By Jerald and Sandra Tanner

We are often asked how a young man like Joseph Smith could produce a work like the Book of Mormon. As we have already indicated, we feel that the Bible was the main source. Many of the stories found in the Bible were simply rewritten and inserted into the Book of Mormon. Hundreds of passages have been lifted from the New Testament and appear in the Book of Mormon in the style of the King James Version.

Besides the Bible, however, Joseph Smith had access to a great deal of source material. One of the most interesting books which was published prior to the Book of Mormon was Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews. The first edition was printed in 1823; it was soon sold out and an enlarged edition appeared in 1825. The Mormon historian B. H. Roberts read View of the Hebrews and evidently became concerned because of the many parallels between it and the Book of Mormon. He prepared a manuscript in which these parallels are listed. Copies of Roberts’ list of parallels were “privately distributed among a restricted group of Mormon scholars,” and in January 1956 Mervin B. Hogan had them published in The Rocky Mountain Mason.

A careful reading of B. H. Roberts’ work leads one to believe that he had serious doubts about the Book of Mormon. Roberts listed eighteen parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. In his fourth parallel he stated: “It is often represented by Mormon speakers and writers, that the Book of Mormon was the first to represent the American Indians as the descendants of the Hebrews; holding that the Book of Mormon is unique in this. The claim is sometimes still ignorantly made” (page18).

Some new evidence concerning B. H. Roberts’ interest in View of the Hebrews has recently come to light. It has been discovered that Roberts wrote a manuscript of 291 pages entitled, “A Book of Mormon Study.” In this manuscript 176 pages were devoted to the relationship of View of the Hebrews to the Book of Mormon. The manuscript was never published and remained in the family after his death.

A false rumor concerning this suppressed manuscript has recently been circulated—i.e., that B. H. Roberts tried to answer the objections which he himself had raised in his shorter work of eighteen parallels. This idea is certainly far from the truth. We have recently had the privilege of studying Roberts’ work and have found that it not only fails to answer the objections to the Book of Mormon mentioned in the shorter work, but that it raises many new problems as well.

Truman G. Madsen, professor of philosophy at Brigham Young University, concedes that B. H. Roberts did prepare a manuscript entitled, “Book of Mormon Study,” but he maintains that Roberts was merely using “the ‘Devil’s Advocate’ approach to stimulate thought”:

Later, in March of 1922, Roberts prepared a draft of a written report to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. It included a further discussion of the linguistic problems and other points as well. The study of such books as those of Josiah Priest, Ethan Smith, and others led him to examine such questions as: What literary and historical speculations were abroad in the nineteenth century? Could Joseph Smith have absorbed them in his youth and could these influences have provided the ground plan for such a work as the Book of Mormon? Did Joseph Smith have a mind “sufficiently creative” to have written it? And what internal problems and parallels within the Book of Mormon called for explanation? In confronting such questions Roberts prepared a series of “parallels” with Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews; a summary of this analysis excerpted passages from Ethan Smith’s work and lined them up in columns with comparable ideas in the Book of Mormon. Examination of such questions was contained in a typewritten manuscript entitled “Book of Mormon Study.”

About this particular study, certain points must be kept in mind if it is not to be gravely misunderstood. First, it was not intended for general dissemination but was to be presented to the General Authorities to identify for them certain criticisms that might be made against the Book of Mormon. . . .

Second, the report was not intended to be balanced. A kind of lawyer’s brief of one side of a case written to stimulate discussion in preparation of the defense of a work, already accepted as true, the manuscript was anything but a careful presentation of Robert’s thoughts about the Book of Mormon or of his own convictions. . . .

Teachers who have used the “Devil’s Advocate” approach to stimulate thought among their students, lawyers who in preparation of their cases have brought up what they consider the points likely to be made by their worthy opponents—all such people will recognize the unfairness of taking such statements out of context and offering them as their own mature, balanced conclusions. For ill-wishers to resurrect Roberts’s similar “Devil’s Advocate” probings is not a service to scholarship, for they are manifestly dated. And it is a travesty to take such working papers as a fair statement of B. H. Roberts’s own appraisal of the Book of Mormon, for, as this paper abundantly demonstrates, his conviction of its truth was unshaken and frequently expressed down to the time of his death. (Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1979, pages 440-442)

While there is no evidence that B. H. Roberts publicly repudiated the Book of Mormon, a careful reading of his manuscript, “A Book of Mormon Study,” leads one to believe that he was in the process of losing faith in its divine origin. Although he may have started out merely playing the part of the “Devil’s Advocate,” we feel that he played the role so well that he developed grave doubts about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. The following quotations from Roberts’ manuscript should be of interest to the reader. In Part I, Chapter 14, of his study B. H. Roberts summarized:

. . . was Joseph Smith possessed of a sufficiently vivid and creative imagination as to produce such a work as the Book of Mormon from such materials as have been indicated in the preceding chapters—from such common knowledge as was extant in the communities where he lived in his boyhood and young manhood; from the Bible, and more especially from the “View of the Hebrews,” by Ethan Smith? That such power of imagination would have to be of a high order is conceded; that Joseph Smith possessed such a gift of mind there can be no question. . . .

A superabundance of evidence of Joseph Smith’s power of imagination exists outside of the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon be regarded as of merely human origin, then, of course, to those so regarding it, the rest of Joseph Smith’s work falls to the same plane. . . .

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.

In Part II, Chapter 1, of B. H. Roberts’ manuscript “A Book of Mormon Study,” we find this surprising observation:

If from all that has gone before in part I, the view be taken that the Book of Mormon is merely of human origin; that a person of Joseph Smith’s limitations in experience and in education; who was of the vicinage and of the period that produced the book—if it be assumed that he is the author of it, then it could be said that there is much internal evidence in the book itself to sustain such a view.

In the first place there is a certain lack of perspective in the things the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an undeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard for consistency.

These are not the words of an “anti-Mormon” writer, but the words of the Mormon historian B. H. Roberts—one of the greatest scholars the Church has ever known. Roberts not only prepared the “Introduction and Notes” for Joseph Smith’s History of the Church, but he also wrote the six-volume work, A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is also noted for his many works defending the Book of Mormon.

The following is found in Part II, Chapter 2, of Roberts’ manuscript:

The same lack of perspective and of consistency is also manifest in the early movements of both Jaredite and Nephite colonies after arriving “to the promised land.” Also the same tendency to parallel incidents and characteristics as we have noted in the formation of the two colonies, and the incidents of their wilderness journey and sea voyage. It may be asked, what of this parallelism? What does it amount to? If such a question should be asked the opponent of the Book of Mormon would answer with emphasize—“This of it. It supplies the evidence that the Book of Mormon is the product of one mind, and that, a very limited mind, unconsciously reproducing with only slight variation its visions.” And the answer will be accepted as significant at least, if not conclusive.

In Part II, Chapter 3, Roberts wrote:

There were other anti-Christs among the Nephites, but they were more military leaders than religious innovators, yet much of the same character in spirit with these dissenters here passed in review; but 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 some will contend 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 ancestoral race of the red man of America.

In the next chapter B. H. Roberts maintains:

The allusions here to absurdities of expressions and incidents in the Book of Mormon, are not made for the purpose of ridiculing the book, or casting any aspersions upon it; but they are made to indicate what may be fairly regarded as just objects of criticism under the assumption that the Book of Mormon is of human origin, and that Joseph Smith is its author. For these absurdities in expression; these miraculous incidents in warfare; these almost mock—and certainly extravagant— heroics; . . . are certainly just such absurdities and lapses as would be looked for if a person of such limitations as bounded Joseph Smith undertook to put forth a book dealing with the history and civilization of ancient and unknown peoples.

In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 84-85, we show that “Another book which Joseph Smith may have read before ‘translating’ the Book of Mormon was written by Josiah Priest. It was entitled The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed, and was published in 1825 at Albany, New York.” It is interesting to note that B. H. Roberts also felt that this book could have furnished structural material for the Book of Mormon:

A number of years ago in my treaties on the Book of Mormon under the general title “A New Witness 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.” . . . it was insisted upon that books sufficient for a ground plan of the Book of Mormon, and accessible to Joseph Smith, did not exist. . . .

The writer at the time being considered did not take sufficiently into account the work of Josiah Priest’s . . . Priest himself, indeed, published a book . . . 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 then began to reside. 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 Witnesses” 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 by Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrews—except by report of it, and as being in my hands but a few minutes.

In this book The Wonders of Nature and Providence, . . . Mr. Priest begins to argue at length that the Indians may be desendants of the Israelites. . . . he quotes in all about forty writers, . . . who advocated in one way or another, that the American Indians are Israelites. . . . it is altogether probable that these two books, Priest’s Wonders of Nature and Providence, 1824; and Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews . . . were either possessed by Joseph Smith or certainly known by him, for they were surely available to him, and of course, with all the collection of quoted matter . . . some forty or fifty earlier authors in all being quoted. . . .

Moreover, on subjects widely discussed, . . . there is built up in course of years, a community knowledge of such subjects, usually referred to as matters of common knowledge . . . Such “common” knowledge existed throughout New England and New York . . . the prevailing ideas respecting the American Indians throughout the regions named, were favorable to the notion that they were of Hebrew origin, . . . 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 construe “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 hand-book form in the little work of Ethan Smith, . . . It will appear in what is to follow that such “common knowledge” did exist in New England; that Joseph Smith was in contact with it; that one book, at least, with which he was most likely acquainted, could well have furnished structural outlines for the Book of Mormon; and 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. (“A Book of Mormon Study,” Part I, Chapter 1)

In Part I, Chapter 7, of the same manuscript B. H. Roberts asked this question:

Could an investigator of the Book of Mormon be much blamed if be were to decide that Ethan Smith’s book with its suggestion as to the division of his Israelites into two peoples; with its suggestion of “tremendous wars” between them; and of the savages overcoming the civilized division—led to the fashioning of these same chief things in the Book of Mormon?

B. H. Roberts made this comment in Part I, Chapter 13:

As to the first consideration, in this case, priority of production of Ethan Smith’s book, and priority of sufficient duration for it to become generally known in the vicinity where both books were produced—there is absolute certainty. For Ethan Smith’s book ran through two editions in New England before the Book of Mormon was published. As to the second consideration, in this case, the likelihood of Joseph Smith coming in contact with Ethan Smith’s book is not only very great, but amounts to a very close certainty. For being published in an adjoining county to the one in which their home had been for so long, and the interest in the subject being very general, not only in New England but in New York also, it would be little short of miraculous if they did not know of Ethan Smith’s book.

Further on in the same chapter Roberts made these observations:

But now to return from this momentary divergence to the main theme of this writing—viz, 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. . . .

The material in Ethan Smith’s book is of a character and quantity to make a ground plan for the Book of Mormon: . . .

Can such numerous and startling points of resemblance and suggestive contact, be merely coincidence?

B. H. Roberts also felt that the Bible could have provided seeds for Joseph Smith’s fruitful imagination:

Matthew and Zechariah, then, could well be thought of as furnishing material for the Book of Mormon signs of the Birth of Messiah.

So also as to the Book of Mormon signs of Messiah’s death and resurrection . . . The three hours darkness, expanded to three days of darkness; the evidently momentary earthquake of Matthew, to three hours of earth quaking; the local rending of rocks in Matthew, to the rending of a continent; and the fear of a Roman Centurion and those that were with him, to the terror of a whole people.

With these things as suggestions as to signs for Messiah’s birth and death and resurrection, and one of conceded vivid, and strong and constructive imaginative powers to work them all out, need not be regarded as an unthinkable proceedure and achievement. (Ibid.)

In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 64-65, we demonstrated that the great revivals which swept New York in the 1820s are reflected in the Book of Mormon. B. H. Roberts also considered this to be a possibility:

It is clearly established now that these scenes of religion frenzy, were common in the vicinage where Joseph Smith resided in his youth and early manhood. . . . Joseph Smith himself came in contact with these emotional phenomena in his own experience after their rebirth in the early decades of the 19th century.

The Question is, did his knowledge of these things, lead to the introduction of similar ones into the Book of Mormon narrative? I think it cannot be questioned but what there is sufficient resemblance . . . to justify the thought that the latter might well have suggested, and indeed become the source of the former. (Ibid., Part U, Chapter 5)

In Part II, Chapter 6, of his manuscript, B. H. Roberts observed:

There can be no doubt but what the style of preaching, exhortation, warning, praying, admonition together with the things emphasized and the ends aimed at in such work of the Christian ministry as came to the attention of Joseph Smith, was all largely and deeply influenced by those first and greatest evangelical popular preachers of Protestant Christianity, John Wesley, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, and Dr. Thomas Coke, et al.

Roberts gives lengthy extracts from some of the religious writings that would have been available to Joseph Smith. One quotation from the “Eighteen Sermons” by George Whitefield, published in 1808, contains this statement: “. . . Methinks I see . . . the Judge sitting on his throne, . . .” This reminds us of Alma’s statement in the Book of Mormon, Alma 36:22: “. . . me thought I saw . . . God sitting upon his throne, . . .”

After a careful examination of B. H. Roberts’ manuscript, “A Book of Mormon Study,” we have come to the conclusion that he has done an excellent job of compiling the evidence to show that Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon from the material available to him. Although Roberts’ study has not been published, we are happy to report that Wesley P. Walters has prepared an article analyzing this manuscript for The Journal of Pastoral Practice, vol. III, no. 3. We felt that Walters’ article was so important that we reproduced it in its entirety. Also we have included some very revealing photographs taken from Roberts’ original manuscript.

---

---