The Same Origin: All Races from
One Family; All Languages Corrupted from Hebrew
Not only does the Book of Mormon structure follow
Ethan Smith’s book in its main outline, but even in its
"particulars" there is parallelism. General Authority
Roberts lists the eleven points of Ethan Smith’s arguments
given on page 85 of his book, mainly "to call attention to
the fact that from eight to five years before the Book of
Mormon was published, there was in existence a book that
contained an enumeration of particulars that enter
into the Book of Mormon, and become its peculiar
characteristics" (BMS, Pt. I, IX, 2, emphasis mine). The
first of these points is that "the American natives have one
origin." By this the Rev. Smith meant that all the natives
of both North and South America are really "the children of
one father and mother" (View, p. 88). In addition, they were
viewed by him as having "the same language prevailing
throughout, and that colored largely by the Hebrew, from
which it sprang originally." However, the language had now
greatly changed due to the lack of written materials and the
lapse of time; by which suggestion Mr. Smith accounted for
the diverse languages found throughout the native races of
America. Historian Roberts finds all this "so in consonance
with the Book of Mormon
structural features that it may be said to be the very
fabric of it." Furthermore, "since it is all found in Mr.
Smith’s book, published before the Book of Mormon
was, it may well be thought to have suggested these
features of the Book of Mormon" (BMS, Pt. I, IX, 5).
In demonstration of his point, Roberts focuses on two
features of the Book of Mormon which correspond
with the above-mentioned details of Ethan Smith’s book.
First, the Book of Mormon represents the Nephites
as populating the entire continent of North and South
America (Hela. 3:8) — at least this is the understanding
of "the land northward" and "southward" as set forth by
Orson Pratt, which Roberts defends as "the general
understanding of the Mormon people" (Id., 6). The
Nephites, therefore, were the source of all the
inhabitants of the Americas in the same way as Ethan’s
"ten tribes" were regarded as America’s progenitors.
Secondly, Ethan Smith, in maintaining the Hebrew base of
all North American Indian languages, accounts for the
scarcity of words in their present languages that even
remotely resemble Hebrew by stressing that the
languages, through lack of writing, have become
considerably altered. Roberts summarizes the Rev.
Smith’s words on this point:
Any language in a savage state, destitute of all aid from letters, must roll and change. It is strange that after the lapse of 2,500 years, a single word should, among such people, be preserved the same (View, pp. 90, 93, emphasis Roberts’).
This is the same outlook and accompanying circumstances which obtain in the Book of Mormon, Roberts observes. The community led by Mulek, leaving Jerusalem only a few years after Nephi and speaking therefore the same Hebrew, but lacking written records, completely deteriorates in language. The result is that some 200 to 250 years later, when discovered by the Nephites here in America, their language had "become so corrupted" that the Nephites could not understand them. Going even beyond this, the Book of Mormon maintains that a change took place in language even where "letters" were present. The Nephites, in spite of preserving the art of writing, are depicted as having altered the Hebrew as well as modifying Egyptian into Reformed Egyptian (Mormon 9:31-34). All this leads Roberts to comment:
if the purpose of the author of the Book of Mormon ... was to place beyond the reach of modern knowledge the ancient language in which this book is said to have been written, and thereby place its translation...beyond the possibility of criticism, or detection of fraud, then no more adroit scheme could have been invented by the wit of man ... (BMS, Pt. I, IX, 10).
He concludes the chapter by noticing a further parallel to Ethan’s work. View of the Hebrews spends several pages trying to establish a connection between the dress of the Indian’s chief holy man and that of the Old Testament high priest. In this regard the Vermont clergyman cites evidence of a priestly garment like the ephod, and a breast plate reminiscent, the Rev. Smith says, of the ancient Urim. A burial site reported in his book yielded a "curious stone" joined to a "breast plate." Since Joseph Smith’s account of finding the plates of the Book of Mormon has two stones "set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breast plate" (emphasis mine), and this "curious instrument" Joseph called "Urim and Thummim," the Mormon historian remarks:
Can there be any doubt, but what the things said in Ethan Smith’s book, on the matter of "Urim and Thummim," "Breast Plates" and "curious stones" and "attachments to breast plates" — all published from eight to five years before the Book of Mormon was, are sufficient to suggest the Urim and Thummim as described by Joseph Smith? (Id., 13).
The Same Religion: Indians’
Ancestors Virtuous, Worshiped the Great Spirit but
Degenerated into Idolatry
B. H. Roberts next turns to the concept of God as set
forth in the Rev. Smith’s work. In order to help
establish the Hebrew origin of the Indian tribes, Mr.
Smith asserted that the Indians long before the coming
of the white man worshiped only one God, whom they
called the Great Spirit (View, p. 98). The
subsequent worship of idols by them, accompanied by
human sacrifice of prisoners taken in war, is regarded
by the Rev. Smith as due to a "degeneracy" of recent
years (Id., pp. 102-104). The learned Mormon historian
corrects Mr. Smith’s misunderstanding on the matter by
noting that "it is now known that idolatry together with
the sacrificing of prisoners taken in war by them
existed among many divisions of the American race" (BMS,
Pt. I, X, 3). Paralleling Ethan Smith’s error, however,
Roberts points out that the Book of Mormon
attributes knowledge of the "Great Spirit" to the
Nephites, and attributes a degeneration into idolatry to
the Lamanites (Alma 17:15; 31:1), who "did take many
prisoners, both women and children, and did offer them
up as sacrifices unto their idol gods" (Mormon 4:13f.,
21). Did Ethan Smith’s book "suggest to the author of
the Book of Mormon these traits of idolatry and
human sacrifice among its peoples?," Roberts asks.
Roberts raises the same question about the other traits
of the early Americans common to View of the Hebrews
and the Book of Mormon. These traits included a
concern for the poor as well as warnings against pride
and riches (View, p. 104; 2 Ne. 9:30, 42; Jacob 2:19;
Mos. 4:13, 16; Alma 1:30; 2 Ne. 28:12-16). Also the
native Americans’ regard for the sanctity of marriage
and the accompanying endorsement of monogamy are common
to both books (View, p. 104; Jacob 2:22-28).
Ethan Smith reports the Indians to be generally more
virtuous than the white man of his day, being loving to
their wives and children (View, p. 175), and in
the same way the
Book of Mormon reports that the Lamanites are better
in their marriage fidelity and loving treatment of their
wives and children than the Nephites (Jacob 3:5-7).
Because of their commitment to this monogamous
relationship, the Lord will not destroy these godless
Lamanites, a guarantee he does not make to the Nephites
(BMS, Pt. I, X, 7f.). "Can it be that it is a mere
coincidence," asks B. H. Roberts, "that these special
virtues of Jacob’s Lamanites, and Ethan Smith’s Indians
should run so closely parallel in such a relationship?"
(Id., 8).
The Same Scriptures: An Indian
Lost "Book of God," Buried in "Indian Hill"
Roberts next introduces two structural details from
View of the Hebrews, which he grants may not seem as
important as some of the others he points out, by may,
nevertheless, have been woven into the total fabric of
the Book of Mormon. The first is the matter of an
Indian lost "Book of God," which reportedly had been
preserved among them for a long time. While they had
this book they prospered, but they eventually lost favor
with the Great Spirit and consequently suffered greatly
at the hands of neighboring nations. God, however, took
pity on them and brought them to the New World. The book
was eventually lost or more likely was buried with some
"high priest" or "keeper of the tradition." This book at
some time they will have again and they will then be
happy. The Rev. Smith seems to link this "Book of God"
with certain Hebrew parchments reportedly found buried
in "Indian Hill" near Pittsfield. Roberts finds a number
of suggestions here that might have yielded material for
the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon
similarly claims that the Nephites brought the
Scriptures to America with them (1 Ne. 13:20-42; 2 Ne.
29:1-14; chap. 30), and these records were kept and
transmitted by their prophets ("the keepers of their
traditions"?). Their descendants would again have these
Scriptures, which for years had laid buried in an
"Indian Hill" called Cumorah. This, incidentally,
implies that the art of writing was know among the
ancient inhabitants, and some passages from Ethan’s book
even suggest that such writing was hieroglyphical in
nature, like "Egyptian hieroglyphics." "Is there not
enough suggestion here," asks Roberts, "to have Nephite
records made in reformed Egyptian characters?" (BMS, Pt.
I, XI, 6).
According to the statement of Montezuma, their written
records informed them that they had migrated from a
great distance. This migration theme is the second of
the less important structural items which Roberts finds
similar to the Mormon scripture. According to Ethan
Smith, the migrating ancestors all originally "were one
color," and they had migrated "eastward" to the
New World. The Mormon leader reflects, "did this passage
suggest also more than one color?" (emphasis
Roberts’), that is, did it call forth the idea of the
Lamanites being cursed with dark skin to account for the
Indians’ russet color, while the Nephites retained their
original white color? Did Ethan’s speculations also
suggest the eastward direction of the Book of Mormon
migration and their ultimately crossing "great waters"
(Id., 8f.)? Roberts concludes that "if one was free from
the notion that the Book of Mormon was of divine
origin...he would say that these ocean migrations were
conceived and worked out by one deeply ignorant of the
problems involved in such a passage from the Old World
to the New."
The Same Civil Arrangements:
Military and Sacred Towers; Monarchy to Republican
Government
Roberts, among further "particulars," notices (chap.
XII) that the Book of Mormon mentions military
defense towers (Mos. 11:12f.;20;7f; Alma 50:1-6). as
well as sacred towers and "High Places" (Mos. 11:12f;
Omni 1:12f.; Hela 7:10-14). Ethan Smith surprisingly
mentions the same type of towers (View,
pp.190ff.). Roberts ponders just what this fact would
mean to proponents of the Book of Mormon if the
situation were reversed. Suppose that View of the
Hebrews
were written and published five years after the Book
of Mormon. Surely this would be seized by Mormons as
evidence and "confirmation of ‘towers’ - military and
sacred -, mentioned in the Book of Mormon!" Since
the Rev. Smith’s book pre-dates the Book of Mormon,
why then should the case not be just as strong for
having "the material in Ethan Smith’s book suggesting
what we now find in the
Book of Mormon?," Roberts asks (BMS, Pt. I, XII,
6).
Roberts points out that in civil affairs both books see
the early Americans as moving from a monarchy to a
republic in their form of government. We might note in
passing that the Book of Mormon reflects the
pride of early nineteenth-century Americans in their
republican form of goveernment, and it should be
conceded that the emphasis might easily have come from
that source. Nevertheless, there are some striking
features common to both Ethan Smith’s and Joseph Smith’s
books in this area. The Rev. Smith, to prove his point
that the early inhabitants of America were once a
civilized people, quoted von Humbolt’s observations
about South America. They once had "theocratic forms of
government" which allowed for despotism to prevail.
However, some Mexican colonies "wearied of tyranny, gave
themselves republican constitutions" (View,
pp.181f.). Yet there was often a "union of the civil and
ecclesiastical power in the same persons." Remarkable as
it may seem, this same type of political structure is
present in the Book of Mormon. The Nephites start
their residence in the New World with a monarchy, but
after 500 years change to a republican form, with judges
chosen to rule "by the voice of the people." Yet these
judges often combined ecclesiastical powers with their
political ones. Alma was both "Chief Judge" and "High
Priest" (Mos. 29:42), as were others (Hela. 3:37; 4:14;
5:1-11; 3 Ne. 3). Still another feature of their
political life is also of interest. Ethan Smith points
out that the change to "free constitutions" came "only
after long popular struggles" (View, pp. 181f.).
Mormon historian Roberts wonders whether this may have
been "the reason the Nephite republic ... was given so
stormy a career." Since Ethan believed that the native
Americans "were descendants of a people who had
experienced great vicissitudes in their social state,"
then perhaps "the experience given the Nephite republic
demonstrates the truth of his [Ethan’s] statement" (BMS,
Pt. I, XII, 9f.). Roberts also wonders in passing
whether the early Central American concept of "the
struggle between ... the good and bad principle by which
the world is governed" (View, p. 185) might have
suggested the speech in 2 Nephi 2:10-13, which stresses
the necessity of there being "an opposition in all
things." However, it is equally possible that Joseph
picked up this idea during his early teens, when he
joined the Palmyra debating society. Even if some of
Ethan Smith’s parallels are mere coincidences, it is
difficult to dismiss them all as such, and as their
numbers grow it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore
Ethan’s book as merely a likely structural source for
the Book of Mormon.
The Same Christianity: The
Gospel and the Christ Known in Ancient America
Roberts reaches the climax of his structural
similarities between the two books when he turns to the
question: "Did the ancient American Indians know of the
Christ?" Ethan Smith had suggested as much when he
quoted von Humbolt’s report concerning the early
Catholic missionaries’ observations about the natives of
Mexico. These natives persuaded the Spanish missionaries
"that the Gospel had, in very remote times, been
already preached in America" (View, p. 187,
emphasis Roberts’). The Rev. Smith then added his own
comment that "there is a far greater analogy between
much of the religion of the Indians, and Christianity,
than between that of any other heathen nation on earth
and Christianity." Historian Roberts sees that this
"might well have suggested to the author of the Book
of Mormon the introduction of the Christ and of the
Gospel among the ancient Americans" (BMS, Pt. I, XIII,
2). Ethan had additional material, however, which
elaborated on this idea and "may have acted — in
connection with incidents from the New Testament — as
suggestions to the creation of the Book of Mormon
Messiah" (Id., 3). Principally Roberts refers to
Quetzalcoatl, the "Mexican Messiah." This "most
mysterious being," Ethan reported, "was a bearded White
man" (Id., 4, emphasis Roberts’), and the Mormon leader
wonders whether this might not have influenced the
Book of Mormon’s description of the virgin Mary as
"exceeding fair and white" (emphasis Roberts’).
"If Quetzalcoatl suggested a ‘white’ Messiah, it was of
course fitting that his mother should be a virgin
‘exceedingly fair and white’" (Id.).
Quetzalcoatl was also reportedly a "high priest," a
"legislator," and a leader of a religious sect who
"inflicted upon themselves the most cruel penance."
Interestingly, B. H. Roberts notes that the Book of
Mormon Messiah is also a "high priest" and head of a
religious order of priests (Alma 13), (though this could
also have been developed from the priesthood of Christ
taught in the New Testament’s book of Hebrews). In
reality, Quetzalcoatl is now believed to have lived
about A.D. 1000, too late to have any relationship with
an alleged visit of Christ to America shortly after his
resurrection. Nevertheless, since Ethan Smith does not
report this detail, it would be quite easy for one to
seize upon Ethan Smith’s references and expand them into
the figure of the New World Messiah presented in the
Book of Mormon. Roberts finds that, like the
"Mexican Messiah," the Mormon Messiah is also a
legislator, delivering "all that body of Christian
legislation found in Matthew 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters"
(3 Ne., chaps. 12-14). The Mormon Messiah insists that
the church be called after him, and even this somewhat
parallels the Mexican Messiah in "being the Chief of a
religious sect." Roberts may here be overdrawing the
parallels, and he admits that the infliction of penance
is "out of character" with the Book of Mormon.
Roberts may also be pressing too hard in paralleling
Quetzalcoatl’s drinking of a beverage which stimulated a
desire to travel, with Jesus having "drunk out of that
bitter cup" (3 Ne., 11:10f.) and desiring to visit other
lands to gather his other sheep (3 Ne. 15:1-3). In our
view, such references, seem better accounted for as an
expansion upon New Testament material. Nevertheless, it
is interesting that the Rev. Smith reports that the
"reign of Quetzalcoatl was a golden age," and a similar
golden age follows the visit of the Mormon Messiah to
America (4 Ne., 1:3-17). Furthermore, the Rev. Ethan
Smith informed his readers that Quetzalcoalt, after
abolishing sacrifice (except for vegetable offerings),
disappeared mysteriously but promised to return and
govern the people again. The Mormon Messiah similarly,
after abolishing blood sacrifice (3 Ne. 15:4f.),
promised likewise to return to "be in the midst" of them
(3 Ne. 21:22-25; BMS, Pt. I, XIII, 12).
Roberts, in summarizing his case, does not think it
necessary for the parallel material to be laid out in
the same sequence in View of the Hebrews as in
the Book of Mormon. He only regards it as
necessary that (1) the book be available a sufficient
time before the Book of Mormon, (2) there be a great
likelihood of the author being in contact with such
material, and (3) that there be sufficient resemblance
to the earlier material. The first is absolutely
certain, the second "amounts to a very close certainty."
It is, in fact, "little short of miraculous if they did
not know of Ethan Smith’s book," Roberts observes. The
third point is left for the reader to judge for himself
(BMS, Pt. I, XIII, 13). For his part, Roberts submits
that the numerous similarities to Quetzalcoatl "supplies
subject matter overwhelmingly sufficient to suggest the
visit of the Christ to the
Book of Mormon people and his career among them"
(Id., 14).
Some Biblical Borrowings
Furthermore, historian Roberts holds that not everything
need be supplied from View of the Hebrews. "There
are other sources whence might come suggestions." Such a
source is the Bible, from which the author could have
obtained, for example, the Book of Mormon signs
accompanying Christ’s birth. The appearance of the "new
star" could easily be borrowed from Matthew 2:1-12, and
the "day and a night, and a day as if it were one day,
and there were no night" could have been suggested by
Zechariah 14:6f., where "at evening time it shall be
light." Similarly, the Book of Mormon events
surrounding the death and resurrection of Christ — "the
germ of it" — could well be found in the New Testament
itself (BMS, Pt. I, XIII, 16). "The items of the Book
of Mormon story are practically all here ... it
becomes a matter of expanding the several items to the
required limits of the Book of Mormon story"
(Id., 17). Thus, "with these things as suggestions ...
and one of conceded vivid, and strong and constructive
imaginative powers to work them all out, [it] need not
be regarded as an unthinkable procedure and achievement"
(Id.).
Several other apparent borrowings of biblical material
"of like character" are set forth by Roberts, incidents
that need only a "kind of elaboration, or enlargement."
Such an incident is the promise to the three Nephites
that they would never see death (3 Ne. 28), which is
easily expanded, from John 21:20, 23. Roberts believes
that "it is quite possible that the New Testament
incident suggested the larger one in the Book of
Mormon" (BMS, Pt. I, XIII, 18). The literal removal
of a mountain (Ether 12:30) could be directly suggested
by Matthew 17:20. Again, the mysterious departures of
Moses and Elijah could have suggested similar Book of
Mormon departures of Alma (Alma 45:19) and of Nephi
(3 Ne. 1:2f.).
Summarizing the Parallels
B. H. Roberts finally summarized on three typed pages
the parallels of the "many major things" he had
observed. "Not a few things merely, one or two, or 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." (BMS, Pt. I, XIII,
19f.). Even if one takes issue with some details (the
"particulars" that Roberts singles out), the broad
outlines, the "ground-plan," of the work is clearly
there in Ethan Smith’s book. Ethan’s book pleads for the
Israelite origin of the American Indians. They are
traced to the New World by a migration that took a long
time, beginning northward and then eastward, crossing
"many waters." They divide into a civilized group and a
savage group, with the savage completely destroying the
civilized part after long and terrible wars. The
civilized portion is described as having the same
cultural features as those attributed to the civilized
portion in the Book of Mormon, including the
error of making them partakers of an Iron Age culture.
They are regarded as once having a Book of God, portions
of which were buried in an Indian Hill to come to light
again in the nineteenth century. The gospel was viewed
as having been preached to them and a messianic figure
was thought to have been among them, a "bearded White
man." They were reported to have had high priests,
breast plates, curious stones, prophets, military and
sacred towers, and a number of other features that also
mark the Book of Mormon people in America. The
Gentiles are seen as singled out by prophecy to reach
these red sons of Israel and to restore them to their
rightful inheritance. These and a number of other
features and traits that form the basic structure of the
Book of Mormon story are reviewed by Roberts in
his summary of parallels between the two works. Then he
hauntingly asks, "Can such numerous and startling points
of resemblance and suggestive contact be merely
coincidental?" It is apparent that Roberts does not
think they can be dismissed as coincidence, for he
continues to build the case for the human origin of the
Book of Mormon by two further basic
considerations.
1. Joseph Smith’s Highly Imaginative Mind
Did Joseph Smith, Jr., have sufficient imaginative
powers of mind to take the material either from Ethan’s
book or from community knowledge and weave it into the
Book of Mormon? It is one thing to show that the
Book of Mormon’s picture of the ancient
inhabitants of this continent is not in harmony with the
picture that emerges from current archeology and that on
the other hand it agrees with the erroneous ideas and
misinformation presented in Ethan Smith’s book, but it
is yet another matter to show that Joseph Smith was
capable of taking that material and producing the book
himself. This Roberts proceeds to do, using only Mormon
sources.
Joseph’s mother records that Joseph, before he ever
claimed to have translated the gold plates, would sit
with his family and describe the ancient inhabitants of
America — their dress, animals, cities, warfare, and
religious worship. Since Joseph described these "with as
much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life
among them" (as Mother Smith states it), Roberts rightly
asks how he got this information without the Book of
Mormon from which to draw such descriptions –
"unless he had caught suggestions from such common
knowledge, or that which was taken for ‘knowledge,’ as
existed in the community concerning ancient American
civilization, and built by imagination from this and
possible contact with Ethan Smith’s ‘View of the
Hebrews.’" Whence came these descriptions?, the Mormon
historian reiterates. "Not from the Book of Mormon,
which is, as yet, a sealed book to him .... These
evening recitals could come from no other source than
the vivid, constructive imagination of Joseph Smith, a
remarkable power which attended him through all his
life. It was as strong and varied as Shakespeare’s and
no more to be accounted for than the English Bard’s
(BMS, Pt. I, XIV, 3).
As a further evidence of Joseph’s imaginative powers he
cites Orson Pratt’s description of how the prophet could
hold and sway an audience. Roberts recognizes this as
merely an expansion to the public forum of his old
"fireside exercises of those powers of imagination."
Another illustration historian Roberts finds in the
boyhood follies to which, Joseph confessed, his mind was
prone to run. This folly Roberts regards as due simply
to "the over strong faculty of imagination."
Furthermore, Joseph’s vivid description of the West and
the valleys and streams of the Rockies, which he had
never visited, recorded in the recollections of Anson
Call, is but another aspect of his vivid powers of
imagination. Finally, as a sampling of the creative and
imaginative powers of Smith’s mind, Roberts selects some
eloquent passages from his "Epistle from Liberty Jail"
(1839, History of the Church, III, 288-305),
which demonstrate the prophets’ unique ability to employ
highly descriptive language for both his own defense and
comfort and the encouragement of his suffering people.
Such expression, Roberts concludes, could only come from
a fertile, "creative imagination," an imagination
it could with good reason be urged, which, given the suggestions that are to be found in the "common knowledge" of accepted American Antiquities of the time, 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 (BMS, Pt. I, XIV, 13).
2. "Internal Evidence That The Book of Mormon Is
Of Human Origin – Considered"
Having demonstrated that Joseph Smith had imaginative
powers of mind not generally recognized by most Mormons,
the Mormon historian turns to one final basic
consideration to complete the case for the human origin
of the Book of Mormon. As highly imaginative as
Joseph’s mind was, it was still largely lacking in
formal education and as such likely to fall prey to
thoughtless errors. It is such tell-tale inconsistencies
that Roberts collects in Part 2 of his "Book of
Mormon
Study," and the consideration runs to 115 pages of
carefully researched and reasoned discussion.
Evidence of an Undeveloped Mind
First of all, the seasoned LDS historian find that
"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" (BMS, Pt. II, I, 1, emphasis mine). In
illustration of this he cites the three days’ journey
from Jerusalem which brought Lehi’s party to the shores
of the Red Sea (1 Ne. 2:4-6). This journey of 170 miles,
with children and supplies along, "could scarcely be
covered in three days" (Id., 2). Along this same line is
the question of whether the migrating party had any
livestock and beasts of burden with them. If so, did
they take them along on their curious vessel? It would
seem questionable that they did. Yet when they arrive in
the New World, a land "kept from all other nations" (2
Ne. 1:9ff), the Book of Mormon off-handedly
mentions the presence of domesticated animals –
"the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the
goat and the wild goat" (1 Ne. 189:25).
Repeating the Same Themes
Furthermore, Roberts keenly observes that the earlier
Jaredite migration is attended with similar problems,
only this time elephants as well as large creatures
called "coreloms" and "cumons" are involved. The
narrative emphasizes the smallness and lightness of the
Jaredite barges. Could these accommodate elephants, and
further, how could all these creatures be sustained in a
344-day sea voyage? To render matters even more suspect,
the story of the Jaredite migration seems to be a rerun
of the Nephite account. "Both Nephite and Haredite
colonies are brought through a wilderness to the
seashore, where a residence of considerable time is had
before embarking for the New World. Both colonies had a
long sea voyage; and both, strangely enough, seem to
have been almost prohibited use of fire .... " To carry
the parallel further, Roberts notes that "The prophet
leaders of both colonies had clear vision of Christ and
both had an equal prevision of his life and mission as
the savior of the world. Both came to an empty America,
and both people had remarkable wars of extermination"
(BMS, Pt. II, I, 5f). From these circumstances historian
Roberts feels it only natural for intelligent people to
ask:
Do we have here a great historical document, or only a wonder tale, told by an undeveloped mind, living in a period and in an invironment [sic] where the miraculous in "history" is accepted without imitation ...? (Id., 14).
What does such parallelism amount to for opponents of
the Book of Mormon, Roberts asks. "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
vision" (Id, Pt. II, II, 1), and he adds that "the
answer will be accepted as significant at least, if not
conclusive" (Id.).
Similarly a disregard for consistency is found by
Roberts in the matter of Nephi building a temple like
unto Solomon’s with not more than a hundred persons to
do the work. In addition Nephi had to teach these people
to work in wood, iron, copper, brass, steel, gold,
silver, and precious ores, and they became so skilled
that the "workmanship thereof was exceeding fine." Yet
it took Solomon seven years and over 150,000 workmen to
accomplish the same feat. Roberts is moved to ask, "is
this the statement of a great historical document, by
one [Nephi] who knew Solomon’s temple through all his
boyhood and young manhood, or is it the reckless
statement of an undeveloped mind that knew not what he
was saying?" It seems to us that the author of the
Book of Mormon sensed some of the tension at this
point, for he seems to back off somewhat from his boast
that it was "after the manner of the temple of Solomon"
by adding "save it were not built of so many precious
things" (1 Ne. 5:16). This might have eased the
situation had the author not added that these precious
things "were not to be found upon the land," after just
stating that all the precious ores "were in great
abundance," a conflict that Roberts is careful to
underline.
Continuing the parallel in plot between the Nephite and
Jaredite colonies, Mormon Authority Roberts observes
that just as the Nephite colony chose Nephi to be their
king and he reluctantly agreed, so the equally small
Jaredite colony chose its reluctant king. A final
illustration of the parallelism in the two accounts
Roberts finds is their similar concept of the sovereign
power of God. Among the Nephites this evidences itself
in the belief that God could give man the power to dry
up an entire ocean (1 Ne. 17:50), and among the
Jaredites it is seen in the claim to have literally
removed a mountain (Ether 12:30). The Mormon historian
speaks of these super-miracles in terms similar to those
which non-Mormons have often used: "This faith in the
sovereign power of God results in the miracles of the
Book of Mormon surpassing the miracles in the
Bible" (Id., 7).
The Same Villains Repeated
Having alerted the reader to the repetitious nature of
the themes of the Book of Mormon, B. H. Roberts
continues to illustrate this further in his next chapter
(chap. III). This means, although the Mormon leader does
not spell it out specifically, that the Book of
Mormon owes its lengthiness to a repetition of the
same events and themes over and over, with only the
characters changed. A clear example of this is found in
the Book of Mormon narratives dealing with the
"anti-Christs," the opponents of the Nephite prophets.
Roberts reports what is said about the anti-Christs
Sharem (Jacob 7:1-23) and Korihor (Alma chap. 30), and
focuses on "how alike they are!" Both villains have the
same content to their denials of Christ; both have the
same demand for a sign from God; both receive the same
type of afflicting judgment for their opposition to the
Lord, make a vain effort at repentance and receive an
ignominious death (III, 12). In addition to this
parallelism "with the strong implication that they have
their origin in one mind," Roberts notes the
"amateurishness" which characterizes the handling of the
whole argument about the existence of God. He indicates
that the "vindictive miracle" that fell upon the anti-Christs
seems more like wishful thinking – "the dream of a pious
young man ... rather than a matter of actual
experience" (Id., 13). Then Roberts, who spent his whole
career absorbed in historical affairs, concludes:
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 ancestral race of the red men of America (Id., 13f.).
Battles All Cast from the Same
Mold
Roberts finds further evidence of this repetitiousness
in the parallelism of the numerous battles recorded
throughout the book, "The whole matter of war seems to
be treated from the amateurish notion that the wicked
are invariably punished, the righteous always
victorious" (IV, 1). He also finds the same
super-miraculous element that strains credulity in the
2,060 "striplings" who fought wars over a 13-year period
without one being killed. This is attributed to their
mothers’ teaching that "if they did not doubt, God would
deliver them" (Alma chaps. 56-58). Roberts comments:
"Beautiful story of faith! Beautiful story of
mother-assurance! Is it history? Or is it a wonder-tale
of a pious but immature mind?" Reinforcing this feeling
of an immature mind behind the work are such "blundering
expressions" as "all those who were not slain (!)
came forth and threw down their weapons ..." (Alma
52:38; cf. also Ether 15:12, emphasis Roberts’) and
again, the whole society removed all their property
"save it were their land" (3 Ne. 3:13, emphasis
Roberts’).
Roberts reminds us that his "allusions to absurdities of
expression" are not made to ridicule or cast aspersion
on the Book of Mormon, "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." These "lapses of mind
and speech lapses" are "just such absurdities and lapses
as would be looked for" if Joseph Smith had authored
such a work (Id., 10).
Before leaving the military matters of the book, Roberts
draws one more set of parallels between the final battle
of the Jaredites and that of the Nephites. It seems that
in the Book of Mormon battles the whole society
participate, removing all their property to one place –
in both instances to Cumorah, near the Smith home. The
battle in both cases brought the death of thousands
until only one witness of the scene is left to write the
record (Ether and Moroni respectively). Finally, both
recorders take leave of their readers, look confidently
to the Lord and say Amen. The Mormon historian
concludes:
Is all this sober history .... Or is it a wonder-tale of an immature mind, unconscious of what a test he is laying on human credulity when asking men to accept this narrative as solemn history? (Id., 17).
Conversion Scenes Typical of
Nineteenth-Century Conversions
In the final chapters (chaps. V and VI), Mormon General
Authority Roberts notices how strikingly the same are
the conversion scenes throughout the Book of Mormon.
... these conversions ... and also religious experiences after conversion, I would add, are alluded [to] throughout the various periods of the Book of Mormon by the same emotional phenomenoma [sic] - , faintings, or swoonings, "the falling power," unconsciousness, and usually attended by visions or extacies [sic] of supposed highly spiritual experiences (BMS, Pt. II, V, 2).
He cites examples of this throughout the Book of
Mormon – Lehi (in the very opening chapter of the
work) – Nephi (2 Ne. 33:6f.), Enos (En. 1:2-8), Alma
(Mos. 27), Ammon (Alma 18:41-43), and Aaron (Alma 22).
He types in full these lengthy extracts because they are
so typical of what accompanied the conversions of Joseph
Smith’s day in "the early decades of the 19th century
when the Book of Mormon was incubated" (Id., 3).
Roberts carries his citations into the New Testament
period of the Book of Mormon so it will be clear
"that this trait of emotional conversion continues
throughout the Book of Mormon" (Id., 13). He
notes also that the Book of Mormon
depicts the ancient Americans as being given on their
continent signs that Christ had been born, and in the
reaction to these heavenly displays it "represents a
whole continent of people – millions of them at the same
time – prostrate under the ‘falling power,’ lying felled
to the earth ‘as if they were dead’!" (Id., 14). This is
certainly a spectacle unlike anything experienced in the
history of the world, he observes. The skeptic will
surely ask whether this really occurred, "or is it one
more wonder-tale from an over wrought enthusiast’s mind,
lost to all sense of the proportion of things?" (Id.).
The "falling power" on this occasion also is followed by
the same "characteristic Nephite, hysterical joy" (3 Ne.
4:31-33).
This same "falling" shows up in Joseph's own first
vision story (J.S. 2:20) as well as at other points in
the early history of the Latter-day Saints Church
(History of the Church, I, 85, 188f.). More important
yet, it was a phenomenon which characterized later
eighteenth-and early nineteenth-century America.
Historian Roberts cites examples from Jonathan Edwards’
Works (esp. pp. C, ci, civ) that describe the
sinking and swooning that began in New England just
before the mid-eighteenth century. J. B. Turner, in his
work on the Mormons (1842), supplies similar
descriptions of the phenomenon which broke out afresh at
the opening of the nineteenth century. Roberts pointedly
remarks:
I think it cannot be questioned but what there is sufficient resemblance between the Book of Mormon instances of religious emotionalism and those cited in the foregoing quotations from the works of Edwards et al, to justify the thought that the latter might well have suggested, and indeed become the source of the former (Id., 43).
He sees the principle characteristic of this "ultra
Protestantism" as being a self-accusation with an
accompanying exaltation of free grace and mercy. These
same features Roberts finds in the Book of Mormon,
but the chapter breaks off before he develops this any
further. There is only a handwritten notation to himself
to add examples from Finney’s revivals to "bring
examples nearer home," that is, closer to the doorstep
of the Smiths.
Having being led so skillfully through this study, we
are left with a feeling of regret that Roberts, with his
unique grasp of themes common to the Book of Mormon
and the early nineteenth century, has not shared more of
his findings with us. But he has given us ample material
to make one conclusion certain: No one can any longer
say that the Book of Mormon could not possibly
have been composed by Joseph Smith, Jr. On the contrary,
Roberts has given abundant evidence that it is a
production of a rather unsophisticated mind in the early
nineteenth century.
Roberts' paper was prepared at the request of Apostle
James Talmage who wanted answers to some questions
raised by a non-Mormon about the historical difficulties
of the Book of Mormon. This request was made in early
November 1921 and by the end of December, Elder Roberts
submitted to the First Presidency and the Council of the
Twelve Apostles a manuscript of more than 400 pages! He
went far beyond just answering the 5 questions
submitted. His conclusions were anything but welcome and
it is rumored that Roberts was secretly tried for
heresy. It is obvious that he quickly "recanted" because
he kept his high position in the Mormon church until his
death about a dozen years later.
That he either "believed" in the Book of Mormon or not
is open to question and argument and can never be
resolved adequately for either the Mormon or non-Mormon
investigator and really is not at issue here. His
personal convictions are only secondary- primary concern
must be focused upon the issues and evidences set forth.
In that regard, the Mormon church did not answer the
issues then nor have they even to this day.
It has been suggested that perhaps Roberts was only
"playing the Devil’s Advocate" in the presentation of
this thesis. A reading of even this short examination of
the manuscript will convince most people that such is
not the case. Even if it were, the issues raised by the
"Devil’s Advocate" are still unanswered, for Roberts did
not "resolve" them nor has anyone else since then. It is
one thing for "apostates" and "gentiles" to defame the
divine origin of the Book of Mormon, it is quite another
when it is done by Mormonism’s leading scholar and
historian B. H. Roberts. No wonder that Roberts was
pressured into silence and his manuscript "buried".
This essay is a reprint of "The Origin of the Book of
Mormon" as it appears in Volume III, Number 3 of the
Journal of Pastoral Practice, pages 123 through 152.
Copyright 1979, by the Institute of Pastoral Studies of
the Christian Counseling & Education Foundation.