Mormon Scholars Question Book of Mormon

By Jerald and Sandra Tanner

---

Writing in the Salt Lake Tribune, September 28, 1985, Dawn Tracy claimed that “Tumultuous times may be ahead as Mormons wrestle with scholarly works challenging traditional stories about the origins of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” James L. Clayton, a Mormon scholar who teaches history at the University of Utah, made this interesting comment:

There’s confusion swirling around the LDS community on how to handle new documents, appropriate methods to study sacred history and the role of church religion teachers. . . . If you aren’t confused, you may not have the full picture of what’s going on. (Ibid.)

As early as 1957, Thomas O’Dea predicted that the Mormon Church was facing a crisis. In The Mormon Establishment, pages 153-154, Wallace Turner wrote:

Dr. Thomas F. O’Dea, a sociologist at Columbia University, who wrote a major study called The Mormons . . . said that “Mormonism is in a sleeping crisis. It is a strange crisis, one not easily noticed; a lotus-eating crisis, a sleeping crisis, an unrecognized crisis of prosperity and acceptance. It has met all its crises of adversity. But can it survive its own success?”

Dr. O’Dea claimed that the Church was facing “the threat of apostasy on the part of its intellectuals” (The Mormons, page 234). He maintained that “A final loss of the intellectual would be a wound from which the church could hardly recover. A liberalization of belief and an abandonment of traditional positions in faith would transform, if not destroy Mormonism. These potentialities slumber fitfully and insecurely within the present state of prolonged but regularized crisis” (Ibid., page 240).

Larson Forced Out

That the crisis has become very severe became evident on September 28, 1985, when the Salt Lake Tribune reported:

One church scholar said he was forced to resign his job after writing a research paper. . . .

Stan Larson, a scripture-translation researcher, said he was forced to resign his job at the church’s Salt Lake City Scripture Translation Division after writing a paper challenging traditional beliefs about the Book of Mormon.

Dr. Larson, who reads Greek, Latin, Syriac and Hebrew, compared passages in the Book of Mormon— sacred scripture to Mormons—with the King James Version and earliest existing biblical manuscripts. He concluded that because translation errors in the King James Version are mirrored in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith copied passages from the Bible rather than translate Jesus Christ’s Sermon on the Mount from ancient plates.

Linda Olson, a primary president in Mr. Larson’s ward, asked for a copy of the paper from Dr. Larson, and then handed it over to the bishop, Forrest Bitten, who passed it along to church headquarters. Mrs. Olson and Bishop Bitten said church authorities had asked them for the paper.

Dr. Larson said the director of the translation division suspended him from his job the next day. He said he was given an option of immediately resigning with one month’s pay or submitting to scrutiny from two church committees. If either committee reached a negative conclusion, he would be fired, dating back to the day he had met with supervisors. Dr. Larson said he elected to resign.

While the Tribune titled this article, “Scholar Who Challenges LDS Beliefs is Forced to Resign,” the Mormon Church’s newspaper, Deseret News, carried the following title over its article: “LDS are told they need not fear honest research on the Book of Mormon” (September 29, 1985). Although the Deseret News reported that Dr. Larson was forced to resign, it quoted Richard P. Lindsay, public communications managing director for the church, as saying:

The church and its membership have nothing to fear from any honest scholarship which treats the subject of the Book of Mormon, its doctrine and its historical origins, . . .

While the Mormon Church has the right to fire those who do not believe in its teachings, Church leaders have picked an exceptionally bad time to deal with the issue in this manner.

That Joseph Smith plagiarized from the King James Version of the Bible in creating the Book of Mormon is evident to those who have made a careful comparison of the two books. We have cited over 200 places where the Book of Mormon used quotations from the New Testament (see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 74-79). Most of these quotations were supposed to have been recorded in the Book of Mormon between 600 B.C. and 33 A.D.— i.e., before the New Testament was even written! Furthermore, we have demonstrated that the early Greek manuscripts of the Bible do not support Joseph Smith’s Inspired Translation of the Bible (Ibid., pages 384-393). For example, in the King James Version, John 1:1 was translated as follows: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version, this unusual rendition of John 1:1 appears: “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.” Joseph Smith’s translation is not supported by the ancient Greek manuscripts. In fact, in Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? page 384, we have made our own translation of John 1:1 as it appears in Papyrus Bodmer II, dated about 200 A.D. Our translation confirms the King James Version: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Mormon leaders claim that the Catholic Church altered the Bible and that Joseph Smith was restoring the true text. Since the Bodmer Papyrus predates the time when the Catholic Church came to power, it casts considerable doubt on Joseph Smith’s rendition. Robert J. Matthews, who is considered the Mormon Church’s top authority on the Inspired Revision of the Bible, made this revealing statement:

In the main the passages revised by Joseph Smith are not supported by the three great parchment manuscripts that now enjoy popularity, nor by the thousands of papyrus manuscripts and fragments, nor by the Dead Sea Scrolls. (“Joseph Smith’s Revision of the Bible,” by Robert J. Matthews, 1968, typed copy, page 17)

Stan Larson used a different approach to test the Book of Mormon, but he arrived at the same conclusion as we did—i.e., Joseph Smith was not translating ancient records. Dr. Larson examined the text of a sermon Jesus was supposed to have given to the ancient Nephites which is recorded in the Book of Mormon. It is almost identical to the Sermon on the Mount as published in the King James Version of the Bible.

Larson desired to find out if the sermon in the Book of Mormon was an actual translation from the “gold plates” or whether it was merely plagiarized from the King James Version. He knew that the text of the King James Version was based on later manuscripts, and that after it was published much older manuscripts were found. These manuscripts demonstrate that some errors had crept into the Greek text and were preserved in the King James Version. He reasoned, therefore, that if the earlier and better manuscripts supported readings in Joseph Smith’s translation, it would tend to show that Smith was working from an ancient record. If, on the other hand, the errors were perpetuated in Joseph Smith’s “translation,” it would prove that Smith merely lifted his material from the King James Version. If the material was plagiarized from the King James Version, the Book of Mormon could not possibly be “Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” as the Mormon Church maintains.

Dr. Larson found twelve places in the Sermon on the Mount where the top Greek scholars agree that the King James Version is in error because of its dependence on later manuscripts. When Larson compared the Book of Mormon, he found that in every case Joseph Smith blindly copied the errors of the King James Version. The following statements are taken from Dr. Larson’s study:

The text of this BOM [Book of Mormon] sermon provides an ideal opportunity to ascertain its accuracy as a real translation, for Hugh Nibley has suggested that one must test the BOM “against its purported background” in antiquity. If at each of these twelve points the BOM has a variant version differing from both forms of the extant Greek—from both the earliest ascertainable Greek text and the later, derivative Greek text—then one would be unable to pronounce judgment on the BOM version. This is so because the differing text in the BOM could be the way the sermon was delivered in the New World. However, if the BOM text always sides with the secondary Greek text which is demonstrably a later development in the Greek, then this dependence would be strong evidence against the historicity of the BOM. . . . Lastly, if the BOM text supports the better and demonstrably more ancient MSS which have become available in the last 470 years, it would be striking confirmation of the BOM’s historicity. That is to say, if the BOM text departs from the KJV to agree with the original text, it would indeed be independent verification of the BOM as a genuine document from antiquity. . . . the question at hand is the historicity of the BOM account, . . . It is this writer’s conclusion, arrived at after diligent study of the documents that have been utilized in the analysis of the twelve selected examples, that the historicity of the BOM text of the Sermon on the Mount has not been verified by modern MS discovery. The BOM text does not agree with the earliest Greek text at these twelve points, but does agree with the TR [Textus Receptus] and the KJV. (“The Sermon on the Mount: What Its Textual Transformation Discloses Concerning the Historicity of the Book of Mormon,” unpublished manuscript by Stan Larson, pages 24-26)

Below the reader will find a photograph of a papyrus fragment containing a portion of the Sermon on the Mount. Bruce Manning Metzger lists it as Papyrus 67 (The Text of the New Testament, page 254). Larson, however, feels that it should be identified as Papyrus 64 because it is actually part of the same manuscript. In any case, both scholars agree that it was written about 200 A.D. This papyrus fragment contains the text of Matthew 5:27. In the King James Version this verse reads as follows: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery”

Adam Clarke, who lived in Joseph Smith’s time, pointed out that the words translated as “by them of old time” were “omitted by nearly a hundred MSS., and some of them of the greatest antiquity and authority; also by the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, and Sclavonian versions; by four copies of the old Itala; and by Origen, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius, and Hilary. On this authority Wetstein and Griesbach have left it out of the text.” (Clarke’s Commentary, vol. 5, page 73)

The papyrus fragment spoken of above was found during the present century and confirms Clarke’s suspicion that the five words (translated from two Greek words) were an interpolation to the text. Below is our transcription and translation of the words which appear on the papyrus fragment beginning in the middle of the ninth line and extending to the middle of the tenth line.

The following shows how the text would have to read on the papyrus fragment to support the translation which appears in the King James Version. The interpolation has been circled.

When Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, he blindly copied the interpolation “by them of old time” into his book (see 3 Nephi 12:27). Stan Larson feels that the Greek words should actually be rendered “to them of old time” instead of “by them of old time.” He, therefore, accuses Joseph Smith of not only plagiarizing an interpolation but also of using the King James “mistranslation” of these words (see page 26). Larson’s translation appears to be more reasonable.

At any rate, Stan Larson says that the text of the Book of Mormon shows evidence of having been derived from the King James Version after “the italic typeface” was standardized in the 1769 printing. He maintains that “All of these considerations force one to place the origin of the BOM account of the Sermon on the Mount on the historical time-line somewhere after 1769 and before 1830 when the BOM was published. This analysis based on textual criticism independently confirms Krister Stendahl’s discussion from the perspective of redaction criticism and genre criticism that the BOM text of the Sermon on the Mount is not a genuine translation from an ancient language, but rather is Joseph Smith’s nineteenth century targumic expansion of the English KJV text” (pages 30-31).

In footnote 34, Stan Larson shows that Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version of the Bible also failed the test when it was compared with the Greek manuscripts:

Likewise, Joseph Smith’s revision of the KJV, which is known as the Joseph Smith Translation (hereinafter JST) has not been substantiated by modern MS discovery. . . . In each of these twelve secure examples from the Sermon on the Mount the JST fails to agree with the original text . . . In one instance the JST revises the text of the KJV and the BOM in a direction further away from the original text, . . . (page 40)

In 1978 Brigham Young University Studies published an article by Stan Larson. In his recent paper Dr. Larson claims that this article “was censored by Charles Tate, the editor of BYU Studies, who expunged the following statements . . .” Larson proceeded to restore the material which was censored in BYU Studies and then stated: These points evidently demonstrated too clearly for the editor of BYU Studies that Joseph Smith plagiarized from the KJV when dictating the Biblical quotations in the BOM. (page 41)

Dr. Larson is considered to be one of the top scholars in the Mormon Church. Besides his work in languages, he has become known for his research with regard to the text of the original manuscripts of the Book of Mormon. The church has published articles by him in the official publication, Ensign (see the issues for September 1976 and September 1977). The September 1977 issue, page 91, referred to him as “coordinator of the standard works translation in the Church Translation Services.”

Stan Larson’s study on the text of the Sermon on the Mount and its relationship to the Book of Mormon is a very scholarly piece of work. Church leaders have apparently realized that the paper is irrefutable. Instead of dealing with the issues, they have decided to get rid of the man.

The Los Angeles Times, October 5, 1985, quoted Dr. Larson as saying:

“I went into New Testament textual studies hoping that when I compared Greek and Syriac manuscripts with the Book of Mormon that I would find support for the Book of Mormon and be able to show its antiquity,” Larson said. “I hoped to find support for the church, but I haven’t, to be honest.”

Attack on the M.H.A.

The Mormon History Association was organized in 1965. Its membership has included some of the top historians in the Church. In May 1985 we went back to Kansas City, Missouri to attend the annual meetings of this organization. We were astonished to hear some of the church’s top scholars frankly admit Joseph Smith’s involvement in magic and money-digging. Mormon historians, who had fought these charges for many years, seemed to just cave in under the weight of the evidence.

The Mormon Church had originally given a great deal of support to the Mormon History Association, but now it seems to be backing away from the organization. Dawn Tracy reported:

At BYU, officials are reacting to other reevaluations of church history by “leaning away” from the Mormon History Association, an independent professional organization, and creating a program of their own. . . .

Keith Perkins, chairman of the BYU Department of Church History and Doctrine, said officials have established their own symposiums because MHA wasn’t allowing orthodox views to be presented. He said the BYU symposiums “more meet our needs.” Employees may attend MHA meetings but BYU no longer pays travel costs.

“Like me, many people are upset. When I see things I hold sacred attacked, I’m offended,” he said

Robert J. Matthews, director of the BYU Department of Religious Education, said he has issued a “suggestion, and invitation” to employees to support the BYU program.

“We’re not giving orders,” he said.

“Our invitation didn’t mention MHA but people were obviously aware we are leaning away from the organization.”

Former MHA president Davis Bitton, professor of history, U. of U., called the decision “Isolating and narrow.” He said that for 20 years MHA has not tried to do public relations for the church but also has not participated in anti-Mormonism.

Drs. Matthews and Perkins said they didn’t pressure associate professor Susan Easton to withdraw a paper from MHA’s May symposium to be held in Salt Lake City. When asked why she withdrew the paper, Dr. Easton said “no comment.”. . .

Two employees in the Church Education System, who asked not to be identified, said supervisors have questioned them about papers they’ve published. (Salt Lake Tribune, September 28, 1985)

On June 29, 1985, John Dart reported the following in the Los Angeles Times:

Two women who wrote a biography of Mormon founder Joseph Smith’s first wife say they have been barred from speaking about their research at church meetings although the book has won two Mormon prizes for history.

Linda K. Newell, who wrote “Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith” with Valeen T. Avery, said church authorities “decided to remove the possibility that anyone might interpret our occasional speaking at (Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints) meetings as (amounting to) church endorsement of the book.”. . .

Newell, of Salt Lake City, said that she learned indirectly of the ban from friends and could only find the reasons when she met, at her request, with two members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the church’s top managerial body.

She said the two officials did not dispute the contents of the book, but they said that it conflicted with traditional interpretations of Joseph Smith—“particularly in regard to the initiation of polygamy in the early LDS church and therefore challenged the faith of some Latter Day Saints.”

Avery, a historian with Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, said in a separate interview that their book says that Smith was “dishonest with Emma, taking his friends’ daughters or wives as his wives. Joseph comes across in the book as a human being with flaws in his character.”. . .

“Mormon Enigma,” in its fourth printing since publication last fall by Doubleday, was cited as the best book of 1984 by the Mormon History Assn. and was co-winner of the David W. and Beatrice Evans Award for excellence in Mormon and Western biography. The latter award presentation was made at church-owned Brigham Young University . . .

Mormon historian Thomas G. Alexander, director of the Charles Redd Center at BYU, said he found the speaking ban “very disturbing.”

Novel or History?

While we felt that Mormon scholars had yielded a great deal of ground at the meetings of the Mormon History Association in May, by the time the Sunstone Theological Symposium arrived in August, they had retreated even further. (This symposium, which attracts hundreds of Mormon scholars, is not officially connected with the church.) The burning question at the symposium seemed to be whether Joseph Smith really had “gold plates” from which he translated the Book of Mormon and whether the Book of Mormon should be considered as real history. When the question was raised at the first session, C. Jess Groesbeck jokingly responded: “David, I wish you hadn’t asked that question. . . .” In his reply, Levi Peterson pointed out that “There were remarks by those who observed him [Joseph Smith] that he could translate without the plates anywhere around, and we understand now that he translated by peering into the stone in the hat—using the hat to exclude light, so that he could see what was in the stone . . .” Professor Peterson went on to point out that if Joseph Smith didn’t really need the plates to translate, what “difference does it make if they were real or not?” Although many members of the audience seemed to be amused by this statement, it did not really answer the question.

Obviously, it does make a great deal of difference whether the plates “were real or not.” Since Joseph Smith claimed that he received the “gold plates” from an angel, and since the Book of Mormon goes into great detail telling how the plates were prepared so they could be translated in the last days, it logically follows that a person cannot question the existence of the plates without making Joseph Smith a deceiver and the Book of Mormon a figment of his imagination. There is really no middle ground here.

At another session Marvin Hill, a professor of history at church-owned Brigham Young University, asserted that the Book of Mormon does not have to be history to be true:

. . . everybody’s questioning whether the plates existed and whether the Book of Mormon is history and so on. The stopping place for all of that is if you believe that Joseph is a prophet and if what he had to say is inspired. The Doctrine and Covenants doesn’t have to be history to be true, and my feeling is that the Book of Mormon may not have to be history to be true.

We do not see how Mormon historians can accept the Book of Mormon as true and yet claim that it doesn’t have to be historical. Apparently, what they are trying to tell us is that it is a good religious novel which contains inspiring thoughts, even though it was not written in ancient times as Joseph Smith affirmed. Some of the Mormon scholars who subscribe to the idea that the Book of Mormon is only a religious novel even refer to it as “scripture.” Their definition of scripture, however, is very different from that of a true believer. They are not saying that it is the “word of the Lord,” but only that it is accepted by the people as scripture. It is scripture in the same sense as the Koran or the Rig-Veda. If these historians are asked if Joseph Smith really had the plates, they may reply in the affirmative. They do not, however, believe that the plates date back to the time of the ancient Nephites but that they were created in the 19th century to convince the Book of Mormon witnesses that Joseph Smith really had an ancient record.

Lyn Jacobs, the man who was supposed to have discovered the Salamander letter, also spoke at one of the sessions of the Sunstone Symposium. Even though he indicated that he did not believe the Book of Mormon as history, he said that the church must continue to hold to its historicity:

If we don’t accept it [the Book of Mormon] as historical any longer, . . . then I think what we are doing, then, is . . . questioning the whole validity of the church itself—of Joseph Smith’s stance in it and . . . the stance of the living prophet today, etc. . . .. if one still accepts what I do, that it really needs to within the church remain as a historical document—not that I believe that it is one, but nevertheless I think that the church has to remain believing that. It has to continue to believe it’s actual history . . .

Roberts’ Doubts

The fact that some of Mormonism’s top scholars have lost faith in the Book of Mormon as history certainly presents a serious problem to church leaders. The problem is compounded by the fact that newspapers and publishers have become interested in the subject. Just recently the University of Illinois Press released a book entitled, Studies of the Book of Mormon. This book contains the secret studies that the noted Mormon historian B. H. Roberts made with regard to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. We had already printed these manuscripts in 1980 under the title, B. H. Roberts’ Manuscripts Revealed (see Salt Lake City Messenger, July 1980, pages 11-12). Our publication, however, was of xerox copies of the manuscripts. The new printing by the University of Illinois Press has been nicely typeset with an introduction and footnotes by Brigham A. Madsen. It will undoubtedly have a much wider distribution than our publication.

B. H. Roberts, one of the greatest scholars that the Mormon church has ever produced, is noted for his defense of Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. In his New Witness for God he took a very firm stand on the Book of Mormon’s authenticity:

. . . if the book itself could be proved to be other than it claims to be, . . . then the Church . . . 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 senseless, but mischievous beyond human comprehending. (New Witness for God, vol. 2, Preface, as cited in Studies of the Book of Mormon, page 12)

As time passed, B. H. Roberts realized that there were some very serious problems with regard to the Book of Mormon which he was not able to answer. In his secret manuscripts he made these revealing comments:

. . . 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 . . . 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. (Studies of the Book of Mormon, page 243)

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. (Ibid., page 250)

If from all that has gone before in Part I, the view be taken 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 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. (Ibid., page 250)

There were other Anti-Christs among the Nephites, but they were more military leaders than religious innovators, yet much of the same kidney 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 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. (Ibid., page 271)

In an article published in Ensign, December 1983, pages 11-19, Professor Truman G. Madsen, of Brigham Young University, tried to minimize the importance of B. H. Roberts’ parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon:

Are there “striking parallels” between the Book of Mormon and Ethan Smith’s 1823 novel, View of the Hebrews, a fictional account of Israelites from the lost Ten Tribes who migrated to the Americas after the destruction of Jerusalem? Elder Roberts confirmed for his missionaries that any such parallels are abstract, even empty. Aside from the claim of Hebraic backgrounds, only two specific similarities occur: Ethan Smith quotes Isaiah at length and refers to the Urim and Thummim. . . .

Ethan Smith published a book on revelation in 1833, . . . He also republished View of the Hebrews, revised and enlarged, in 1835. Both books were published long after the Book of Mormon began circulation. If critics can claim that Joseph Smith was aware of Ethan Smith’s novel, it surely can also be claimed that Ethan Smith was aware of Joseph Smith’s.

Professor Truman Madsen (not to be confused with Brigham Madsen) made two very glaring errors in his article. The errors are so serious, in fact, that they would lead one to believe that he has never read View of the Hebrews.

1. He referred twice to Ethan Smith’s book as a “novel.” Anyone who has read the book knows that it is not a novel. In the Bibliography to Studies of the Book of Mormon, page 347, we read:

Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews was, of course, not a “novel” in any sense of the word, but was a serious analysis of current archeological discoveries and the known cultural studies of Indian tribes in order to prove the theory that the American Indians were of Israelitish descent.

2. Truman Madsen also maintained that Ethan Smith “republished View of the Hebrews, revised and enlarged, in 1835 . . . long after the Book of Mormon began circulation.” Dr. Madsen is ten years off on his dating. The correct date appears on the title page as “1825.” This is substantiated in the preface “For The Second Edition” which ends, “Poultney, April 1, 1825.” Instead of the “enlarged” edition being published five years after the Book of Mormon (as Madsen maintains), it actually was in print five years before the Book of Mormon. We have photographically reprinted B. H. Roberts’ own copy of View of the Hebrews. This book, which contains some of Roberts’ handwritten notations, is available from Utah Lighthouse Ministry.

In another article, Professor Madsen claimed that B. H. Roberts was only using “the ‘Devil’s Advocate’ approach to stimulate thought” when he wrote his controversial studies of the Book of Mormon. A careful examination of these manuscripts, however, leads one to believe that Roberts was struggling with grave doubts about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. The recent publication of B. H. Roberts’ secret manuscripts includes some new and important evidence concerning his frame of mind after he completed his studies. It comes from the “Personal Journal of Wesley P. Lloyd, former dean of the Graduate School at Brigham Young University and a missionary under Roberts in the Eastern States Mission.” Lloyd recorded this revealing information in his journal on August 7, 1933—less than two months before Roberts’ death:

Roberts went to work and investigated it [the Book of Mormon] from every angle but could not answer it satisfactorily to him self. 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 aide [sic] 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 then why discuss them. This attitude was too much for the historically minded Roberts. There was however a committee appointed to study this problem, consisting of Bros. Talmage, Ballard, Roberts and one other Apostle. They met and looked vacantly at one and other, 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. . . . After this Bro. Roberts made a special Book of Mormon study. Treated the problems 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. It’s an article far too strong for the average Church member but for the intellectual group he considers it a contribution to assist in explaining Mormonism. 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 literary difficulties in the Book. . . . These are some of the things which has made Bro. Roberts shift his base on the Book of Mormon. Instead of regarding it as the strongest evidence we have of Church Divinity, he regards it as one which needs the most bolstering. His greatest claim for the divinity of the Prophet Joseph lies in the Doctrine and Covenants. (“Journal of Wesley P. Lloyd,” August 7, 1933, as cited in Studies of the Book of Mormon, pages 23-24)

Utah Lighthouse Ministry is selling B. H. Roberts’ Studies of the Book of Mormon (paperback edition published by Signature Books). We are also handling another book concerning the relationship of View of the Hebrews to the Book of Mormon. This is David Persuitte’s in depth study of parallels between the two books. It is published under the title, Joseph Smith and the Origin of the Book of Mormon.

Overreaction?

The Mormon leaders seem to realize that they are facing serious historical problems. In an article entitled, “Keep the Faith,” Gordon B. Hinckley, of the church’s First Presidency, wrote:

We live at a time when old beliefs and old standards are being challenged. The Church of which we are members is being attacked on many sides. A few dissidents, apostates, and excommunicants have marshaled their resources in an effort to belittle and demean this work—its history, its doctrine, its practices. . . .

There is another group presently receiving wide publicity across the nation. They are poking into all the crevices of our history, ferreting out little things of small import and magnifying them into great issues of public discussion, working the media in an effort to give credibility to their efforts. . . . I plead with you, do not let yourselves be numbered among the critics, among the dissidents, among the apostates. . . . To all Latter-day Saints, I say, keep the faith. (The Ensign, September 1985, pages 4-6)

Just two months before Hofmann and Flynn came to his office to inquire what they should tell police who were investigating the bombings, the Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks made an attack on the news media and also warned members not to criticize church leaders even if they are wrong:

My fellow teachers: in the six months since I accepted this invitation, there has been a flurry of excitement about Church history. . . . the news media are having a field day. Controversy makes good copy, especially when it concerns a church with some doctrines that diverge sharply from those of mainstream Christianity. . . .

The resulting publicity has stimulated attacks on the Church by seemingly religious persons. . . . I have chosen to speak on how Church history should be read, especially the so-called “history” that comes in bits and pieces in the daily or weekly news media. . . . the news media are particularly susceptible to conveying erroneous information about facts, including historical developments that are based on what I have called scientific uncertainties. . . .

Bias can also be exercised in decisions on what news stories to publish and what to omit. . . .

Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. . . . Evil-speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. . . .

The Holy Ghost will not guide or confirm criticism of the Lord’s anointed, or of Church leaders, local or general. . . .

Our individual, personal testimonies are based on the witness of the Spirit, not on any combination or accumulation of historical facts. If we are so grounded, no alteration of historical facts can shake our testimonies. (“Reading Church History,” 1985 CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, BYU, August 16, 1985, pages 1, 2, 5, 16, 24-26)

The Mormon scholar L. Jackson Newell has publicly criticized the response by church leaders to the problems:

L. Jackson Newell, dean of liberal education at the University of Utah and co-editor of “Dialogue,” said the increasing cries coming from leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urging members to be obedient to authority and the escalating action leaders are taking against LDS scholars attack the principles of free inquiry and free expression.

“My concern is that their response . . . itself looms as a grave threat to our traditions, values and doctrines. . . .” We are witnessing systematic efforts to undermine confidence in virtually all unofficial sources of understanding about our past. (Deseret News, August 25, 1985)

Magic Names?

When Fawn Brodie published her book, No Man Knows My History, in 1945, the Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley ridiculed her for accepting

the stories of the same witnesses regarding “seer stones, ghosts, magic incantations, and nocturnal excavations.” Now scandal stories thrive notoriously well in rural settings, while the judgment of one’s neighbors regarding one’s general character over a number of years is far less likely to run into the fantastic. Yet Brodie can reject the character witnesses as prejudiced while accepting the weirdest extravagances of their local gossip. (Hugh Nibley, No Ma’am That’s Not History, pages 11-12).

Today, Mormon scholars find themselves using the same sources which were once ridiculed. At the Sunstone Symposium, Levi Peterson pointed this out:

Ironically, Bushman has found it valid, as Professor Walker has found it, to use the same data which anti-Mormon historian Fawn Brodie employed in No Man Knows My History. And so it’s interesting that her book, which has been vilified for decades, basically is based upon the—utilizes the same sources that now faithful historians will be using, and are using.

We certainly feel that these sources are important and have used them in our publications Joseph Smith and Money-Digging and Mormonism, Magic and Masonry. We feel, however, that scholars will have to be cautious about seeing magic practices in things that could be more easily explained in other ways. The Mormon scholar D. Michael Quinn, for instance, has probably gone too far in this respect. The Deseret News, August 24, 1985, reported:

One Mormon historian says evidence is convincing that Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith and his family were involved in various forms of ritual and folk magic, but that evidence does not diminish his own faith in his religion.

D. Michael Quinn, a Brigham Young University history professor, Friday addressed a session of the Sunstone Theological Symposium, . . .

He said it’s clear that the family of Joseph Smith Sr., including his son, the Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith Jr., believed in and practiced ritual and folk magic. . . .

Smith Sr. gave his sons Joseph, Hyrum and Alvin names with magical significance.

While we do agree that the evidence clearly shows that the Smith family was involved in magic, the claim that Joseph Smith, Sr., gave his children magic names seems to be based on speculation. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, August 25, 1985, Dr. Quinn “cited the biblical Joseph’s use of silver cups for divination.” Quinn believes that Joseph Smith’s father felt that the biblical Joseph was involved in divination, and therefore he named his son after him. This idea comes from the 44th chapter of Genesis. Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt taught that God “sanctified” a “silver” cup and that Joseph actually used it for divination:

The “silver cup” which Joseph in Egypt commanded the steward to put in Benjamin’s sack, in order to try his brethren, was, most probably, sanctified as a Urim and Thummim to Joseph. Hence, Joseph commanded the stewart to pursue his brethren, and say to them, “Is not this in which my Lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth?” And when Joseph’s brethren were brought back, he said unto them, “What deed is this that ye have done? Wot ye not that such a man as I can certainly divine?” (Masterful Discourses and Writings of Orson Pratt, compiled by N. B. Lundwall, page 589)

Adam Clarke, a noted Protestant writer, had an entirely different view of the incident. He said it was “not at all likely that Joseph practiced any kind of divination . . .” (Clarke’s Commentary, vol. 1, page 247). Clarke pointed out that since Joseph was trying to “deceive his brethren for a short time” (his brothers, of course, had previously sold him into slavery), he might pretend to have a cup he used for divining to help convince them that he was a harsh and idolatrous Egyptian governor. In Genesis 42: 7, 9 and 23, we read:

And Joseph saw his brethren, and he knew them, but made himself strange unto them, and spake roughly unto them; . . . and said unto them, Ye are spies; . . . And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.

According to Clarke’s view, the statements about divination should not be given any more credence than Joseph’s charge that his brothers were “spies” and had stolen his cup. This interpretation seems to be compatible with the context of Genesis, and although Joseph interprets a number of dreams, there is no mention of a divining cup being used.

In any case, it may be possible that Joseph Smith, Sr. regarded the biblical Joseph as a diviner. The important question, however, is did he name his own son after him for this reason? While there is no way to know for certain, it would seem that the most likely explanation is that Joseph Smith, Sr., liked his own name and decided to bestow it on his son. As to the origin of the name Hyrum, Dr. Quinn felt that it came from Hiram Abif who plays an important role in Masonry. Masonic writers claim that Hiram Abif was the “Hiram” mentioned in I Kings 7:13-14. He was “a worker in brass.” Another explanation, however, might be that Hyrum Smith’s name came from “Hiram king of Tyre.” This king was David’s friend and cooperated with Solomon when he built the temple (see 1 Kings 5:1-18). Joseph Smith, Sr., gave one of his other sons the biblical name Samuel. Dr. Quinn has found a magic name which he feels is similar to Alvin. The Bible, however, contains a close parallel in “Alvan” (Genesis 36:23).

Wesley P. Walters, who has recently done some research in the census records, has informed us that the names Joseph Smith, Sr., gave to his sons are typical of those found in the vicinity of Palmyra. Mormon scholar Richard Anderson pointed out that there “were other Joseph Smiths in the Manchester area, and . . . one ‘Hiram’ Smith signed Hurlbut’s general Manchester affidavit, . . .” (BYU Studies, Spring 1970, page 292). Under the circumstances, we feel that the claim that Joseph Smith’s father used magic names for his children is not very convincing.

---

---