Studies of theBook of Mormon

From Unpublished Paperswritten by B.H. Roberts

Edited by

Brigham D. Madsen

Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1992

Brigham Henry Roberts

Widely regarded by Mormons and non-Mormons 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In 1979 the family of Brigham E. Roberts, a grandson, donated a collection of unpublished papers to the Marriott Library of the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 In 1981 Adele W. Parkinson, widow of another grandson, donated other unpublished papers to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

The book has several sections:

Studies of the Book of Mormon

•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

nationally-recognized 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 thatfor 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.”