could be proven that Joseph Smith was familiar with the
collection.
Second, the little book by Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrews
or the Tribes of Israel in America, published in Vermont (first
edition 1823), second edition in 1825, which I pass for the
present without comment, and reserve it for special
consideration later.
Third, The History of the American Indians by James Adair,
published in England 1775, and much quoted in America. Mr.
Adair confines the scope of his work to the North American
Indians among whom he was a trader for many years.
Fourth, the translation of some parts of Baron Von Humboldt’s
works on New Spain, published first in America and England,
between the years 1806 and 1809; and later John Black’s
enlarged translation of it in New York, 1811. It was a work
frequently quoted by American writers, both before and
immediately following the publication of the Book of Mormon.
The writer at the time being considered did not take
sufficiently into account the work of Josiah Priest on American
Antiquities, since it was not published – the first edition of it –
until 1833, several years after the publication of the Book of
Mormon. It should then have been observed, however, that the
material of Priest’s book was much in evidence throughout
New England and in New York before it was crystalized in his
American Antiquities publication…..Priest himself, indeed,
published a book in which some of these matters were…
…discussed, before the publication of his Antiquities, viz., The
Wonders of Nature and Providence, copyrighted by him June
2nd, 1824, and printed soon afterwards in Rochester, New York,
only some twenty miles distant from Palmyra, near which place
the Smith family had resided there for some years. It will be
observed that this book preceded the publication of the Book of
Mormon by about six years. At the time I made for my New
Witness the survey of the literature on American antiquities,
traditions, origins, etc., available to Joseph Smith and his
associates, this work of Priest’s was unknown to me; as was also
the work of Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrews – except by
report of it, and as being in my hands but a few minutes.
In his book, by Josiah Priest, The Wonders of Nature and
Providence, at page 228, Mr. Priest begins to argue at length that
the Indians may be descendants of the Israelites. He…
…quotes from Clavigero, a Catholic missionary, who advocated
the idea in the 17th century; from William Penn, who advocated
the same theory as early as 1774; from a sermon by Dr. Jarvis,
preached before the “American Historical Society” in 1811,
[etc.], in brief, he quotes in all about forty writers, half of whom
are Americans, who advocated in one way or another, that the
American Indians are Israelites. ‘Most of these writers,’ one critic
of the Book of Mormon urges, ‘lived and wrote before Joseph
Smith was born.’ ‘Priest proves,’ he continues, ‘that it was the
almost universal opinion of the ministers of New England and the
Middle States, that the Indians were descendants of the Hebrews.’
It should be held in mind that the book containing all this – The
Wonders of Nature and Providence – was published in 1824, six
years before the Book of Mormon was printed, and within twenty
miles from where the Smith family resided from about 1815 to
1830.
It is not, and could not be urged, of course, that such works as
Adair’s, Von Humboldt’s, or the ‘Proceedings of the American
Antiquarian Society’ would be in the hands of Joseph Smith or
his family, years before the publication of the Book of Mormon;
but it is altogether probable that these two books – Priest’s
Wonders of Nature and Providence, 1824; and Ethan Smith’s
View of the Hebrews 1st edition 1823, and the 2nd edition 1825 –
were either possessed by Joseph Smith or certainly known by
him, for they were surely available to him, and of course, will
all the collection of quoted matter from Humboldt, Adair,
Boudinot, and all the rest – some forty or fifty earlier authors in
all being quoted.
Moreover, on subjects widely discussed, and that deal in matters
of widespread public interest, there is built up in the course of
years, a community knowledge of such subjects, usually
referred to as ‘matters of common knowledge’ to which…
…non-readers of books or of periodicals…have access…..Such
‘common knowledge’ existed throughout New England and
New York in relation to American Indian origins and cultures;
and the prevailing ideas respecting the American Indians
throughout the regions named were favorable to the notion that
they were of Hebrew origin…..All these notions were
interwoven in the ‘common knowledge’ of New England and
New York, in the early decades of the nineteenth century,
respecting the Indian race of America. And with the existence
of such a body of knowledge, or that which was accepted as
‘knowledge,’ and a person of vivid and constructive imaginative
power in contact with it, there is little room for doubt but that it
might be possible for Joseph Smith to construct a theory of
origin for his Book of Mormon in harmony with these
prevailing notions, and more especially since…
this ‘common knowledge’ is set forth in almost handbook form
in the little work of Ethan Smith View of the Hebrews, and
published from eight to five years before the Book of Mormon
was published.
The question to be considered here, then, is: did such ‘common
knowledge,’ supplemented by Ethan Smith’s book respecting
theories of ‘origin,’ and of ‘history’ obtain in the vicinity where
Joseph Smith spent his early youth and manhood, and was he a
person of sufficiently vivid and creative imagination as to
produce such a work as the Book of Mormon from such
materials?
It will appear in what is to follow
[1] that such ‘common knowledge’ did exist in New England;
[2]that Joseph Smith was in contact with it;
[3]that one book, at least, with which he was most likely
acquainted, could well have furnished structural outlines for
the Book of Mormon; and
[4] that Joseph Smith was possessed of such creative
imaginative powers as would make it quite within the lines of
possibility that the book of Mormon could have been
produced in that way.”
Over the course of about 350 pages, Roberts goes on
to point to dozens of similarities, both structural and
detailed, between Ethan Smith’s 1823 View of the
Hebrews and the Book of Mormon, penned in 1829.
Two sample quotes from the study:
“After mentioning these more or less corresponding and
parallel things between the Jaredites and Ethan Smith’s
Israelites, I am not unmindful of the fact that one people – the
Israelites of Ethan Smith – belong to the seventh century, and
the other – the Jaredites – some two thousand years earlier, and
therefore the comparison drawn is not between the same
people, nor of people belonging to the same age. All that is
freely granted. But let us here be reminded that what is sought
in this study is not absolute identity of incidents, and absolute
parallel of conditions and circumstances all down the line; but
one thing here and another there, that may suggest another but
similar thing in such a way as to make one a product of the
other, as in the above parallel between the journey of the
Jaredites and Ethan Smith’s Israelites. Such as the motive for
their journey being the same; the direction of the journey in
both cases being northward; both peoples entering a valley…
…at the commencement of their journey; both of them
encountering many bodies of water in their journey; the journey
in both cases being an immense one; and to a land, in the one
case, ‘where never man dwelt’ (Smith’s book) and in the other
case, ‘into a quarter where there never had man been’ (Ether
2:5). Where such striking parallels as these obtain, it is not
unreasonable to hold that where one account precedes the other,
and if the one constructing the later account has had opportunity
of contact with the first account, then it is not impossible that
the first account could have suggested the second; and if the
points of resemblance and possible suggestion are frequent and
striking, then it would have to be conceded that the first might
even have supplied the ground plan of the second. Also, let it be
borne in mind, that the facts and the arguments employed here
are cumulative and progressive, and that we have not reached
the end of the story.”
“Think what this would mean to proponents of the Book of
Mormon if the terms of this evidence and argument were
reversed. That is, suppose that if Ethan Smith’s book had been
published eight or five years after the publication of the Book of
Mormon instead of that long a time before its publication – then
what importance would be accredited to his confirmation of
“towers,” military and sacred, mentioned in the Book of
Mormon! Should not the evidence be as strong standing as it
does now for the likelihood of the material in Ethan Smith’s
book suggesting what we now find in the Book of Mormon?”
Roberts summarized his own
report this way:
(Note: I have added numbers so that the amount of
similarity might be more easily grasped.)
“Did Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews furnish structural
material for Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon? It has been
pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the
former book that might well have suggested many major things
in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or a half
dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity
and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a
menace to Joseph Smith’s story of the Book of Mormon’s
origin. Let us consider in summary the chief things pointed out
in this study.
The priority of publication by several years of Ethan Smith’s
View of the Hebrews is established, and referred to many times.
The likelihood of Joseph Smith and his family’s contact with
Ethan Smith’s book and other books dealing with American
antiquities has been insisted upon.
The material in Ethan Smith’s book is of a character and
quantity to make a ground plan for the Book of Mormon: It
supplies a large amount of material respecting American
antiquities – leading to the belief that civilized or semi-civilized
nations in ancient times occupied the American continent.
[1] It not only suggests, but pleads on every page for Israelitish
origin of the American Indians.
[2, 3] It deals with the destruction of Jerusalem and the
scattering of Israel, as the Book of Mormon does.
[4, 5] It deals with the future gathering of Israel, and the
restoration of the Ten Tribes, as the Book of Mormon does.
[6] It emphasizes and uses much of the material from the
prophecies of Isaiah, including whole chapters, as the Book of
Mormon does.
[7, 8] It makes a special appeal to the Gentiles of the New
World – having in mind more especially the people of the
United States – to become the nursing fathers and mothers unto
Israel in the New World – even as the Book of Mormon does,
holding out great promises to the great Gentile nation that shall
occupy America, if it acquiesces in the divine program.
[9, 10] It holds that the peopling of the New World was by
migrations from the Old, the same as does the Book of
Mormon. It takes its migrating people into a country where
‘never man dwelt,’ just as the Book of Mormon takes its
Jaredite colony into ‘that quarter where there never had man
been.’
[11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16] In both cases the journey was to the
northward; in both cases the colony entered in the valley of a
great river; they both encountered ‘seas’ of ‘many waters’ in
the course of their journey; in both cases the journey was a
long one. The motive in both cases was the same – a
religious one; ‘Ethan’ [Smith] is prominently connected with
the recording of the matter in the one case, and ‘Ether’ in the
other.
[17] Ethan Smith’s book supposes that his lost tribes divide into
two classes, the one fostering the arts that make for civilization,
the other followed the wild hunting and indolent life that
ultimately led to barbarism, which is just what happens to the
Book of Mormon peoples.
[18] ‘Long and dismal’ wars break out between Ethan Smith’s
civilized division and his barbarous division. The same occurs
between Nephite and Lamanite, divisions drawn on the same
lines of civilized and barbarous in the Book of Mormon.
[19] The savage division utterly exterminates the civilized in
Ethan Smith’s book; the Lamanites, the barbarous division of the
Book of Mormon, utterly destroy the civilized division – the
Nephites.
[20, 21, 22, 23] Ethan Smith’s book assumes for the ancient
civilized people a culture of mechanic arts; of written language;
of the knowledge and use of iron and other metals; and of
navigation. The Book of Mormon does the same for its
civilized peoples.
[24] Ethan Smith’s book assumes unity of race for the
inhabitants of America – the Hebrew race, and no other. The
Book of Mormon does the same.
[25] Ethan Smith’s book assumes that this race (save, perhaps,
the Eskimo of the extreme north) occupied the whole extent of
the American continents. The Book of Mormon does the same
for its peoples.
[26] It assumes the Indian tongue to have had one source –
the Hebrew; the Book of Mormon makes the same
assumption for the language of its peoples.
[27] Ethan Smith’s book describes an instrument among the
mound finds comprising breast plate with two white buckhorn
buttons attached, ‘in imitation of the precious stones of the
Urim,’ says Ethan Smith. Joseph Smith used some such
instrument in translating the Book of Mormon, called Urim
and Thummim.
[28, 29] Ethan Smith’s book admits the existence of idolatry
and human sacrifice; the Book of Mormon does the same.
[30, 31] Ethan Smith’s book extols generosity to the poor and
denounces pride, as traits of the American Indian; the Book of
Mormon does the same for its peoples. Ethan Smith’s book
denounces polygamy, the Book of Mormon under certain
conditions does the same as to David and Solomon’s practices.
[32, 33, 34] Ethan Smith’s book quotes Indian traditions of a
‘Lost Book of God’ and the promise of its restoration to the
Indians, with a return of their lost favor with the Great Spirit.
This is in keeping with the lost sacred records to the savage
Lamanites of the Book of Mormon.
[35] Ethan Smith’s sacred book was buried with some ‘high
priest,’ ‘keeper of the sacred tradition’; the Book of Mormon
sacred records were hidden or buried by Moroni, a character
that corresponds to this Indian tradition in the Hill Cumorah.
[36, 37] Ethan Smith’s book describes extensive military
fortifications linking cities together over wide areas of Ohio
and Mississippi valleys, with military observatory or ‘watch
towers’ overlooking them; the Book of Mormon describes
extensive fortifications erected throughout large areas with
military ‘watch towers’ here and there overlooking them.
[38] Ethan Smith’s book also describes sacred towers or ‘high
places,’ in some instances devoted to true worship, in other
cases to idolatrous practices; the Book of Mormon also has its
prayer or sacred towers.
[39] Part of Ethan Smith’s ancient inhabitants effect a change
from monarchial governments to republican forms of
government; Book of Mormon peoples do the same.
[40] In Ethan Smith’s republics the civil and ecclesiastical
power is united in the same person; this was a practice also
with the Book of Mormon people.
[41] Some of Ethan Smith’s peoples believed in the constant
struggle between the good and bad principle, by which the
world is governed; Lehi, first of Nephite prophets, taught the
existence of a necessary opposition in all things –
righteousness opposed to wickedness – good to bad; life to
death, and so following.
[42] Ethan Smith’s book speaks of the gospel having been
preached in the ancient America; the Book of Mormon clearly
portrays a knowledge of the gospel among the Nephites.
[43] Ethan Smith gives, in considerable detail, the story of the
Mexican culture-hero Quetzalcoatl – who in so many things is
reminiscent of the Christ; the Book of Mormon brings the
risen Messiah to the New World, gives him a ministry,
disciples and a church.
Can such numerous and startling points of resemblance and
suggestive contact be merely coincidence?”
“In the light of this evidence, there can be no doubt as to the
possession of a vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph
Smith, the Prophet, an imagination, it could with reason be
urged, which, given the suggestions that are to be found in the
‘common knowledge’ of accepted American antiquities of the
times, supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith’s View of
the Hebrews, would make it possible for him to create a book
such as the Book of Mormon is.”
“I shall hold that what is here presented illustrates
sufficiently the matter taken in hand by referring to them,
namely that they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly
alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young
and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence, I
sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator.
It is difficult to believe that they are the product of history,
that they come upon the scene separated by long periods of
time, and among a race which was the ancestral race of the
red man in America.”
What does this all mean?
In the preface to volume 2 of his New Witnesses for God,
published in 1905, Roberts wrote:
“If the origin of the Book of Mormon could be proved to be
other than that set forth by Joseph Smith; if the book itself
could be proved to be other than what it claims to be, …then
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and its
message and doctrines, which, in some respects, may be said to
have arisen out of the Book of Mormon, must fall; for if that
book is other than it claims to be; if its origin is other than that
ascribed to it by Joseph Smith, then Joseph Smith says that
which is untrue; he is a false prophet of false prophets; and all
he taught and all his claims to inspiration and divine authority,
are not only vain but wicked; and all that he did as a religious
teacher is not only useless, but mischievous beyond human
comprehension. Nor does this statement of the case set forth
sufficiently strong the situation. Those who accept…
…the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, may not so
state their case that its security chiefly rests on the inability
of its opponents to prove a negative. The affirmative side of
the question belongs to us who hold out the Book of Mormon
to the world as a revelation of God. The burden of proof
rests upon us in every discussion…for not only must the
Book of Mormon not be proved to have other origin than that
which we set forth, or be other than what we say it is, but we
must prove its origin to be what we say it is, and the book
itself to be what we proclaim it to be – a revelation from
God…..To be known, the truth must be stated and the clearer
and more complete the statement is, the better the
opportunity will the Holy Spirit have for testifying to the soul
of men that the work is true. While desiring to make it clear
that our chief reliance for evidence to the truth of…
the Book of Mormon must ever be the witness of the Holy
Spirit, … I would not have it thought that the evidence and
argument presented are unimportant, much less
unnecessary. Secondary evidences in support of truth, like
secondary causes in natural phenomena, may be of first-rate
importance, and mighty factors in the achievement of God’s
purposes.”
Let me repeat part of that
for the sake of emphasis:
“If the origin of the Book of Mormon … could
be proved to be other than what it claims to be,
then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, and its message and doctrines, must fall;
for if that book is other than it claims to be, then
Joseph Smith says that which is untrue; he is a
false prophet of false prophets; and all he taught
and all his claims to inspiration and divine
authority, are not only vain but wicked; and all
that he did as a religious teacher is not only
useless, but mischievous beyond human
comprehension.”